Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rich County officials tout automated monitoring as short-term rental permits rise; enforcement steps outlined
Summary
County planning staff reported improved short-term rental (STR) compliance after software 'scrapes' identified noncompliant listings, producing more permits and roughly $23,584 in captured permitting fees; staff recommended stronger ordinance enforcement and read-only software access for county offices to reconcile records.
County planning staff told the Rich County Commission that automated listing "scrapes" and a new software workflow have helped identify unpermitted short-term rentals and increase compliance.
"With our initial scrape, we were able to identify 52 noncompliant rentals," Samantha, the Regional Commission staff member working the program, told commissioners. "We captured 33 new permits of people that were flying into the radar. We did our second scrape on April 20, and we were able to capture another additional 19." She said permitting fees collected during the renewal period totaled $23,584, with roughly $11,600 still pending from applications and inspections.
Planning administrator Mitch Polson credited a recent legislative change that allowed scraping of listing platforms, and the Azure software that runs monthly reports. He said the county recorded 86 permits in the previous year and is now at 111, with a projected inventory of about 182 STRs — an increase of roughly 16–17 percent over the prior tally.
Staff described the program as moving from identification to enforcement. Samantha said staff have sent first letters to newly identified listings and planned a second notice to prompt compliance. "Enforcement as we send out letter number 2 will be key," she said, adding that the county may seek attorney input to implement penalties included in the county ordinance.
Commissioners and staff discussed practical steps to reduce administrative friction. Assessor staff asked for read-only access to the STR software so they could reconcile addresses, mailing lists and sanitation accounts; commissioners directed Samantha to coordinate access so county offices can compare lists and treat accounts consistently.
The county noted penalties in the STR ordinance that include a $300-per-day fine for a second violation in a calendar year or a failure to remedy a violation after written notice. Commissioners discussed the pace of inspections and the limits of staff time; staff said allowing a month between a scrape and expected compliance helps accommodate inspection scheduling.
What happens next: staff will continue monthly scrapes, send follow-up letters to remaining noncompliant listings, and work with the county attorney and assessor's office to finalize access to the software and a procedure for enforcement.
