Kalispell works to define limits on vacation rentals

Kalispell City Council will stretch the discussion on vacation rentals a little longer as it looks to withstand the risk of dense rental commercialization in the city.

After passing a first reading of the proposed ordinance that would allow short-term residential rentals in the city, the council on Monday tabled its second vote, pushing the discussion to a 12th public meeting in 10 months this year.

The vote to table came after council attempted to define primary residency and the maximum number of vacation rentals that would be allowed in the city.

The short-term rental issue took a sharp turn two weeks ago after the council passed an amendment in the first reading to require rentals to be the owner’s primary residence. Council member Chad Graham made the amendment to prevent commercial operations from buying up vacant homes and altering the fabric of a neighborhood.

Those who opposed the amendment, including council member Tim Kluesner, rental owners, tourism officials and real estate groups, say that the amendment would put a large number of rental owners out of business, while commercial entities could still skirt the regulation.

Kalispell planning staff at the meeting said the city does not actually define primary ownership in its own code, which means the term could be interpreted a few different ways. Planning Director Tom Jentz said the city could reference an applicant’s tax records to determine residency.

Kluesner said that a person could register their Post Office box on their voter registration, which could complicate the administrative application process. He also noted that residences could be held in trusts, putting several names on one home.

“If our intent is to limit the number of these things, let’s just put a number on it,” Kluesner said. “It’s a number we can adjust.”

Graham defended his amendment to Kluesner, saying that his measure did the most to protect communities from short-term rental commercialization.

“I’m not anti-business and I’m not anti-VRBO (vacation rental by owner),” Graham said. “We all agree that the fabric of the neighborhood needs to be protected.”

Kluesner made a motion to strike Graham’s amendment from the ordinance, to be replaced later with a different form of a short-term rental cap. A few council members said they were uncomfortable repealing the amendment without first knowing what the replacement measure would be.

“I can’t vote yes to strip this not knowing what the replacement will be,” council member Phil Guiffrida said. “I just think that it’s important that private property rights don’t just stop at my property boundary. My neighbors have property rights too.”

Council member Wayne Saverud said the council needed to rework the amendment with more information on hand. The council narrowly passed the motion 5-4 to table the second reading until the first regular meeting in December.

Ahead of the December meeting, council members asked the planning staff to prepare potential language to be added to the city code that could define primary residence.

The meeting is scheduled for Dec. 5 at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 201 First Ave. E.

Reporter Seaborn Larson may be reached at 758-4441 or by email at slarson@dailyinterlake.com.