A wave of public frustration and personal stories swept through City Hall on Tuesday night as residents and short-term rental operators pleaded with the Steamboat Springs City Council to reconsider the city’s aggressive enforcement of its STR noncompliance policy. 

In response, council members agreed to devote time during their Aug. 5 meeting to a focused discussion on enforcement, fines and the municipal court process — though for many, relief may not come soon enough.

The city’s STR enforcement policy has drawn heavy criticism for imposing immediate court summons and steep fines without prior warning — a practice that has left many local property owners blindsided and financially devastated. 

In recent weeks, mounting public outcry and emotional testimony at City Council meetings have prompted officials to reconsider whether the current enforcement regime is fair and effective, setting the stage for next month’s focused discussion on possible reforms.

Tuesday’s meeting opened with Council President Gail Garey confirming that a long-awaited review of the city’s STR enforcement policy will be on the Aug. 5 agenda. 

City Manager Tom Leeson clarified the scope of the upcoming discussion, noting that Planning Director Rebecca Bessey would be unavailable August 5. 

“If the scope is limited to enforcement, levels of fine, municipal court process, then that doesn’t really involve the planning department,” Leeson said. “But if the expectation is the conversation is broader in scope and starts getting into the actual STR regulations, then that is directly impacting the planning department and (Bessey) would want to be part of those conversations.”

Councilor Dakotah McGinlay questioned whether the conversation could be moved up to the July 15 meeting, but City Attorney Dan Foote was not available for that date, nor will he be available for two of the upcoming council work sessions, said Garey.

Councilor Joella West flagged the urgency of the matter. 

“There’s a certain amount of urgency to it because we’re talking specifically about enforcement,” said West. “I would like to have that discussion limited to that so we can get that underway when Dan’s available. And since that August date is the first one, that’s a big thumbs up to me.”

Public comment: Stories of shock, loss and calls for increased urgency

As the floor opened for public comment, council was met with a stream of emotional testimony from STR owners and relevant stakeholders, many of whom described the city’s enforcement as draconian and out of step with Steamboat’s community values.

Robbie Shine, the city parks crew leader for 22 years, was first to speak. He said he received a court summons two weeks ago and is facing a $440,000 fine for an expired STR license. 

“I love sharing my short-term rental … I love sharing Steamboat as it was intended to be shared, like when I fell in love with Steamboat 30 years ago when I moved here,” he said. 

“I am up here to express my disgust with the city’s lack of transparency in renewal notifications,” he continued. “In previous years, I was always notified by a city employee about licensing renewal … To have no notice about a $325 license renewal fee and receive a summons to appear in court seems to be a sign almost of corrupt government.” 

Shine detailed his family’s involvement in local nonprofits and the community, emphasizing that the income from his STR, which currently faces a two-year ban due to noncompliance, allows him to provide affordable housing for local long-term tenants. 

Sean Irwin, a newlywed who Shine said pays him $2,000 a month to rent a two-bedroom apartment downtown, echoed the sentiment. 

“What (Shine) has done for us to be able to live in this community, to live in a wonderful home, has changed our lives. It’s hard to live here, young people growing up, getting out in the world,” said Irwin, who was accompanied by his wife, Rachel. “So it’s just very frustrating that now, our life is in limbo because of this failed notification.”

Julie Lenoch, who owns a single condo used for both family visits and occasional rentals, described the shock of being faced with a $15,900 fine — far exceeding her total profits from STR activity for the past five years — and underscored the urgency of the issue.

“Although I do understand this is scheduled for Aug. 5, what are we doing right now to pause this enforcement while you work on communication, outreach to gain compliance?” Lenoch asked. “I think many people would be very happy to retroactively pay the registration and license fees for 2023, 2024, 2025, possibly with a late fee.”

“My court date is July 16, so waiting until Aug. 5 isn’t really an option for me,” she added. 

Tamara Adams, a Steamboat resident for nearly 50 years, described the two-year revocation of STR licenses as “an incredible loss of income,” likening it to losing the right to drive after a single speeding ticket. 

“The tone and the approach and the enforcement of short-term rentals here appear increasingly punitive and forceful … instead of prioritizing communication and the opportunity for citizens to correct mistakes,” said Adams, who said that she was treated “like a criminal” for her noncompliance. 

Pat Waters and Kim Haggarty, as well as Caroline Fisher and Jordan Harper — STR operators who have previously spoken at public comment sessions regarding their grievances for hefty penalties — spoke again on Tuesday, urging the city to take action as soon as possible. 

Grey Shuhmacher, president and CEO of Mountain Vacation Lodging, pointed to flaws in the city’s notification system, contrasting Steamboat’s single-email renewal process with Vail’s multi-step reminders and grace periods. 

“(Vail has) done STR licensing for many years. They send an email when the renewal period opens, then weekly reminders, and another just before expiration. If you still don’t respond and miss, they call as a courtesy. There’s a grace period and a small late fee if you renew after expiration,” Shuhmacher explained. 

“Steamboat sends no reminders. Makes no calls, gives no grace,” he continued. “Instead, many owners find out eight or 10 months later that they’re facing fines over $100,000. That’s not enforcement, that’s entrapment.”

Council: ‘No intent’ to entrap, but no immediate relief

After public comment, Council President Garey addressed accusations of entrapment. 

“That is by no means the intent of city staff nor is it the intent of City Council,” she said, reiterating the Council’s commitment to transparency and public notice. She explained that Council rules prohibit taking action on items not on the agenda, making immediate changes impossible, and that revisiting policy would have to wait until Aug. 5.

Councilor Dakotah McGinlay pressed Foote about whether the council could direct prosecutors to show more discretion with fines in the interim. 

Foote explained that while plea bargaining is typically handled administratively, the issue’s elevation to council consideration meant he would wait for council direction before taking any action on pending cases. He also clarified that ongoing municipal court cases could be postponed on request, but ultimate discretion rests with the judge.

Councilor Michael Buccino pushed for a moratorium on enforcement altogether, but Foote cautioned that the city’s role was limited once cases were in court. 

As the meeting closed, council members agreed to support postponing trial dates until after Aug. 5 where possible, but acknowledged the limits of their authority. 

Councilor McGinlay called for a review of the city’s notification process, suggesting that better communication could prevent future crises. “Having a better system moving forward is what I would like to see,” she said.

“Maybe we can look at kind of a memo, because there are notices that go out,” said Garey, to the protest of an audience member. “So we need to be clear on when the notices go out and to whom they go out, etc.” 

For now, the city’s STR operators currently facing prosecution remain in limbo, awaiting the council’s Aug. 5 discussion and hoping for a shift toward what many called a more “compassionate” and “reasonable” approach to enforcement.