Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder council adopts revised short-term rental rules after heated debate, 4-1
Summary
The Boulder Town Council approved amendments to the residential short-term rental ordinance (Ordinance 153.0204) as Ordinance 2025-8 after agreeing to remove one subsection (e) while retaining enforcement-related subsections (b and c). The measure passed on a 4–1 roll-call vote.
The Boulder Town Council voted 4–1 to approve revisions to the town's residential short-term rental ordinance, recorded as Ordinance 2025-8, adopting the draft as amended at the council's December regular meeting.
Supporters of the amendment said retaining subsections b and c preserves the town's ability to enforce license conditions and deny renewals when problems arise. "The purpose behind b is that compliance is maintained, and it's not just building codes, but also public health meaning septic, nuisance, any other safety regulations," said Josh during the debate. Opponents argued parts of the proposal were redundant with state law and unnecessary to keep in the business-license provisions.
The ordinance debate began when the chair moved to strike subsections b, c and e from section 153.0204; Gladys seconded. After discussion about enforcement and redundancy, council members agreed to a narrowed amendment that removed subsection e only and left b and c in place to allow license-enforcement actions tied to renewals. The amended motion to remove subsection e passed on a voice vote. Later the council voted on the revised ordinance as amended; the roll call recorded four votes in favor and one opposed.
Opponents raised concerns that certain language was vague or could extend nonconforming uses; Mark Nelson and other public commenters urged clarity on definitions and exemptions. Council discussion repeatedly emphasized distinguishing land-use approvals (conditional use permits) from annual business-license administration, with supporters saying the b/c language addresses post-approval compliance, not land-use entitlement.
The ordinance was recorded as number 2025-8. Staff were directed to incorporate the agreed amendments into the ordinance text for final posting and to proceed with administrative follow-up as needed. The council summary at the meeting close noted the RSTR amendment and the strike of subsection e as the principal action taken on that item.
