HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022.08.25 Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES
McCall City Council
Regular Meeting
McCall City Hall -- Legion Hall
VIA TEAMS Virtual
August 25, 2022
Call to Order and Roll Ca11
Pledge of Allegiance
Approve the Agenda
Consent Agenda
Public Comment
Public Hearing
Reports
Business Agenda
Adjournment
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
1
Mayor Giles called the regular meeting of the McCall City Council to order at 5:31p.m.
Mayor Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, Council Member Nelson, Council Member
Nielsen, and Council Member Thrower all answered roll call.
City staff members present were Anette Spickard, City Manager; Matthew Johnson, City Attorney;
BessieJo Wagner, City Clerk; Sarah Porter, Deputy Clerk; Erin Greaves, Communications
Manager; Linda Stokes, City Treasurer; Michelle Groenevelt, Community Development Director;
Delta James, Economic Development Planner; Brian Parker, City Planner; Dallas Palmer, Police
Chief; Nathan Stewart, Public Works Director; Vlatko Jovanov, Network Administrator; Meredith
Todd, Assistant City Planner; John Powell, Building Official;
Also, in attendance were Keith Larson and Luise Winslow, Bowen Collins Associates; Diane
Kushlan, Kushlan and Associates
Mayor Giles led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVE THE AGENDA
1
Council Member Nielsen moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Council Member
Nelson seconded the motion. In a voice vote all members voted aye, and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Staff recommended approval of the following ACTION ITEMS. All matters which are listed
within the consent section of the agenda have been distributed to each member of the McCall City
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
Page 1 of 10
Council for reading and study. Items listed are considered routine by the Council and were enacted
with one motion.
1. Payroll Report for period ending August 5, 2022 (ACTION ITEM)
2. Warrant Register — GL (ACTION ITEM)
3. Warrant Register — Vendor (ACTION ITEM)
4. AB 22-220 City Licenses Report to Council Per McCall City Code
Per McCall City Code Title 4 Chapter 9, the City Council has determined the City Clerk
shall be delegated the authority to process and grant or deny all alcoholic beverage license
applications, other than certain circumstances involving catering permits, which the City
Clerk shall review the application for catering permit for completeness and forward said
application to the Police Chief. The Police Chief upon receipt of the application shall make
a recommendation to the City Clerk to approve or deny the application. Whenever the City
Clerk shall determine that an application for alcoholic beverage license transfer or renewal
is complete, the City Clerk shall approve or deny such application. All decisions of the City
Clerk shall be reported to the City Council at the next regularly scheduled City Council
meeting after such decision. The City Clerk is also responsible for all processing of
business, taxi, snow removal, pawnbroker, child daycare licenses, vendor permits, and
public event applications. Staff has updated the report to separate out short-term rentals
(STR) and to show the number of Declaration of Compliance (DOC) documents received.
Staff receives more DOCs than business licenses for STRs because the property
management companies are taking on additional STR units. Staff are hoped this report tells
a more complete story. Action: Council to review the license report.
5. AB 22-228 Treasurer's Report as Required by IC 50-208
Treasurer's report of accounts and activity of office during the month of July 2022
regarding care, management or disposition of moneys, property or business of the City.
Action: The Council shall examine the report and determine whether additional
information from the Treasurer is required.
6. AB 22-222 Request to Adopt Resolution 22-26 for the Authorization of the
Destruction of Records
The Clerk's Office has identified physical records included in Exhibit A and digital records
included in Exhibit B, that have exceeded the retention time limits established by the City's
records management policy. Resolution 22-26 will authorize the City Clerk to destroy the
identified records of no historical significance. Action: Adopt Resolution 22-26 authorizing
the destruction of documents and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents.
Council Member Nielsen moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. Council
Member Nelson seconded the motion. In a roll call vote Council Member Nielsen, Council
Member Nelson, Mayor Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, and Council Member Thrower
all voted aye, and the motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT
1
Mayor Giles called for public comment at 5:34p.m.
Five written comments are included as Attachment 1.
In person public comments:
Margaret Wiseman, 156 Morgan Drive
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
Page 2 of 10
Ms. Wiseman commented on dogs barking and the citations in the City of McCall code specifically
referencing MCC5.5.03. and dog barking as disturbing the peace.
David Gallipoli, 200 Scott Street
Mr. Gallipoli thanked Council for the actions taken towards the auction of Cougar Island and
expressed disappointment in the Valley County Commissioners decisions.
Joey Petri, 225 Valley Springs Road
Mr. Petri echoed Mr. Gallipoli's comment and additionally asked for more scrutiny for
developments. Additionally, Mr. Petri would like to see Valley County and the City
communication improved as well as more discussion on recycling.
Lynn Lewinsky, 713 Broken Rein
Ms. Lewinsky asked council to develop ways to interact with the public that includes dialog and
not just comments at meetings.
Hearing no comments, Mayor Giles closed the comment period at 5:47 p.m.
REPORTS
1
AB 22-221 Covid-19 Update
Dallas Palmer, Police Chief presented to Council noting a downward trend in positivity rate and
new adjustments to guidelines by the CDC. The intention of this agenda item is to keep the Council
up to date with information related to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Staff has provided an oral update
at each Council meeting since the start of the pandemic. At their March 10, 2022 meeting the
Council requested that the report be submitted in writing with the option to ask questions or make
comments as necessary during this agenda topic. At the April 28, 2022, meeting Council
determined it was no longer necessary for St. Luke's McCall to provide their written update. The
Police Chief's written update was added to the packet when received.
Council had no questions or comments regarding the Covid-19 report.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1
AB 22-219 Request to Approve Resolution 22-27: Adopting Water Rates, Capitalization and
Connection Fees and Other Water Fees for FY23-FY28
Council noted no ex parte communication regarding the public hearing.
Council Member Thrower moved to open the public hearing Council Member Nielsen
seconded the motion. In a voice vote Council Member Thrower, Council Member Nielsen,
Mayor Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, and Council Member Nelson all voted aye, and
the motion carried.
Public Works Director Nathan Stewart presented to Council noting the legal publishing
requirements had been met. Council had no objections to admitting the legal requirments to the
record. Director Stewart gave an overview of the history of work sessions regarding rate increases.
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
Page 3 of 10
During 2022, the City, with the assistance of Bowen Collins Associates (BCA) completed a Water
Rate Study update that identified the recommended water rates, capitalization/buy-in fees, and
other fees necessary to provide the revenue to support the anticipated expenses necessary to
implement the recommendations of the 2018 Water Master Plan and the currently updated 2022
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Staff conducted a work session with City Council on July 7,
2022 providing an overview of recommended water rates and fees to meet revenue demands for
the 20 year planning period and get direction from Council. On July 28, 2022 staff and BCA
presented a follow up rate study presentation that included an Alternate B that included a 4th
volume usage block (for usage over 40,000 gallons per month). City Council directed staff to
prepare a resolution for new rates for the next 6 fiscal years (FY23-28) based on Alternate B rates
and the 4th usage rate block. The study defines new capitalizaion fees based on requirements by
McCall City Code Section 6.4.050, using the American Water Works Association Manual 26
based on the incremental -cost pricing method and as outlined in the City of McCall 2022 Water
Rate Study Update.
Council Member Nielsen and Council Member Thrower commented on the thorough work by staff
and consultants. Director Stewart expressed being proud of the work put into the new Water Rate
Plan.
Public Comment 6:01pm
No written comments received.
Lynn Lewinski, 713 Broken Rein, in person
Ms. Lewinski expressed being in agreement with the water rates proposed and would like to see
further public education, enforcement and recognition for water use in the community.
Council Member Thrower moved to close the public hearing. Council Member Nielsen
seconded the motion. In a roll call vote Council Member Thrower, Council Member Nielsen,
Mayor Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, and Council Member Nelson all voted aye and
the motion carried.
Council Member Nielsen noted the detailed planning regarding the future capital improvement
projects in relation to funding from water rates.
Council Member Nelson moved to approve Resolution 22-27 adopting new FY23-FY28 water
rate, capitalization, connection, and other water fee changes; and authorize the Mayor to
sign all necessary documents. Council Member Thrower seconded the motion. In a roll call
vote Council Member Nelson, Council Member Thrower, Mayor Giles, Council Member
Maciaszek, and Council Member Nielsen all voted aye, and the motion carried.
AB 22-224 Request to Adopt Resolution 22-28 to Recover Forgone Amount of $72,382 for
Fiscal Year 2023 for Maintenance and Operations
Council noted no ex parte communications related to the public hearing.
Council Member Thrower moved to open the public hearing for to Recover Forgone Amount
of $72,382 for Fiscal Year 2023 for Maintenance and Operations and to set the FY23 Budget
appropriation at $52,166,327. Council Member Nielsen seconded the motion. In a roll call
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 4 of 10
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
Council Member Thrower, Council Member Nielsen Mayor Giles, Council Member
Maciaszek, and Council Member Nelson all voted aye, and the motion carried.
City Treasurer Linda Stokes addressed Council noting the legal publishing and noticing
requirements. Council had no objections to admitting the publishing and noticing into record. The
process to pass the resolution to recover foregone property taxes is the same as the process for the
city budget and can be done at the same time. Treasurer Stokes verified that both hearing notices,
the hearing for recovery of forgone property taxes and the city budget, were published in the
official newspaper twice seven days apart as one publication.
At the conclusion of the FY23 Budget work session held July 29, 2022, the Council set a tentative
budget in the amount of $52,166.327 that includes the maximum allowed 3% increase of $207,784
plus new construction and annexation of $104,213 and $72,382 of the forgone property tax amount
for maintenance and operations. The Council may elect to recover the forgone amount for
maintenance and operations by formally adopting a Resolution at the conclusion of the public
hearing.
AB 22-223 Request to Adopt an Ordinance Setting the FY23 City of McCall Budget
Appropriation at $52,166,327
On July 29, 2022, the Council set a tentative budget in the amount of $52,166,327. The FY23
Tentative budget includes the new construction and annexation property tax amount from the
County Clerk, the 3% maximum allowable property tax increase, and 1% ($72,382) of the
available foregone property tax amount for maintenance and operations. The budget maintains city
operations at the current service level for all departments with the addition of new positions for
the Golf Pro Shop services at the golf course and a part-time communications assistant position to
support Council community engagement initiatives. The budget includes funds for the capital
projects identified in the 5 -Year CIP for FY23, which are primarily the Library Expansion Project,
Streets Projects, and Water System improvements.
Public Comment 6:17pm
No written or in person comments were received.
Council Member Thrower moved to close the public hearing. Council Member Nelson
seconded the motion. In a roll call vote Council Member Thrower, Council Member Nelson,
Mayor Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, and Council Member Nielsen all voted aye and
the motion carried.
There were no questions or comments from the Council regarding the foregone amount or the
FY23 budget appropriations.
Council Member Thrower moved to adopt Resolution 22-28 recovering $72,382 of the
forgone property tax amount for Fiscal Year 2023 for Maintenance and Operations as
described in Idaho Code §63-802 and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents.
Council Member Nielsen seconded the motion. In a roll call vote Council Member Thrower,
Council Member Nielsen, Mayor Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, and Council Member
Nelson all voted aye, and the motion carried.
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 5 of 10
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
Council Member Nielsen moved to suspend the rules, read by title only, one-time only
Ordinance No. 1010. Council Member Thrower seconded the motion. In a roll call vote
Council Member Nielsen, Council Member Thrower, Mayor Giles, Council Member
Maciaszek, and Council Member Nelson all voted aye, and the motion carried.
City Clerk BessieJo Wagner read Ordinance 1010:
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED THE FY23 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2022, APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF
$52,166,327 TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES OF THE CITY OF McCALL
FOR SAID FISCAL YEAR, AUTHORIZING A LEVY OF A SUFFICIENT TAX.
Council Member Thrower moved to adopt Ordinance No. 1010 setting the FY23 City of
McCall budget appropriation at $52,166,327 and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary
documents. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. In a roll call vote Council Member
Thrower, Council Member Nelson, Mayor Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, and Council
Member Nielsen all voted aye, and the motion carried.
AB 22-226 Request Direction to Staff Regarding the Final Ordinance Updating Title 3 and
Title 4 Short -Term Rental (STRs) Regulations and Permitting and Review of
Proposed Fees
Council noted no ex parte communication.
Council Member Nielsen moved to open the public hearing. Council Member Nelson
seconded the motion. In a voice vote Council Member Nielsen, Council Member Nelson,
Mayor Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, and Council Member Thrower all voted aye, and
the motion carried.
Michelle Groenevelt Community and Economic Development Director addressed Council, noting
legal requirements to notice for the public hearing. Director Groenevelt gave a review of past
meetings regarding Short -Term Rentals (STR). To improve health and safety and improve
neighborhood impacts, it was determined by Council the regulations and permitting of STRs
needed to be modified. The City of McCall and Valley County last updated codes for regulating
and permitting STRS in January 2020. The McCall City Council held two work sessions on short
term rental updates. The updates to the City Code would occur in Title 3 and Title 4. The City of
McCall hired Diane Kushlan as a consultant to develop code language with the City and partner
agencies, research other communities, and provide draft language to improve the current
regulatory and permitting standards. The code was reviewed by all staff and then the City
Attorneys to develop draft code language to bring to the McCall Area Planning and Zoning
Commission on August 10, 2022. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval
to the City Council with the consideration of four items. Since Valley County has decided not to
consider any further policy changes until the 10 -year review of the Impact Area is completed, the
City has decided to proceed with code changes that would apply to the McCall City limits at this
point. Then Valley County can decide if it would like to adopt similar ordinances for the McCall
Impact Area in the future. At the request of Council, staff has determined a fee schedule for the
STR process administration.
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 6 of 10
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
Diane Kushlan presented to Council giving an additional overview of the documents in front of
Council. Highlights included a timeline overview from 2020 to date, reasons for code updates
include neighborhood negative impacts and health and safety issues, review of Idaho Code 67-
6539, existing conditions and requirements, research by staff and consultants, Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendations, and a review of staff recommendations and changes.
Council Member Maciaszek praised staff and Ms. Kushlan for the work put into the code update
proposals. Council Member Nelson echoed Council Member Maciaszek. Council Member
Thrower asked for clarification on the conditional use permit (CUP) requirement noting concerns
on the CUP running with the owner and not with the land. Attorney Johnson noted that an annual
review of CUP conditions for short term rentals could occur. Council Member Thrower asked what
happens to previously issued CUPs for Short -Term Rentals. Director Groenevelt noted that there
were 4 -6 Short -Term Rental CUPS currently on record and the existing conditional use permits
would come into compliance based on the current conditions of the CUP. Council Member
Thrower asked how a studio or tiny home would be accounted for. Director Groenevelt noted tiny
homes or studios would be considered 1 bedroom with 2 occupants.
Public Comments 7:06pm
Written comments — 50 total, 38 in favor, 8 against, 4 neutral comments are included as Attachment
2.
In person public comments:
Candice Drabinski, 1020 Bitter Root
Ms. Drabinski noted being a full-time resident since 2008 and living next to a large, short-term
rental without a CUP. The short-term rental was a single-family home until 2 years ago. Ms.
Drabinski noted major impacts on the neighborhood mainly to adjoining neighbors. Additionally,
Ms. Drabinski thanked Council for the work put into evaluating regulations and noted not being
against short-term rentals but there needs to be reasonable regulations. Main issues noted by Ms.
Drabinski included poor behavior by tenants, loud parties, and drinking.
David Gallipoli, 200 Scott Street
Mr. Gallipoli thanked staff for the efforts put into the recommended regulations and expressed
agreement with the McCall Fire Chief over health and safety issues. Mr. Gallipoli noted concern
with absence of public input when considering code updates. The community has a large number
of short-term rentals creating a lack of long-term housing. Property owners have rights including
the neighbors of short-term rentals. He opined that short-term rentals are commercial enterprise.
Mr. Gallipoli asked Council to place a cap on STRs and place a new tax on STRs.
Steve Harkrader, 365 knights Rd
Mr. Harkrader is an employer inside the City limits and expressed worry about the falling number
of service providers in the community and the lack of long-term housing. Additionally, Mr.
Harkrader noted the affect large groups of tourists have on restaurant spaces and the ability of staff
to manage the increase in traffic. On top of the housing issues, residents never know what
neighborhood to expect depending on the rental capacity and tenant actions.
Barb Lewis, 1907 Warren Wagon
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 7 of 10
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
Ms. Lewis asked Council how short-term rentals can be incentivized to be long-term. Ms. Lewis
expressed agreement with previous comments regarding a higher tax on short-term rentals and
additionally noted the need for employees.
Lynn Lewinsky, 713 Broken Rein
Ms. Lewinsky thanked Council for going through the process and consideration of keeping the
community safe and noted the Planning and Zoning meeting was not well attended by the public,
and comments were mostly from management agencies. Violations should be per location and not
per rental date. Ms. Lewinsky requested Council to say no to large dorms and camping because of
the unsafe conditions. Additional concerns noted included a need to address fire issues as
neighborhood safety aspect and water infrastructure impact. Hotels have to have sprinkler systems
and there are reasons the systems are needed and the costs involved is what you pay to do business.
Conditional Use Permit should be for 10 per rental situation and not annual for each property.
Heather Gorona, 1103 Knolls Rd
Ms. Gorona noted being a resident since 2002 and a neighboring short-term rental at 1101 Knolls
Rd being out of control with large parties. Ms. Gorona agreed with suggestions to Council from
staff but shared concerns regarding the process to assess how many bedrooms are in each rental.
The new owners of 1101 Knolls Rd have converted garages to bedrooms.
Melissa Coriell, 1109 Buckboard Way
Ms. Coriell noted a previously submitted letter and expressed gratitude to Council for the effort to
update regulations and supports the passage of the recommended amendments. Additionally, Ms.
Coriell would like to see fire safety sprinklers added eventually.
Public Comments closed at 7:25pm
Mayor Giles asked Director Groenevelt for clarifications on fire suppression systems for large
structures and the fire inspection requirement. Director Groenevelt noted the importance of a fire
inspection being completed by McCall Fire District. The inspection will focus on health and safety
concerns. Additionally, for occupancy tracking the Valley County Assessors report would be used
to verify that bedrooms qualify as bedrooms. Fire Chief Garret De Jong noted sprinklers for over
10 occupancy is not likely to hold up legally because of a disparity in the code and the requirement
has been removed to keep the ordinance standing up to legality. The health and safety regulation
check list will greatly increase the safety of tenants and neighbors.
Mayor Giles asked staff if the recommendation in front of Council will make a difference for
properties like those mentioned during public comment. Director Groenevelt noted using the
County Assessors report as a base line. However, there is not enough staff to review every Short -
Term Rental for bedrooms so the initial assessor report review will determine occupancy. Mayor
Giles additionally asked if no camps and other new regulations would help alleviate the issues
brought to Council during the public comment period. Director Groenevelt noted that ultimately
occupancy is being reduced and the recommended regulations are reasonable for minimal
disturbance on the neighborhood and health safety issues.
Council Member Thrower asked how the new proposed code changes deal with a main home and
an ADU both being used as a Short -Term Rental. Director Groenevelt noted there is an existing
code to address the need for an owner occupied or long-term rental unit when an ADU is on the
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 8 of 10
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
property. Council Member Nelson asked staff if when you limit the occupancy to 2 per bedroom
does that reduce the incentive of buying another house or does it increase the number of STRs on
the market. Ms. Kushlan noted there is currently no research on hand but there is a large incentive
to have an STR at this point in time. Communities who limit the amount of STRs end up with a
waiting list to acquire a permit. Idaho does not have the ability to limit short-term rentals with the
current law.
Director Groenevelt noted 2 focus groups with property managers and owners saw homes being
specifically purchased in McCall because of the number of occupants allowed under the current
City Code. Council Member Nelson noted sand point has not been challenged by the state yet on
their code limiting the number of short-term rentals. Council Member Nelson additionally
commented on the ability to use a tax incentive or increase the occupancy tax. Council Member
Nielsen commented on the occupancy and the well-defined bedroom determination outlined in
code. Additionally, he inquired if the fire suppression is implementable for new construction or
new applicants of 10 or greater occupancy. Director Groenevelt noted the legal research needed to
determine the legality of requiring the fire suppression. Council Member Nielsen asked Fire Chief
De Jong about outdoor fire suppression and adding it to the check list. Chief De Jong noted the
check list is a mix of state and local code to keep it enforceable and legal.
Council Member Nielsen additionally noted a public comment suggestion of having signage at
each property that is easily accessible from the city street to read who the property belongs to and
who the contact is for the property, similar to the information posted inside the house, because
notifications may not be sufficient. Ms. Kushlan noted staff would have to talk through the legality
to change the policy regarding changes to the outside of short-term rentals outside of residential
nature. Council Member Thrower asked about having a map with information for contact. Director
Groenevelt noted staff discussion on public facing maps of short-term rentals. Council Member
Nielsen asked if the proposed fee is enough. City Clerk BessieJo Wagner explained how staff
determined the fee amount noting an annual review to ensure the fee is covering the cost of
administering the process. The Fire Department will have an additional inspection fee with an
Interagency Agreement for the City to receive the funds on behalf of the Fire District.
Council Member Nielsen asked if it is possible to put a cap on short-term rentals per neighborhood.
Attorney Johnson noted Sand Point does have a cap, but it is being reviewed because of the legal
concerns regarding the state code. Council Member Maciaszek echoed previous Council
comments and noted the need to move forward and not stall the process. Director Groenevelt
summarized the direction from Council. Council additionally discussed the timeline to approve
code changes.
Council Member Nielsen moved to continue the public hearing to September 8, 2022 at
5:30p.m. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. In a roll call vote Council Member
Nielsen, Council Member Nelson, Mayor Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, and Council
Member Thrower all voted aye, and the motion carried.
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 9 of 10
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
BUSINESS AGENDA
AB 22-227 Request to Formally Adopt DR 22-10 Findings of Fact
Brian Parker City Planner presented to Council. During the July 14, 2022, McCall City Council
meeting, the Council voted to uphold the McCall Area's Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision to approve DR -22-10 for an alternative parking plan to allow for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure located at 607 Lick Creek Road.
Council Member Nelson asked for clarification on the decision. City Manager Anette Spickard
noted the decision has already been made and adopting the Findings of Fact is formalizing the
decision. Attorney Johnson additionally noted the record is closed on DR 22-10. Amy Holms noted
clarification on the action noted in the Findings of Facts.
Council Member Nelson moved to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Decision for the Appeal of DR -22-10. Council Member Thrower seconded the motion. In a
roll call vote Council Member Nelson, Council Member Thrower, Mayor Giles, Council
Member Maciaszek all voted aye, Council Member Nielsen voted no and the motion carried.
AB 22-225 Request Approval of a contract with Granite Construction to extend the Airport
Sewer Line and accept bid updated Aug. 15, 2022
Staff asked for the item to be tabled. Extending the sewer line across Taxiway A was not done at
the time of Taxiway A Realignment in 2020. This sewer line extension has been designed by TO
Engineering and approved by Payette Lakes Water Sewer District. The extension is required to
facilitate hangar development in the infield, which at build -out will generate at least $50,000 in
hangar lease fees per year. The contract has been reviewed by TO Engineers and the City Attorney.
Council tabled AB 22-225 with no objection.
Upcoming Meetings Schedule Discussion
Council discussed upcoming meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
Without further business, Mayor Giles adjourned the meeting at 8:43p.m.
ATTEST:
BessieJo Wa: P r, City Cle
ert S. Gi es, Mayor
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
August 25, 2022 Regular Meeting
Page 10 of 10
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
PORTAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF 9:30AM 08/24/22
3 8/23/22 16:32:26 Margaret Weissman 156 Morgan Drive McCallIdaho 83638
"I would like to bring to the attention of the City Council a code that is vague and
overbroad.
McCall City Code 5-5-30 (G) Disturb The Peace: To disturb the peace means: Intentionally or
negligently to disturb the peace and quiet of another ...by loud noises .... to a degree annoying to
a reasonable person, including, but not limited to: (c) Permitting a dog to be outdoors and
barking.
This code allows one person to object to non -defined incidences of a dog barking, call the city
and complain. I have had this happen twice in the past two years, and was issued a criminal
misdemeanor citation, which could result in jail time. The police chief, the police officers, and
two attorneys have told me that this can be repeated indefinitely because the code is not specific
about what constitutes offensive dog barking as is common in most city codes. My dog is
restrained within an electric fence around our property, is never left outside to bark continuously,
and we call her off if she barks.
I humbly ask you to revisit the code and make it more workable for law enforcement and dog
owners who wish to stay with the law."
5 8/24/22 9:35:34 Genavie Holen 291 Morgan Dr McCaIIID 83638
"5.7.110: NUISANCE AND THREATENING DOGS: 1. Excessive, continuous or
untimely barking, or noise;
5-5-030: PROHIBITIONS: (G) Disturb The Peace: To disturb the peace means:(c)
Permitting a dog to be outdoors and barking.
I am asking the city council to revisit the language for codes relating to dogs. The police
department, code enforcer, and city funds should not be used to enforce this code as written.
This lazy language - ""Excessive"", "Continuous", ""Untimely"" - for a code needs to be
updated to specifically address time associated to excessive, continuous and untimely.
Disturbing the Peace; again a dog will bark when outside, but how long until it is "disturbing
the peace""? Each person interprets this language differently, and to their benefit.
Almost every dog owner in town is susceptible to getting a citation, especially living in a
neighborhood and one neighbor might not like dogs or any noise at all.
Thank you
Genavie Holen (Gen)"
6 8/24/22 10:15:14 Susie Vinson 282 Morgan Dr McCallIdaho 83638 I am a
dog owner and have concerns about the city code for a barking dog. The way it stands now, I
could be charged for disturbing the peace if my dog barks and a neighbor complains. There is
nothing in the code that states the barking has to be continuous for a specified length of time. As
anyone who owns a dog is aware, dogs may bark to alert their owner of strangers, or bark at
other dogs, squirrels, etc. Any of us could be charged as it stands now, leading to a total waste of
time in court and taxpayers money. Please consider amending the code to be more specific in
setting a time that a dogs continuous barking would warrant a "true" disturbing the peace.
7 8/24/22 16:50:30 Kathy and Tom Menten 276 Morgan Drive McCallIdaho
83638 Due to an ongoing issue in our neighborhood, we support a review/revision of city
code under disturbing the peace; allowing a dog to be outside and barking. We encourage the
city to incorporate into this language some descriptive time period. For example, the city of
Boise defines excessive barking as a period of time of 30 or more minutes. Most neighborhoods,
and certainly ours, has a number of dogs who might bark briefly when people and/or other dogs
pass by their residence. Brief barking should not be an instance where a citation is warranted.
This is a waste of city resources and can be abused by a disgruntled neighbor.
8 8/24/22 18:42:24 Joan E Edwards 127 Morgan Drive McCa1IID 83638
Observing the misuse of the Disturbing the Peace ordinance in my housing development
regarding dogs has promoted me to request a revisit of that ordinance. It lacks the specificity to
prevent it from being used to harass a neighbor with one recorded bark from a dog. Our law
enforcement should not be used in that manner. And those of us with dogs are vulnerable without
delineation of what constitutes disturbing the peace by a dog.
11 8/24/22 21:58:22 John Thompson 227 , Morgan Dr McCallIdaho 83638
This is in regards to the petition filed by Maggie Weismann of McCall Idaho, about the
dog barking ordinance. I feel this ordinance has far to little fact based information about an
individual dog's behavior. Dogs bark for many different reasons. A dog that is neglected and
barking without correction from the owner, would be a potential problem. At this point, the
authorities should be notified. Not an owner who loves, cares and takes responsibility for their
dog. This current code does not give any adequate time for the dog owner to work out a solution.
But it does give a chance for a person who habitually harasses their neighbors to continue their
harassment through legal channels. This not only causes unwanted costs, but is a waste of time
for many. Please look into changing this code as it is wrong.
Sandra A. Wilkinson
269 Morgan Drive
McCall, ID 83638
Mobile: (626) 818-5131
August 24, 2022
McCall City Council
General Comment for the August 25, 2022 Meeting
According to the City Code, "To disturb the peace means: Intentionally or negligently to
disturb the peace and quiet of another or of any neighborhood..., to a degree annoying to a
"reasonable person" ... . ."
I am writing to request that further consideration, definition, and guide lines be written into
the City Code pertaining to disturbing the peace. Specifically, my request relates to the
section of the Code concerning "dog barking."
The code, as currently written, is vague in the extreme. I am asking the City Council to
please add some parameters to more specifically define what constitutes "disturbing the
peace by a dog barking." Is it a dog being left outside all day long, neglected by his owners,
and barking for hours on end? Is it a dog allowed to bark incessantly for prolonged periods
of time throughout the day or night? Is it a dog that barks consistently for five or ten minutes
without being hushed? Is it a dog that barks for several seconds or even a minute when a
stranger walks by? Under the existing verbiage, all of these are deemed disturbing the
peace if there is someone who chooses to make that accusation. As written, anyone who is
a dog owner can unknowingly and unintentionally violate this code.
And why is it assumed that the accuser is always a "rational person?" This accuser, whether
rational or not, is creating a very unpleasant and most likely costly situation for the person
being accused. On the other hand, there appears to be no consequence (financial or
otherwise) of his or her accusations, whether just or unjust. The accuser may produce what
he or she considers "evidence" but this "evidence" is not quantifiable in any respect by the
code.
Again, I'm asking the City to add some further definition to this code to prevent an
unreasonable person from making an unreasonable accusation when that individual is
annoyed by the day to day sounds of a normal neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Sandra Wilkinson
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS RELATED TO STRs
PORTAL COMMENTS
1 8/15/22 16:01:53 Dana Cook 965 Pine Haven Place For
"I fully support the proposed ordinance on STRs and urge the City of McCall to expand the
ordinance to include the McCall area of impact in this ordinance. The safety issues discussed in
the Aug. 10 meeting are also present in the area of impact and when emergency resources are
needed, we rely on City of McCall responders to assist. There are a number of STRs outside of
the city limits which use makeshift areas as sleeping quarters. There are windowless lofts, lofts
accessed via non-standard stairs (a ladder), and ADUs that appear to be a shed with additional
beds but no plumbing. I believe the guidelines you have put out make a lot of sense in terms of
having STR occupancy limits similar to what you would expect to see if the same residence was
used as a long term rental.
There are many neighborhoods around the lake but outside of city limits where the roads are
narrow and/or not maintained by the County, which puts additional safety concerns and burdens
on the residents who live there. We are already at greater risk when an emergency occurs
because we are further from the city resources and our roads are not always easily accessible in
the best of conditions. Couple that with no limits on the number of short term residence we may
have living next door increases our safety risks with more people and vehicles using our roads
that were not built to withstand that level of traffic.
Thank you for all your work and careful consideration when drafting these rules. Please consider
expanding these rules to include the McCall area of impact.
Regards,
Dana"
2 8/18/22 21:19:59 Hugh Cooke 1664 Timbercircle, McCall For
I support restrictions on Vacation Rentals, reduce to two (2) per bedroom rather than four (4) per
bedroom for guest safety.
3 8/18/22 22:54:28 Jan Eitel 1029 Kaitlyn Loop For
Safety of people should be our highest priority and not profit margins. The proposed new rules
will certainly cost money but will ultimately help to considerably improve the safety of renters
and first responders. Let's do the right thing by passing the new rules and save lives before
something tragic happens.
4 8/19/22 9:41:12 Larry Hauder 1504 Louisa Ave For
"I write in favor of the City Council putting safety fire parameters on vacation rentals. I live in a
neighborhood surrounded by vacation rentals and know firsthand that overcrowding exists.
And, on a related topic, is there not a massive conflict of interest having Robert Lyons, a real
estate agent, not only serving but chairing the P&Z? "
Page 1 of 16
Comments for August 25, 2022
5 8/21/22 12:55:51 Ken & Becky Deibert1130 Mo's Way McCall For
"Greetings, McCall City Council:
We would like to applaud the City Council and staff for their efforts to revise City Code
related to Short Term Rentals.
We are permanent full-time residents of Lick Meadows subdivision which was initially
developed for single family dwellings. Currently, 31% of the homes in the subdivision are being
used as Short Term Rentals, some of which have the capacity under current code to house up to
19 people. The problems that have arisen from development of STR, are excessive noise,
excessive trash being left out and strewn about the neighborhood, dogs being allowed to run free,
off -road vehicles being driven on vacant private properties and lack of responsiveness and/or
inaccessibility of Property Managers and/or Owners.
It seems reasonable that limiting occupancy to no more than two people per bedroom plus two
would more nearly resemble the number of people who would occupy that size home if it was, in
fact, a residence, and thus lessen the amount of noise, traffic, garbage. etc.
In our view, the key to addressing the concerns of both the neighbors and the owners is clear
rules and enforcement. Section K of this proposal requires that the licensing agent be informed
of any changes in ownership/Property Management and subsequent contact information, but we
did not find any provision for passing that information along to affected neighbors. We feel
strongly that we must be informed of any changes to ownership or property management when
they occur. Neighbors also need information on who to contact at the City when we have
questions regarding events that occur such as a garage of a STR is modified for additional living
space and no longer available for parking, or when motorhomes, or camp trailers are pulled into
the driveway and tents set up in the yard - and we need to know if this is allowable under the
occupancy rule. Short Term renters' responsibilities for looking after their pets, per city code and
neighborhood CCR's and their responsibilities for proper disposal of trash need to be added to
the required posting in the rental unit.
One last point. In our view, the fees being charged for licensing appear inadequate to cover
the cost of enforcement. The revisions proposed are a huge step in the right direction, but
without enforcement they are simply words on a page.
Thank you for your efforts, and for considering our input.
Ken and Becky Deibert"
6 8/21/22 20:01:58 Simon Ingham 1658 Timber Circle For
"The proposal is not perfect but is a great improvement on the existing code. I am in favor and
want to point out one area I hope is approved as written:
The requirement for a local contact person that neighbors can call 24/7 who is required by code
to respond within 60 minutes and resolve the complaint.
Page 2 of 16
Comments for August 25, 2022
A lot of disputes over short term rentals come from not having an owner or management
company available to deal with noise complaints as they are happening. Currently the two
options for neighbors are to confront the renters themselves or call the McCall City Police.
Many neighbors understandably do not feel comfortable doing either of these things.
Owners or management companies need to deal personally with noise complaints on their
properties. It should not fall on neighbors or Police to manage these properties."
7 8/22/22 9:45:33 Heather Susemihl 912 Valley View Lane, Box 1171
For
It is in the public and owner's best interests for these safety measures that hotel/motels have to
adhere to apply to short term rentals above a certain occupancy.
8 8/22/22 8:20:00 Halley Shultz 1658 Timber Circle, McCall, 83638 For
I live full-time in McCall and I strongly support the proposed new short-term rental amendments.
I particularly appreciate the rules around limiting the number of occupants and having properties
checked for safety annually. I am also really happy to see the rule requiring responsible parties
be available 24/7 to deal with issues. All of these rules will help to maintain the safety and
comfort of our neighborhoods. Thank you!
9 8/22/22 10:14:59 John Rygh 349 Carmen Drive For
"McCall City Council -
As I have commented before, I am a long time permanent resident of McCall who has been
adversely impacted by STRs, particularly in the last five years as occupancy has boomed. I
support most of the proposed Title 3 & 4 code amendments as described in the city council
meeting packet for Aug 28, 2022 (AB 22-226). The occupancy limit of two persons per
bedroom seems like a good idea, as does the requirement to obtain a CUP for occupancy
exceeding ten persons. I would suggest that the deadline for compliance be moved up from the
staff recommendation of 1/1/24 to 7/1/23 to spare local residents the impacts of another July 4th
to Labor Day party season. I don't know if there are any improvements that could be made to the
enforcement of existing code, but I would support any such efforts. I can certainly echo the
comments of others regarding the unresponsiveness of property management companies to
complaints. Really the main behavior I have a problem with is loud outdoor noise late at night.
When I lose sleep, I get cranky and end up writing letters like this.
Regards,
John Rygh
McCall"
10 8/22/22 17:49:18 Craig Campbell 1075 Ridge Rd Against
"What is the purpose of such a rule? If the intent is to try to solve the long term rental crisis by
strong arming homeowners to convert from short term rentals to long term rentals by pulling the
Page 3 of 16
Comments for August 25, 2022
rug out from under them, this is a very bad idea. There is no doubt we have a housing problem. I
support sensible ideas. This is not sensible. Even if all 150 of the 527 short term rental homes
that have capacity to sleep more than 11 people, converted to long term, there still would be a
shortage. I base this on the data gathered presented by the developer who wanted to build an
affordable housing complex behind city hall 4 years ago. Since then the problem has become
worse. We have countless unrelated codes that force business owners to adopt sign standards,
aesthetic building requirements, limit to the types of formula businesses that can come to
McCall, all under the desire to have an unique small town feel and look. A lot of these
codes/regulations are well thought out and good, but others are absolutely ridiculous. My
understanding on the intent of these codes/regulations is to create a unique mountain experience
for visitors and for locals to enjoy. It is the visitors that are the basis of our local economy.
Without them our economy has little to survive. It is true with fewer visitors there is no housing
crisis because there would be no need to have housing at all because the economy will crash and
burn. The only thing that putting these restrictions on the 150 short term rental properties will do
is to cut the supply of available short tern rentals that are available for larger families or groups
thereby driving the demand and rental rates up. McCall has a unique attraction that Ketchum
doesn't have and that is it is still a drive up vacation destination that is affordable for the average
family. Driving up the prices will surely make it unattractive to the average family. I did a
informal study of the impacts of family reunions in McCall several years ago with a professor
from U of I. We learned that McCall attracts more family reunions than any other Idaho town.
Family Reunions are mini conventions that support all of our businesses. Nearly every summer
and winter weekend at our church we have multiple family reunion groups that join us for
worship services. In fact, we typically see 20+ family reunion groups in each of our 2
congregations each week during the summer and winters. I am not aware of a single one of these
family reunion groups that are smaller than 11 people. In fact, I personally had a reunion with 22
people that shared a house and it was a fantastic fun experience and we spent tons of money with
businesses.
Every regulation, code, law, etc. should have to pass a test to even be considered. The test is to
balance out risk to benefits and should carefully consider the impact that the "Laws of
Unintended Consequences"" will have. This ordinance clearly fails both tests. Again, what
would the benefit be? What is the risk to our economy? What unintended consequences may
occur? Yes, housing is a huge problem. This clearly does not solve the problem. Please do not
vote for this ordinance idea. "
11 8/22/22 18:33:45 Colleen Steed 1145 Bellflower Place Against
"Dear City Council of McCall —
In doing research about short term rentals in McCall, I applaud your willingness to look at all
angles. McCall, like many resort communities, need to refine rules to ensure that our community
is safe, continues to generate appropriate revenue for city services, and is truly the vacation
destination that people have come to expect.
I am a short term vacation owner. After renting homes all over McCall for more than 25 years,
we were able to purchase so that McCall is where our children, grandchildren, and extended
Page 4 of 16
Comments for August 25, 2022
August 12, 2022
City Council, City of McCall Idaho
216 Park St.
McCall, Idaho 83638
Dear Council:
My name is Jim Buatti and I own the property at 1022 Fireweed in McCall. I use this property as
a short-term rental (STR) much of the year; but I also use it multiple times a year for my own
vacations and for non -rental vacation use by friends and family. I have also used this home to
provide longer term housing for local employees; my daughter lived in McCall and worked for
local businesses (Shore Lodge and Brundage) for three years. One of those three years she lived
at 1022 Fireweed. During that time my cash flow on the property was decidedly negative while
my daughter was providing valuable service labor to the local economy.
I attended the 5 PM meeting (by phone) on August 10th. I am writing this letter to
repeat and perhaps better articulate my opinion on the proposed ordinance governing
short term rentals. As you are probably aware, we were given relatively short notice to attend
the meeting (I was notified August 8th in the evening while in travelling in Florida). At the
meeting we were given only three minutes to state our opinions. We could not
ask questions and have them answered during our three minutes.
Since the meeting I have done some more research on the subject and I have actually had the
time to organize my thoughts. To put it bluntly, I think this proposal runs the risk of violating
Idaho House Bill Number 216 enacted in 2017. According to the Bill, short term rentals may not
be specifically targeted for regulation, but that is precisely what this ordinance appears to be
doing. I fully understand that the law allows some variance when issues of safety and public
welfare are concerned, but I find the 'safety' reasons stated by the Board to be both unproven
and a bit disingenuous. I also find that the safety issues ascribed solely to STR's also exist in
private, non -rented homes (PNR's); but there seems to be no attempt to similarly regulate
those dwellings for safety.
The primary safety issue that I heard cited at the meeting is that STR's are inherently less safe
because, in a fire, the renters are unfamiliar with the methods of egress. To date I have seen no
statistical proof that this is true and none was presented at the meeting. It was simply declared
by the Board to be true and put in the record as fact. Various examples of 'preventable' fires
were cited by the attending Fire Marshall, but the question was never answered (and it WAS
asked by Susanne Klock) if those fires occurred in short term rentals. It was also asked how
many fires had occurred in STR's as opposed to other structures. Again, I heard no statistics or
proof. I could make a case that STR's are inherently more safe, because agencies like Vacasa
perform fire inspections every six months — something that is NOT done in private non -rented
homes (PNR's). I also heard other STR owners at the meeting talk about additional safety
actions they had taken, such as having multiple fire extinguishers on hand and installing
portable ladders in the upper floors — again, something that I am reasonably certain is not done
in most PNR's. I have no problem with the Board inspecting the properties and making similar
suggestions as to how we might make the properties more safe; in fact I would welcome the
assistance. I do not, however, see why STR's are inherently less safe; nor do I see how a blanket
ordinance such as limiting occupancy to 2 people per room is inherently safer than simply
inspecting the property to ascertain if the property has proper forms of egress for the number
of people in the house.
Looking at this a different way, even if I were to accept the 'people don't know the house well
enough to get out in time' argument, why then are the same conditions allowed to occur in
PNR's? Imagine a scenario where grandparents invite their three married children and spouses
to stay for a week. Imagine that each couple has 2-3 children. In this case the house would most
likely have more than two occupants per bedroom, and none of those occupants would be
familiar with the forms of egress since they probably visit infrequently. Add to this the fact that
most PNR's have NOT been inspected for things like fire extinguishers, and I have to ask why
the Board is not limiting the number of people per bedroom in PNR situations? It appears to me
that STR's are indeed being targeted for unique regulation here.
During the meeting the Fire Marshall was talking about the potential inadequacy of the McCall
Fire Department staffing and tacitly blaming the increase in STR's. I would like to ask the
question why the staffing is not first and foremost the responsibility of the City? During the
meeting I asked if any blame for inadequate staffing was going to be apportioned to the
enormous increase in new construction of PNR's that has occurred in the city during the last 5
years. I never heard an answer. How many new PNR units have been built in the last five years
in comparison to the increase in STR units?
Another reason I heard from the Board is that somehow restricting STR's is going to alleviate
the housing shortage for service employees in McCall. I would like to ask how this is going to be
accomplished? If the service employees could afford to buy the houses up for sale I'm sure they
would. They simply can't. No owner of an STR is going to charge rents that produce large
negative cash flows, so the rents charged to longer term renters is probably going to be too
high for low wage employees as well. Anyone interested in exploring the math with me on this
is welcome to schedule time with me. So - is the city trying to drive the price of housing down
by damaging the profitability of buying homes? If so, have any studies been done as to how
effective this would be? More importantly do the residents of McCall know, and are they happy
with, the Board's efforts to drive down the resale prices of their homes? Has that been
disclosed to local residents?
Has any study been done and presented to the merchants of McCaII about how much business
they would lose by forcibly reducing foot traffic in a town that seems to primarily derive its
livelihood from tourism? As I mentioned during the meeting, the City of South Lake Tahoe
estimates a 4 million dollar loss per year in revenue from implementing a similar ordinance.
And why is a city in Idaho so eager to emulate California in both loss of revenue AND in over-
regulating responsible private landowners' freedom to do as they wish with their property?
One thing I DID hear the Board take seriously is the problem of eliminating vacation space for
families with children. GOOD! I'm glad that was heard. Perhaps a more sensible solution would
be to leave the occupancy rate at the current 4 per bedroom but specify that there can only be
2 adults per bedroom and the other 2 renters must be minor children? And truly — what
constitutes a bedroom must be better defined to include lofts and/or entire floors with a bed.
A final comment I need to make — and this is perhaps the most important comment — is that
forcing people to retrofit private homes with sprinkler systems is almost certainly an overreach
and a specific targeting of STR's. Why are PNR's not required to do the same if they are sleeping
more than 10 people? Most STR's in McCall are still categorized as private homes? Trying to
classify them R1 or R3 is certainly singling out STR's for special regulation unless you do it for all
private residences with similar safety issues. Then, a home such as mine would likely cost
$30,000-$40,000 to retrofit. Sadly, what the Board is effectively doing is making it easier to
litigate this ordinance than comply with it. Multiply my concern across 100-150 similarly
affected large homeowners and I can almost guarantee you that it would be far cheaper,
collectively, to litigate than comply. This is something that I'm sure neither side wants.
I am currently allowed 16 occupants in my STR but I voluntarily limit the number to 14, because
in my opinion that is the number that can be accommodated comfortably and safely. I also have
no desire to have huge groups of drunken guests or teenagers trash a house that I love and use
myself.
A blanket '2 per bedroom' rule is pretty inefficient in a 4200 square foot house like mine with 3
king beds, 2 queen beds, a bunk bed and 2 queen size foldout beds. I heard other homeowners
voice the same opinion. I believe that most other STR homeowners are good people who don't
want to 'cram as many people as they can' into the house Please come up with a better way to
determine the number of people a house can accommodate safely.
In the end I believe that this ordinance stems primarily from local people unhappy with the
behavior of tourists and NOT safety issues. Safety is being used as a red herring here. There are
much better ways to ensure safety without unfairly targeting the livelihood of a certain select
set of local landowners; ways such as inspections to determine enough egress, installation of
portable ladders on upper floors, more fire extinguishers, etc. If renters are misbehaving —
ENFORCE the current rules better. Don't make the rules arbitrary, injurious and probably illegal.
Sincerely,
James Buatti
1022 Fireweed
McCall Idaho 83638
650-454-6607
jvbuatti@earthlink.net
8520 Willow Gate Court
Granite Bay, CA, 95746
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Melissa Newell
Colby Nielsen. Julie Thrower; Mike Maciaszek; I_vle Nelson; Bob Giles; ¢essieJo Wagner
STR Public Comment
Saturday, August 20, 2022 3:01:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members:
I appreciate efforts to update Short Term Rental codes and I am eager for the City to adopt
new amendments and stick to the original timeline of compliance (Jan. 2023).
I fully support reducing occupancy standards from four persons per bedroom to two
persons per bedroom, and I agree that the determination of bedrooms for short term rentals
should be made using the Valley County Assessor information. Short term rental owners
should NOT be allowed, under any circumstance, to apply for exemptions through the City,
wasting valuable City staff time and resources (and ultimately tax payer dollars). As stated
in the staff report, Valley County already has a process in place if STR homeowners wish to
contest the number of bedrooms in their homes.
I hope the updated occupancy standards will cut down on the amount of parked cars in the
street, as well as reduce the recently increased traffic that zips in and out of residential
neighborhoods. This is always a concern when there are kids, including my own, playing in
the streets and riding their bikes.
I strongly hope, in the next few months, that the City will add another code amendment,
requiring that STR property owners with an occupancy over 10 persons get a Conditional
Use Permit and install a fire sprinkler system as recommended in the report submitted by
Garret de Jong, Fire Chief: "For STRs with more than ten people, in my opinion, based on
the [International Fire] codes, should be considered R1 and sprinkled." Knute Sandahl, the
Idaho State Fire Marshal, concurs with this recommendation.
Thank you for your efforts to prioritize health and safety in our neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Melissa Coriell
McCall
August 22, 2022
McCall City Council Members,
Thank you for your work in updating the Short -Term Rental Regulations. I'm glad you have
found an alternative that protects the character of our neighborhoods, improves health and safety
and respects the property rights of full-time residents and the owners of rental properties.
Short-term rentals (STRs) as they are currently regulated and managed are affecting the character
(integrity) of residential neighborhoods. Rental capacity restrictions are a simple and reasonable
way to maintain the residential character of our neighborhoods. Restricting the occupancy of
STRs to two people per bedroom is common sense. That is what the typical house in a residential
area generally has. When people buy or build homes in residential areas they expect to have
typical residential neighbors. When STRs with double the typical occupancy are allowed the
property rights of the full-time residents are infringed. The added noise, traffic and parked
vehicles are not what they expected when they moved to a residential neighborhood. With the
two people per bedroom restriction there would be no more noise, traffic, parking space need or
other disturbance than you would expect from fulltime neighbors.
Health and safety are affected by this double occupancy as well. Sewer systems and garbage
disposal are designed for typical occupancy. Roads are designed for residential traffic. And
egress in case of fire is designed for the typical home. These health and safety concerns affect the
occupants of the STRs as well as the full-time neighbors.
STRs with 11 or more occupants should be regulated differently than those with fewer
occupants. A typical house in a residential neighborhood seldom has more than five bedrooms
and ten occupants. When houses are modified to accommodate more than ten people they are no
longer typical residential homes. They are hotels and they should be regulated like hotels. All of
the negative impacts noted above are exponentially increased when a neighborhood house is
converted into a hotel. The risk to the occupants if a fire occurs is the greatest concern. This fire
risk is real and could be deadly. Sprinkler systems should be required in these hotels. I hope this
requirement can be added to the STR regulations soon.
I support passing the updated STR regulations as presented in the current draft.
Thank you for your time, hard work and attention.
Jeff Canfield
1102 Buckboard Way
McCall, Idaho
To /W(001 641Cou�i IIr't � � anaoer � �{f ;
7a'wj yl-'pu1°``�on2 arYe lotf►o�� f,iVo1&ni r�-
{�Gth imPvo�m2n�'; bl,+C.
DisCog- lo een hid � Ut mo� 'aec-k�
�-(16.6> ha✓e_.been pvt of- the_
refftion 1 brit h% ih a� � P
j� � � i�"� .
�-�vjhou;�rcre vr�� erntR �'�
Th,�, ha �ealed a 1o ' �Ih-le��a�d aj �°� h
(�,nmun n2i bar{�wo� ,��j I �ftivU feeI-
hbar w � 'nabl�� 1�10,�
fi� �n,,�, p�a,�(�G�cr�2. dacbf& likpk4 e-7 04.4 �� ;now level
otff��e. � L�Id �J jiiLardired ���66►� 6 �e,i dent, d l�
��1Gf f lGift/ W �" 1NV�1 �pfrC fl ('I � ,.
GGi I G��/ �IK21 v�liii bCCl1Ri(lf'Io1C0. ��SJ
-1-142_ in flifvi O/
pin}, 1 wmld
. En falyemcnt ,wuld be, 1it nc in6uec) bv��es
�ypm'M. YCntAI? Orct nGieS,
• Flo-fuMaverlice .')lonaptof a ideq,
• -FAH 61,61o5uKe of comm2ruul oWne✓s, �. c,, e, ail vott+ch
�reaie,s-for•p'e+ 9 /*Ne°", ir!{erenf shun rejidetrl-x),
P‘ % of real ✓e9rderrfj ,Iwu(d 'af t'tQy o'►,mtvciAJ
Tht ,A�-i-E� b ivriR�}ruC'�✓G� of 5�m.i lie> its Gt
bidbidi-� -fcnAmfl 1 of 5 ,stioudd hV€, dffev'nf t.frs ,
*FvL Ch,c.+f r 1'6 di-Ooul{li is pro¢echoh ►Jrf�'1
increa,cd Wj-l'►p Tire. had .been oh redvd u�a�er
U��y �l2ar�. eX�5 JS6�.s .10103
flA,07 ✓c�c� � u��� �aifaro� -1O Mtfifs
atnfi id��irt�pi��a�'� n�or�d reed
,�ou�d a vL� vtuff ��n ��e���,0/Lich m171;11'1 4144`74)"(10' �
0-Aht
natiu)la(o1C.
V J,,,fp,te sqn nK rj Gra- C14Nb0 ¢,tem,rVe.-'16
Gvcafi h' �-01 -6r/l I,
• kuj �a�s} a, of11(02hi�llin� rtlYea� g Gle.! The oc ncu,'ta.+ld be ldpro ✓e_�.
r ,��, �PD mocin +viinf\ reu.rU n .J� 11
�tin�r2 i?1( cleann efici-1 ;
• Tit i►(fF,a d �i�YtoJrti- o� low doVA-ce(x,D
�V�,, �ro�,,nw�o✓bg�s �l �6(egi6e- orq'ff Ati hittioC e�
. Re,h'i(�«'� of ✓ebc�i&lz5 �cn�faKtife),
Wi b t10 )'
• 7Gc limi-Ierh«r► or Verrl-Al occQparr("5 i5 newdh nuded,
Ma�J✓e� pote of 41/12 fi0c � bcve_la?d> in
/no e'er ,,uffipnof Irt2 a SpaCL i5 ihrjafe
v� inapPietpviAlt,
R& -t avc7 n2+� bash-oodj till
i5 a di veal
ow) Jhe6adc
c bukhtit-
�pnmu�+i4�, 3kx;?. roi*){pMiuej
,hno� v)k ¢ {'M , lloWe5/riAti,
VA4 ot-frAtro, ,
rtniu,1 7-Yrolity, =frLeifqvi
<ftli-)14
lute,
� 0,1h.
JGti D Jo ;Pfitt%
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
OUR ECONOMY
HOUSING OVERVIEW
McCall is a major recreation hub,
drawing visitors from all over Idaho
and the world. As a recreation
destination, the City must consider
housing availability and economic development
trends. The public involvement process revealed
the top priorities are to provide more affordable
and diverse housing options and support job
growth for residents and workers.
Housing diversity and affordability help to build
stable and resilient communities. Providing
suitable housing options requires understanding
both of the varied needs of the City's population
and the changing trends, including an aging
population, demographic shifts, and changing
housing preferences. The Comprehensive Plan can
encourage economic growth with land use policies
designed to retain and expand existing businesses
in locations that provide optimal benefits to the
community and also to those visiting the area.
By the Numbers
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
The rate of homeownership is an important
characteristic of a community that can reveal
demographic and resident characteristics such as
life stage, income level, and duration of residence.
Mountain town communities such as McCall tend
to have relatively high vacancy rates due to a high
proportion of recreational housing units. The
vacancy rate is 73%, due to part-time occupancy
of seasonal or recreational units and second
homes (73%). Of the 978 housing units occupied
by permanent residents, 55% are owner occupied
while the other 45% are renter occupied.
Of McCall's 3,619 housing units, 2,641 are
considered second homes. As shown in Figure
4.4, from 2000 to 2014, the number of second -
home housing units increased 128% while the
number of permanent housing units decreased
6%. The total number of housing units increased
2.91 22%
,Ve-�$e H ';o r' Si, nc� ,. , -
15%
$206K
661 MCCALL IN MOTION
Figure 4.4: Population and Housing Growth Trends in the City of McCall
As a resort community, most of the homes in
McCall are second residences.
A higher proportion of recrecreational housing
units can lead to higher vacancy rates.
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
permanent
resident units
27% 4
3,481
second
homes
73%
VACANCY RATE
permanent
resident units
3% •
73%
second
homes
70%
2010-2014: A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF:
second homes---------------------► I28%
a000
3500
3000
2500 -
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source American Community Surrey, 2015
2014
total housing
units: 43.43%
second homes:
128.01%
permanent
resident units:
(-5.99%)
40%, which shows that
although many new
units were built, many
previously permanently
occupied residential
units were converted to
second homes during
this period. The limited
amount of new housing
construction during this
period means that these
increasing "unoccupied"
housing units have been
drawn from housing
supply that is otherwise
available to McCall's
working households.
HOUSING SUPPLY
McCall's housing supply
consists mostly of
single-family residences,
as shown in Figure
4.5, though apartment
and condominium
development has
moderately increased in
recent years. McCall's
mix of residential housing
types will continue to be
primarily single-family
residential, though
the community clearly
desires an Increase in
all available types of
housing.
The McCall area residents
and stakeholders have
reported a shortage
in housing. The lack
of available housing in
McCall Area Comprehensive Plan 167
City of McCaII Council
Re: Short Term Rental Code Amendments
Honorable Council Members,
The Cottages at Spring Mountain Ranch HOA Board of Directors want to
express our support for your recent efforts to better define the Short
Term Rental business in McCall.
Specifically,
• We are in favor of the yearly safety inspections/permitting
requirements, with Inspectors establishing allowable occupancy.
• We support the 2 person/permitted bedroom limitation. We
oppose including loft areas as bedrooms. Also including a limit of
one car/bedroom would help parking issues.
• We would also suggest a requirement to have applicable City
codes prominently displayed in all rentals. The codes involving
dogs on leash and quiet hours are the most important of those.
Most renters arrive from out of the area or state and are not
aware of local laws or ordinances.
• STRs should have a prominent sign displayed with the Managers
name and a 24/7 contact number (not voice mail)
• We support the installation of noise monitoring devices at the
rental units.
The Cottages contain 33 individual, separate dwelling units with a
common parking area shared by all units. Although separated, the units
are proximate to one another. Of our 33 units 8 or 9 have rental traffic.
Recently, we have had a resident threatened by a renter's off leash dog
and a week ago found 12 young adults renting one of the 3 bedroom
cottages. The group made noisy returns at 2 am both nights and kept
the residents of the adjacent Cottages awake both evenings. We filed
complaints with the rental agency and were ultimately informed that
the renters, in both instances, were "blacklisted" by them. And while
this action was laudable it was reactive as it was taken after the rentals
were completed. In addition, our shared parking area did not anticipate
3 or 4 vehicles per unit and gets overwhelmed when several of the
units are rented and the renters bring multiple vehicles, which happens
often.
The proactive rules that the Council is contemplating would help
prevent these types of issues and hopefully keep residents from
becoming defacto enforcement agents for the commercial rental
operations in our neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Cottages at Spring Mountain Ranch HOA Board of Directors
Jim Leonhard — President
Bill Logsdon — Member
Ron Evans — Member
Leonard Anderson -Member
family can come and be a family. Our home is approx. 2400 square feet and is 4 bedrooms with
a loft. It is managed by a local rental company. We are aligned to the HUD occupancy
guidelines of 2 per bedroom but this limit does not count children toward the occupancy limit.
HUD classifies a child as someone under the age of 18. Our listing mentions a limit of 14 with
12 comfortably because of futons and queen hide a bed in the loft.
My main concerns listening to the Planning & Zoning meeting are:
• No official rules when homeowners are using their residence. We usually have between
10-14 people with 3 generations.
• No official rules when you are letting family/friends use the home
• Counting people under the age of 18 as part of the occupancy. Most rental services
require renters to be 21 or older to rent. When children and grandchildren come with us, we are
6 adults and 6 children (10 under).
As part of the Planning & Zoning meeting, everyone kept referring to the large capacity rentals.
You must realize with the requirement of 2 people per bedroom max, you will be eliminating
many rentals. Are you complying with the Idaho statute or HUD recommendations? Will this
increase housing for full-timers? Only time will tell.
I fully support all permits and fire inspections but adding fire sprinklers to any building housing
11 or more is not sustainable. If the building code had specifications at time of build that
anything more than 2400 sq ft, it would have been done. To retrofit an existing property is not
viable. Why would you not require fire sprinklers on all houses over a certain square footage?
The propane explosion mentioned by the fire department on Fairway Drive was not a short-term
rental.
I would like to also reference that not all short-term rentals (STRs) are registered with the city
thus losing revenue. McCall cannot keep up with STRs but could contract with a service that
other cities use to monitor postings of STRs to ensure that the hotel tax, inspections, and LOT
are paid. I hope that you will defer this decision to continue the keep McCall a family vacation
destination.
Reference
As Idaho State Government Title 67-6539 states
What is reasonable and what is practical? What will detract from families ability to enjoy
McCall. Somethings to consider:
The City of Donnelly in http://www.cityofdonnelly.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ordinances-
248-252.pdf states Occupancy: There shall be no associated RV's or tents used to supplement the
maximum occupancy. It will be limited to legal bedrooms with proper egress windows. At no
time shall occupancy exceed 4 people/bedroom up to a maximum of 12 people unless a
conditional use permit is obtained
Page 5 of 16
Comments for August 25, 2022
McCall adjusting their room occupancy will reduce income to the city with Donnelly so
close.
The City of Ketchum (https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ketchid-pubu/MEET-
Packet-0b1a8df03dc14e8995773d0bd908069d.pdf) states: 2. Occupancy: Short -Term Rentals
shall contain no more than four (4) people per bedroom. Total maximum occupancy of the Short -
Term Rentals shall be based on the number of bedrooms times four (4) people per bedroom
Bonner County -
https://www.bonnercountyid.gov/media/Planning/Application%20lnformation/Vacation%20Rent
al%20FAQ.pdf How many people can I have in my rental?The maximum occupancy for a
vacation rental shall be three (3) persons per bedroom plus an additional three (3) people"
12 8/23/22 8:05:57 Bert Kulesza 118 E. Forest St., McCall, Idaho 83638
For
"I strongly support the proposed code amendments for Short Term Rentals. The proposed
amendments are long overdue and are a good first step to getting a handle on a problem vexing
McCall for a long time. It is disheartening to see neighborhoods having to put up with what
amounts to small motels in residential areas. The occupants and some of the absentee owners of
these rentals have absolutely no ownership or interest in the neighborhoods they are invading.
Renters show up have fun and leave, just as they would in a motel. The cohesiveness and
structure of the neighborhood suffers. Is that what the city wants? What on earth is a short term
rental that can accommodate 15-20 or more people doing in a residential neighborhood?
The proposed code amendments are more than reasonable. Two people per bedroom makes
sense. A permit makes sense. A sprinkler system for rentals accommodating more than 10
people makes sense --aren't motels required to have sprinkler systems? If the cost of a sprinkler
system is too high then don't have more than 10 guests. I tire of hearing absentee owners of
these rentals wine about costs and government overreach as they rake in profits yet have little or
no concern about the impacts they have on neighborhoods and the community.
In addition to the proposed amendments I would like the city to consider:
1. Putting a cap on the number and kind of vehicles that can occupy a rental property at one
time. Is it really OK to have 8-10 vehicles, a bus size motor home, or a camper trailer with
tipout (and room for more gusts) parked in a residential neighborhood?
2. Consider requiring larger capacity short term rentals to include a permanent live in resident
(either owner, long term renter, or employee) to provide a presence and connection to the
neighborhood and to ensure renters behave in a respectful manner. Don't motels have someone
on site to perform this function? Relying on a property management company or absentee owner
to do this doesn't cut it.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. "
Comments for August 25, 2022
Page 6 of 16
13 8/23/22 12:50:46 Lisa Mohler47 Johnson Lane Mccall ID 83638 For
I feel that you are giving STRs to long of a Timeline 2024 1st of January. This length of time
will allow them to put off getting inspections while making money, then decide to sell it. We
have people homeless NOW. Give them 3 months to show proof of compliance of new
regulations, such as removing bunk beds that allow them to sleep 8 people per bedroom. The
STR's new permit goes into effect at the end of this year 2022. This hopefully will open up
rentals for long term renters who service the Valley, teach at the schools etc., Employes need to
see that the City of McCall is serious about solving Housing problems NOW. If half of these
524 STRs were long term rentals that is 212 families in dry safe homes and keeping Valley
County Business going. Your current way of handling STR is not working. You may need to
create a new job, Overseer of STRs.
14 8/23/22 11:52:52 William Logsdon 929 Cottage Court, McCall, ID.
For
The influx of short term rentals have changed the atmosphere of McCall and the magic of this
development from friendly single family dwellings into a commercial venture. An atmosphere of
bring a bunch of people and party for two nights and go home. Two weeks ago we had a three
bedroom house with 12 young adults who were noisy, and full of alcohol every night. It was a
short term rental with a rental firm who did not care how it affected the owners. It ruined our
weekend as it did for others.
15 8/23/22 19:50:50 maureen thomas 1522 Roosevelt St., McCall Idaho For
I support these proposed amendments for short term rentals.
16 8/23/22 21:01:40 Eric Marsh 327 Mather Rd Against
The new regulations on Short Term rentals are overly restrictive. Folks that own STR already
have an inherent interest in keeping the property safe for guests, limiting the occupancy to a
number that is reasonable based on the size, and to keep peace with fellow neighbors and the city
itself. If owners didn't take these necessary precautions they would incur excess cost in terms of
damages and potential suits. If owners didn't maintain a high standard and seek to be good
neighbors then they would quickly find themselves at odds with neighbors which is also bad for
business. The new regulations come at a time when the local needs a steady influx of guests to
support local businesses and when owners rely on their guests for income. Economic forces will
soon already naturally begin to show a slowdown and these regulations will make such a
downturn far worse by placing undue pressure on owners and guests.
17 8/24/22 9:27:32 Jim Leonhard 927 Cottage Ct For
The short term rentals have become a burden and a problem for their neighbors. It is imperative
that the city Council impose some additional restrictions to reduce the impact of the uncontrolled
short term rentals have on the quiet enjoyment of residents in McCall. Restrictions on occupancy
and the number of parking spaces allowed per unit would be a good start. Respectfully
submitted, Jim Leonhard
Page 7 of 16
Comments for August 25, 2022
1 8/22/22 11:23:57 BARBARA Greenwood 906 Buckboard Way MCCALL
ID 83638
"I would like to comment on the issue of ordinances concerning rental properties. I realize that
owners have the right to lease/rent to visitors but have issues with property values and the
cleanup that is not always done when they leave. A home has only so many bedrooms that
should not be packed to overflowing and possibly be a hazard. I've seen multiple families pull in
with all their gear and vehicles and the activity on these days creates lots of traffic and noise for
those who are year round residents. 4th of July was especially bad as the renters were not careful
with their fireworks and laughed me off with my concerns. Another time there was a large group
of young adults with all their bikes, maybe 30, so obviously there were multiply ppl sleeping in
limited space. They looked to be a group on an outing with counselors as there were a few adults.
My biggest complaint is the trash, the bins are left open and overflowing There also have been
very loud parties late into the night and the animals, especially the bears that start showing up in
August, are especially worrisome to me.
I live alone, a senior, and I don't feel real safe with so many coming and going, when rules are
compromised, and renters really don't care. Renters bring their animals as well and they roam
free, use my yard to do their business and chase the deer. The answer is not to remove the deer or
deny owners renting their property, the answer is tighter ordinances so we all can enjoy McCall
and feel safe. Thank you for your consideration on my thoughts with this issue. Sincerely,
Barbara Greenwood"
2 8/23/22 8:36:02 Steve Albrecht 1109C Knowles Road McCall ID ID
83638 "Good Day,
The proposal for maximum occupancy is significantly burdening those that have a short term
rental as you are not addressing the real reasons for this change. The reasons or the why behind
this proposal does not align with past situations or events. How many fires have been in short
term rentals in the past decade, 5 years, 3 years or even last year? How many lives have been
lost or even people burned due to fires? Using or creating a fire code is not the solution it is a
fake response to another concern. Simply using this as the solution is not right nor is it legal.
Homes are built using building codes, essentially the legal foundation for ensuring certain
standards and rules are followed. With that said, homes that have been built, would need to be
grandfather in. Change the building code, not the permits.
I still go back to the why, what is your why, who is driving this why? The person, or persons
driving this why is going to force or even drive significant loss of visitors to McCall. Rooms
with bunk beds are play areas or places kids can make a fort. If you strip this away, kids will not
be coming to McCall and unless you are looking at making McCall an adult only place. You are
missing the mark and why even have a parade, last time I checked parades are quite enjoyable
for children. Also, if you are trying to make homes install a sprinkler system. That is ridiculous,
that isn't even affordable for existing homes. Again I say, add it into the building code, assuming
that is the real concern here, which I challenge in the first place.
Comments for August 25, 2022
Page 8 of 16
""You can't solve today's problems with yesterday's solutions," Albert Einstein is famously
quoted as having said. The context and intent may be open to interpretation, but people often
quote this to suggest that traditional value system will not work in this fast -changing technology -
driven world.
The same thing applies with these proposals. Based on these proposals, we want to protect the
people that are staying in our homes. However, that is a scapegoat of a larger problem the city
needs to face. We live in a capitalist world and restricting this goes against what we stand for as
Americans. I suggest you work harder to understand the root of the problems and make
adjustments there. Quit trying to use a policy or generating a city law under a fake problem.
There are many more cities that have similar concerns and using Lake Tahoe or whatever city
that implemented this are FAR larger than McCall. Find a solution that fixes McCall's concern
not another communities problem/fix. Work harder to solve the root cause, which I believe you
are completely missing the mark, as using a fire code or permitting is simply going to create
many other unintended consequences.
Thank you
Steve Albrecht"
4 8/23/22 23:35:39 Kristine Stedman 425 McGinnis McCallIdaho 83638
"These comments pertain to the Council's considerations regarding occupancy limitations on
short term rentals. We own a 2200 sq ft, 3 level, 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom vacation home in
McCall. When we purchased the home in 2009 it fulfilled a life-long dream of my husband's to
own a McCall home. We come down from Lewiston as often as possible, either just the two of us
or with our two married children and 7 grandchildren (ages 5 to 17). There is more than enough
room for the 13 of us to sleep safely and comfortably. The large upstairs bedroom contains a set
of bunk beds along with a queen bed. The loft contains a pullout bed; the living room and the TV
room each contain a queen sleeper sofa. When our family is not using the home, it is a short term
rental managed professionally, safely and responsibly by Vacasa. It is not a "party house"
rented out irresponsibly. Almost every one of our renters are multi -generational families. Often
grandparents, kids and grandkids. We strongly urge the Council not to limit the occupancy of
our home to 8 people, 2 per bedroom. Rather, we urge you to allow 2 adults PLUS 2 children per
bedroom.
We are totally in support of having the fire department inspect our home, in having the
recommended number of smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors, etc. However, we are
totally opposed to the idea of requiring a fire sprinkler system. The cost of retrofitting such a
system into our 1980's built home would be completely prohibitive.
I'm not sure what problem the Council is hoping to solve with the new proposed regulations. If
McCall needs more long-term rentals, I don't think this is an answer. We certainly would not
convert our home into a long-term rental because our family wants to have it available for our
own personal use. If safety is the issue, I believe that can be handled by inspections. And if the
Comments for August 25, 2022
Page 9 of 16
problem is "partying" renters abusing noise or parking regulations, that could be handled by
the police, or by working with McCall's various property managers. Please do not make the
drastic change of limiting occupancy to 2 people per bedroom, and certainly not by requiring fire
sprinkler systems. McCall is a sought after destination for FAMILY vacationers. Please don't
prohibit larger homes from accommodating multi -generational families and families with
children.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kristine Stedman"
18 8/24/22 14:22:58 Dave Petty 912B Fairway Dr. For
"From the McCall 2018 Comprehensive plan:
Our Vision McCall is a diverse, small town united to maintain a safe, clean, healthy, and
attractive environment. It is a friendly, progressive community that is affordable and sustainable.
Over my 30+ years of visiting and living full time in this city I have witnessed the destruction of
this vision by the abuse of neighborhoods by the STR market. I fully support the initiative to pass
common sense regulation related to occupancy and safety for the benefit of our community."
19 8/24/22 14:41:49 Heidi Grassman 1019 Bitterroot Drive For
"As homeowners in Spring Mountain Ranch, our quality of life has changed substantially over
the 3 years we have owned our home. We are surrounded by STR's. I am in favor of limiting
the number of persons renting any home to 2 per bedroom. I am also in favor of any regulations
that increase privacy, reduce noise, reduce turnover and prohibit more than 2 vehicles (including
boats, trailers, etc.) per home.
We understand that STR's are a legitimate part of the economy of McCall and we understand all
the legal rights homeowners have with respect to usage/rental of their property. We also know
that skyrocketing home prices, together with a high conversion of long-term rental properties to
short-term rental properties is putting excessive pressure on those who live and work in this
community. All of this makes doing business in McCall difficult! Small businesses, restaurants,
services, etc. are all hurting because of this macro problem.
We are grateful to the City Planners and others who are working on long-range solutions to
prioritize the economic needs of the McCall community and we call on our STR neighbors to do
what they can to work with resident homeowners on the quality of life in our neighborhoods.
Homeowner rights are equally distributed. They are not the sole domain of STR property
owners! "
20 8/24/22 16:03:35 Hannah Drabinski 1020 Bitterroot Drive For
"I fully support for the changes to McCall's short-term rental ordinance. My family built our
cabin in McCall when I was 12 years old; it began as a place we came on weekends but when my
father retired, it became my family's permanent home. It has been such a special place for me
Page 10 of 16
Comments for August 25, 2022
and when my father unexpectedly passed away, it became the place where my mother and I
began to put out lives together again.
However, in the last two years the home next door to us has transitioned ownership and became a
short-term rental, advertising space for up to 19 guests. What used to be a place of refuge has
become filled with anxiety and stress. Now, we regularly have large groups next door who come
often not just to enjoy what McCall has to offer, but to throw large parties in a residential
neighborhood. During the period that the home next door has become a short-term rental, we
have had many unsafe and upsetting incidents; the firing of gun shots, drunk groups having late
night fires during periods of fire -restrictions, people throwing up on our property line, men trying
to physically fight us for asking them to move their partying inside. I now feel I cannot invite
people to come stay with us, because I cannot be sure that the weekend will not be accompanied
with 19 people partying next door. I have called the police many times and, while I am so
appreciative of their responsiveness, I also feel like this is not where we should spend our public
safety resources.
While we would not want to impose undue restrictions on property owners, having a rental
where that can accommodate 4 people per bedroom (even when most bedrooms only have 1 bed
per room) and up to 19 guests total has profoundly impacted our enjoyment of our property and
our experience of our community. For these reasons, 1 am so grateful for the proposed ordinance
of reducing the number of guests per bedroom from 2 to 4 and could not be more supportive.
Hannah Drabinski (part-time resident of 1020 Bitterroot) "
21 8/24/22 10:19:49 Frank Dykas 441 Allen Ave, McCall For
"I support the adoption of the amendments, particularly the reduction of occupancy from 4 per
bedroom to 2 per bedroom. Allen Ave is in Evergreen Terrace Subdivision, and we have several
STR's in the neighborhood, 4 of which are within sight of my front door. One is next door,
located at 443 Allen Ave. I knew the prior owners and I know ifs a three bedroom house. Yet
I've seen as many as 20 to 25 people stay there and party for a weekend,
About a month ago, the current owners of the STR at 443 Allen converted one of the two bays in
the basement garage into a "room". They substituted a new wall, with an outside window for
one of the garage doors, and built at least one interior wall to convert the garage space to a room.
I asked if he was adding another bedroom„ and he said "no just a room to store stuff."" A few
weeks later the owner threw a weekend party for 20 to 25 young college (or possibly high
school) students who were drunk and staggering around in the street in front of 443 Allen, some
were falling down drunk, others were in the neighbor's driveway across the street trying to play
basketball using the neighbor's driveway basket ball hoop, using a football instead of a
basketball. They were all shouting and screaming.
Finally the STR owner came out on his front deck and yelled at them to get back to the rear deck
of his house on the grounds that another neighbor across the street was a cop. So they went to
the back deck, where they were harassing our dog in our fenced yard. They all stayed in that
house for the weekend. I suspect the "stuff" the owner was referring to are portable camp beds
Comments for August 25, 2022
Page 11 of 16
and/or other sleeping gear, that they can use to convert the STR into a bunkhouse. And I wonder
it the owner had or didn't have a building permit to build that extra room.
If anything, the proposed amendments don't go far enough. There are far too many STR's in this
town. They destroy the sense of community in the neighborhoods, primarily because the owners
are just absentee landlords who don't care about the neighborhoods; they are just in it to make a
quick buck. In a sense the landlords are marketing the good will of the community to rent their
vacation homes to others. For the residents, having new neighbors every few days destroys that
sense of community. Preserving the welfare of the neighborhood community is a legitimate goal
for city government, and should be well within a city's constitutional police power to protect the
safety and welfare of its citizens.
Other resort communities have found ways to limit STRs'. Durango„ Colorado (which is
demographically very similar to McCall) bans them outright on the grounds of preserving
affordable worker rental housing. Boulder Colorado limits STR's to one per city block. McCall
should at least try to limit the number of STRs.
For what it's worth, these are my thoughts on this amendment."
22 8/24/22 18:38:28 Kara Packer 1021 Bitterroot Dr McCall ID83703 For
"I think it's a good idea to limit to 2 persons per bedroom +2 so a max of 10 per house.
I don't think it's a good idea to allow homeowners to apply for a CUP to increase occupancy. 10
persons should be maximum per rental regardless of house size. "
23 8/24/22 16:57:39 Chris and Stefanie Woods Woods 406 Allen Ave McCall
For
We have lived in our neighborhood for over 20 years. Two years ago the house across the street
was sold to a family in Boise who would be what we call "second homeowners". Our
neighborhood is primarily full-time residents with a few second homeowners dispersed through
the neighborhood. The people that bought the house across from us immediately turned it into an
Airbnb, and as soon as that happened the quiet little neighborhood was suddenly full of
disruptive noise way after dark, multiple cars more than their driveway can handle, dogs in our
yards pooping and no respect whatsoever from the dog owners picking up after their pets. parties
late into the evening etc... sure I get it, you are on vacation and you want to have fun, but pride of
ownership is not there in an Airbnb, they could care less about the people that actually live and
work in this community, they are on vacation! The house is constantly rented, like a revolving
door. We all respect each other's privacy in the neighborhood and look out for each other, but the
Airbnb across from us is not that way, they are transients and could care less about the people
around them. Limiting the number of people to occupy the homes I feel would be key, it will
lessen the noise, the overflow of cars in and out of the neighborhoods, and on our streets, late -
night disturbances. The Airbnb across from us has overstepped its bounds repeatedly and has
encroached on our property using our driveway as part of their playground since we happen to
have a basketball hoop and a flat driveway. We don't want to come home anymore since it's a
Comments for August 25, 2022
Page 12 of 16
party on their deck every night, we used to love our home and our neighborhood, and now we are
so sad about this situation.
24 8/24/22 20:31:43 John Segar 1031 Bitterroot Dr. Against
I generally support this, but have concerns about the STR permit and pricing. I don't understand
why someone like me who rents out his 3 bedroom cabin out a couple times a year should pay
the same for a permit as the cabin down the street that is used exclusively for an event center. I
think there needs to be an enhanced fee schedule - especially for those that require a special use
permit.
25 8/24/22 20:55:58 Linda Burns 1485 Dragonfly Loop For
Please consider adopting these changes. I feel that it would cut down on noise, cars parked in the
streets and overall safety for all concerned. Thank you.
26 8/24/22 21:38:51 Jolene Heinze 1027 Bitterroot Dr For
I strongly support the proposed changes to the Short -Term Rental Code and am very appreciative
of the efforts made by McCall City Council to improve the health and safety of our community
and limit the impact of STRs on our neighborhoods. This is a positive step towards managing
short-term rentals to mitigate adverse impacts to the McCall community.
27 8/24/22 22:51:32 Serena Amos 2280 N Bird Boise Against
"This is attemtping to reduce STR in the area, however, making it more difficult to operate an
STR will! result in EMPTY and VACANT second homes and vacation properties that no one
other than the owners will use.
This won't create more housing for locals or reduce rent. It's NOT a solution to the problem, it
will make more houses come entirely OFF the market by owners. "
28 8/25/22 9:48:08 Don Sanda 639 Woodlands Dr. For
I support the proposed regulations regarding short term rentals within the City of McCall.
Particularly with occupancies greater than 10 per unit, it should be considered more like a
motel/hotel. Also, consideration should be given to those living near these STRs in regards to
their quality of life and property values.
29 8/25/22 11:53:45 Michael Wissenbach 280 May Road, McCall For
"McCall City Council Members:
I am in support of the proposed amendments to City code regarding short term rentals. I believe
that a per -room limit on the number of occupants will help reduce the impacts of these rentals to
our surrounding neighborhoods, keeping them quiet, safe and neighborly environments. I also
approve of the need for a CUP for rentals with a capacity of 11 or more and the annual
permitting of these units.
In addition to the current proposed amendments, I would also like to see McCall put a cap on the
total number of short term rentals. The proliferation of short term rentals has greatly impacted
Comments for August 25, 2022
Page 13 of 16
our community in many ways, including traffic and access, noise, demand on local supplies and
services, and most importantly degradation of the natural resources within and immediately
surrounding our community. Fewer would be better.
Finally, I also would like McCall to adopt a measure, similar to that of the City of Truckee, to
discourage the purchase of dwelling units by investors. This measure would require that upon a
change of ownership, no unit can be permitted as a short-term rental for one year after the
purchase.
Thank you for your consideration. Michael Wissenbach"
30 8/25/22 12:24:51 Jim carberry 708 Broken Rein Against
1) Too many allowed per bedroom, should be limited to two. 2) Need to limit the number of cars
per residence. 3) The garbage needs to be removed by the cleaning group so it does not scatter
all over the neighborhood. 4) Each year send a notice to the neighborhood informing them of the
management contact. 5) The owner should be responsible to keep the property in good repair.
We do understand the need for rental property, it simply should not interfere with the
neighborhood concept! Thank you for allow our comments.
31 8/25/22 13:21:53 Kate Ray Seattle, WA For
As a visitor who has family in McCall I support this change! Housing should first and foremost
be for the permanent residents of McCall. I would also like to see limits on second homes. STR
are an important part of the economy but second homes that sit empty most of the year are not.
Make second home owners have occupancy requirements (ie must live there 6 mo of the year)
and also apply for STR licenses.
32 8/25/22 13:16:39 Craig and Candi Held 3535 North Mountain View Drive
Boise, Idaho 83704 Neutral
Where are the research documents, and supporting data regarding this change. Can the
materials used to come up with the proposed amendments be provided to the public? Are there
metrics being kept that show the impact of STRs (Health, Safety, and Neighborhood Impact) on
the impacted area, and have those metrics been compared against LTRs, and Owner occupied
homes?
33 8/25/22 13:22:33 Kathy Rogerson 704 Brown Drive McCall For "I am
writing to support McCall City ordinance CA -22-02 regarding Short Term Rentals (STR). Over
the past year I have experienced first-hand the effect of STR on my neighborhood. I also have
heard complaints from other McCall residents regarding the undesirable changes made to their
neighborhood due to STR. Any given day in my neighborhood the single STR with an advertised
occupancy of 18 guests will double or triple the number of people living in this cul-de-sac. Also
the associated vehicle traffic will double.
Having the city restrict STR occupancy to two persons per bedroom would help keep our
neighborhoods less like commercial lodging and closer to what neighborhoods should be."
Comments for August 25, 2022
Page 14 of 16
34 8/25/22 13:38:25 Lynn Wood 1011 Violet Way Neutral
Please make short term rentals a minimum of one week.
35 8/25/22 14:46:43 Ryan Taylor 155 Fox Ln McCall ID 83638 For
The house next to mine is an AIRBNB with high occupancy. This is a danger because they
always are parking cars on our narrow street because there are to many to park in the driveway.
On most nights this would prevent a fire truck or an ambulance from being able to pass though.
This is especially dangerous in summer when there will are renters with multiple trucks and
multiple boats on trailers, Last winter there were renters with 6 vehicles and 4 large snowmobile
trailers. All this in a 3 bedroom home. (right now we have renters with a camper parked in the
street)
36 8/25/22 14:44:12 ShaunaAu 155 Fox Ln, McCall, ID For
I think Short -Term Rentals need both a business license and an STR permit. 4 persons per
bedroom is too high of an occupancy and should be no more than 2 with a max of 10. Anything
above that should require a CUP. We regularly have issues with STRs not enforcing their own
listed occupancy limits and it has a negative effect on our neighborhood. We regularly see
upwards of 4 vehicles at rentals with people parked on the road, trash overflowing and blowing
into the road, extra noise, etc. Additionally, I think they should have to display the license
number and property manager information on the building, and fined when city resources are
required to investigate disturbances. The timeline of January 1, 2024 is too lenient. Aside from
the required inspection, it takes little effort on their part to conform to these proposed changes.
9 8/24/22 18:41:04 Leonard Anderson 915 Cottage Court McCallIdaho 83638
I am in full support of the McCall City Council efforts under their proposed regulations
that would restrict the maximum occupancy of bedrooms in STR from four to two. I believe the
issue of parking has to be addressed. There are times when streets are partially blocked because
there are three or four cars loaded with six to twelve people that are all staying in a two or three
bedroom STR. The other issue is dogs off leash on or around STR's. I believe people arrive from
out of town or out of state and don't respect any of the CCR's or restrictions that apply to the
property they have rented on a STR basis. There needs to be enforcement from the City of
McCall when these issues arise. You can pass all the regulations and restrictions you want but if
they are enforced them mean nothing.
10 8/24/22 21:40:23 Michelle Blank 744 Deer Forest DriveMcCallID 83638
"Thank you so much for your efforts to update ordinances regulating short-term rentals in
our community. I live on a small residential street that has multiple short-term rentals. Limiting
occupancy to 2 people per bedroom is a huge step in the right direction. It will help cut down on
vehicles, traffic, and noise in our little neighborhood, especially given the high concentration of
short-term rental units.
I am also reassured by the proposal to require sprinklers in units with occupancy over ten. I hope
the city will continue to work on implementing this requirement. In our neighborhood, houses
are very close together and a fire in one could quickly spread. Sprinklers in these bigger units
Page 15 of 16
Comments for August 25, 2022
would provide peace of mind to year-round residents, while also protecting renters, homeowners,
neighbors, and our fire department from worst -case scenarios.
Thank you again for your hard work on this effort. Incremental steps like these, to ease our long-
term housing shortage and preserve the character of our residential neighborhoods, are
encouraging and appreciated. "
12 8/25/22 14:47:41 Gail Rankin 675 Fox Ridge Lane McCa1IID 83638 "I see
that discussion of rules for short term rentals is on the agenda. I am interested in this topic and
cannot find current rules or what is up for discussion anywhere on the website. I think this issue
needs alot of public discussion and no one I know has heard anything about it. I did find the 2018
report on development and affordable housing that was great. It would be very helpful for that to
be updated and discussed further also.
Thanks very much, will watch the meeting online tonight. "
Page 16 of 16
Comments for August 25, 2022
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Maura Goldstein
$essieJo Wagner; )ulie Thrower; Bob Giles. Mike Maciaszek; Colby Nielsen; Lyle Nelson
STR Ordinance
Tuesday, August 23, 2022 1:48:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi,
I support regulating short term rentals in McCall and appreciate the City's efforts to research
and develop appropriate codes for this. The STR industry in McCall feels completely out of
control because of a state law prohibiting regulation. I think we must do what we can within
these bounds to craft regulations that are a net positive for the community and those that live
here.
In addition to the negative impacts that STRs have had on many McCall neighborhoods, STRs
are rapidly gutting our community by stripping it of available housing for our local workforce.
I know you have heard this and so I am simply adding my voice to the chorus of local workers
who are struggling to find long-term rentals or properties to purchase so that they may stay
here and continue to serve local families.
People fighting against regulation of STRs threaten that any regulation will dramatically
reduce tourism dollars. This simply isn't true. Tourism in McCall isn't diminishing any time
soon unless all our local businesses have to close due to staff shortages; a real threat if we
don't take serious action on housing issues.
Thank you for your efforts,
Maura Goldstein
McCall
From: Frank Dykes
To: BessieJo Wagner; Julie Thrower' Bob Giles. Mike Maciaszek; Colby Nielsen; Lyle Nelson
Subject: Public Comment on STR amendments
Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 4:35:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Counsel Members:
My name is Frank Dykas, I'm a retired patent attorney, and my wife and I live full time at 441
Allen Ave here in McCall.
I support the adoption of the amendments, particularly the reduction of occupancy from 4 per
bedroom to 2 per bedroom and the reliance on the County Assessors count on the number of
bedrooms.. Allen Ave is in Evergreen Terrace Subdivision, and we have several STR's in the
neighborhood, 4 of which are within sight of my front door. One is next door, located at 443
Allen Ave. I knew the prior owners and I know it's a three bedroom house. Yet I've seen as
many as 20 to 25 people stay there and party for a weekend, This has happened a number of
times.
About a month ago, the current owners of the STR at 443 Allen converted one of the two bays
in the basement garage into a "room". They substituted a new wall, with an outside window
for one of the garage doors, and built at least one interior wall to convert the garage space to a
room. I asked if he was adding another bedroom„ and he said "no just a room to store stuff."
A few weeks later the owner threw a weekend party for 20 to 25 young college (or possibly
high school) students who were drunk and staggering around in the street in front of 443
Allen, some were falling down drunk, others were in the neighbor's driveway across the street
trying to play basketball using the neighbor's driveway basketball hoop, using a football
instead of a basketball. They were all shouting and screaming.
Finally the STR owner came out on his front deck and yelled at them to get back to the rear
deck of his house on the grounds that another neighbor across the street was a cop. So they
went to the back deck, where they were harassing our dog in our fenced yard. They all stayed
in that house for the weekend. I suspect the "stuff" the owner was referring to are portable
camp beds and/or other sleeping gear, that they can use to convert the STR into a bunkhouse.
And I wonder if the owner had or didn't have a building permit to build that extra room.
If anything the proposed amendments don't go far enough. There are far too many STR's in
this town. They destroy the sense of community in the neighborhoods, primarily because the
owners are just absentee landlords who don't care about the neighborhoods, they are just in it
to make a quick buck. In a sense the landlords are marketing the good will of the community
to rent their vacation homes to others. For the residents, having new neighbors every few days
destroys that sense of community. Preserving the welfare of the neighborhood community is a
legitimate goal for city government, and should be well within a city's constitutional police
power to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens.
Other resort communities have found ways to limit STRs'. Durango„ Colorado (which is
demographically very similar to McCall) bans them outright on the grounds of preserving
affordable worker rental housing. Boulder Colorado limits STR's to one per city block.
McCall should at least try to limit the number of STRs.
For what it's worth, these are my thoughts on this amendment.
Sincerely,
Frank Dykas
From: David Simmonds
To: BessieJo Wagner; Julie Thrower; Lyle Nelson; Colby Nielsen; Mike Maciaszek• 13ob Giles
Subject: Comments for the record, Public Hearing regarding Short Term Rental code
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 8:33:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
The proposed changes in City code for Short Term Rentals are a necessary step toward a
livable, sustainable community, and toward addressing our housing crisis for both workforce
and residents, particularly those with modest housing budgets. This is a community -killing
issue.
However, there are missing pieces and outstanding concerns. Specific comments and
suggestions:
1. The requirement to notify homeowners within 300 feet of STRs has not worked. We
have received just one such notice from a single property manager, ever, and that was
about two years ago. Many STRs in our neighborhood are un-noticed, or may have
obsolete notifications. Please require **annual written notice** to such property
owners by each STR manager or owner. Owners and managers change, and
compliance should be both reliable and useful.
2. Please add a way for residents to **look up** the location, ownership, manager
and permitted uses for all STRs in their neighborhoods. This may help shift the
burden of compliance from law enforcement to the property managers, and is a
necessary disclosure toward a workable system. The City's "Applicant Helper" map
already in use is an example of such a look -up tool, and could be easily adapted for
STR locations and disclosures.
3. Enforcement of excessive on -street parking, excessive vehicles, trucks and trailers,
excessive occupancy, and disruptive noise, has been spotty at best. These are, I'm
certain, all known to be chronic problems with STRs. The City should have a clear plan
and public mechanism for both complaints and enforcement. Administration and
enforcement costs should be fully recaptured from STR owners through the permitting,
licensing and fee process.
Thank you for addressing this urgent priority for our community.
Dave
David Simmonds
McCall, Idaho
Ce11 208-634-6929
Written Comment Regarding the Public Hearing Scheduled for August 25, 2022
Title 3 and 4 Code Amendments for Short Term Rentals
My name is Ron Tucker and my wife is Mary Tucker. We currently own a house at 447 Allen in McCall. I
first moved to McCall in 1973. Mary moved to McCall in 1976. In 1978, we bought our first house in
McCall. Our children were born in McCall. Unfortunately, the recession in the early 80's required us to
leave the area and we sold that house in 1987.
We were able to buy our current house in 2000. It is our second home. Until a little over a year ago, the
house next door at 443 Allen was a second home or, most recently, a primary residence. It is now a full
time STR. In our neighborhood, Evergreen Terrace, I would guess half the homes are primary residences,
and half are 2nd homes. Although ours is a second home, we have developed good relations with many
of our neighbors- both full and part time.
You have heard from one of my neighbors, Frank Dykas, about 443 Allen, so I will not repeat what he
said, except to say as part time residents, we have not been quite as affected as he and other neighbors.
We have been affected though by rotating groups of people. We have had bright lights going on and off
through the night, have had loud rowdy people coming home late at night (from the bars, I presume),
and we have been awoken after midnight by a lady yelling for her dog. One day last summer, we had a
lady barge into our house rudely saying "you were supposed to be out by 11:00" to people we had
staying with us. The STR's cleaning lady came to the wrong house.
I know you are aware of the problems STR's have caused to housing prices, forcing many out of being
able to afford a house, and on the impact to the long-term rental market.
understand the proposals for changes to Title 3 and 4 include changing:
• Permit: From Business License to Short -Term Rental Permit, requiring STR permit for each unit
on each property, STR permit renewal to occur annually
• Inspection: Add inspection process to ensure compliance with regulations and permitting.
• Occupancy: Short -Term Rentals shall contain no more than two (2) persons per bedroom, plus
two additional persons. Total maximum occupancy of the Short -Term Rental shall not exceed
ten (10) persons without the issuance of a conditional use permit.
Mary and I fully support these changes. Determination on the number of bedrooms should be though
the County Assessors count of the number of bedrooms. I would also like to see limits on the number of
weeks per year an owner can rent their place and limits on the number of STR's in a geographic area. I
understand the owners can make a substantial amount of money in the STR market, but that needs to
be balanced against the sense of community and issues of affordability for families and workers.
Thank you -
Ron Tucker
6120 Winstead PI
Boise, Id 83704
208 323-0687