Town Council Agenda
Wednesday, February 7, 2024, 4:00 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members of the Town Council:
Mayor Bill Sauser, Mayor Pro Tem Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, Councilmember Amanda Rice, Councilmember John Wentworth NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (760) 965-3602. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 13.102-35.104 ADA Title II)
NOTE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Town Offices located at 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 230 during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the Town of Mammoth Lakes website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
NOTE: You may attend the Town Council meetings in person or watch them on the Town of Mammoth Lakes' website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov , on the local government cable channel 18, or via Zoom. Public comments can be submitted to the Town Clerk at [email protected]. before and during the meeting, or may be made in person or via Zoom.
NOTE: All comments will be limited to a speaking time of five minutes.
ZOOM INFORMATION
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device:
Please type in or cut and paste in this URL to join. https://monocounty.zoom.us/s/92958002088 Or join by phone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 876 9923
Webinar ID: 929 5800 2088
International numbers available: https://monocounty.zoom.us/u/acobwlnMsm
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR REMOTE PARTICIPATION BY MAYOR SAUSER PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(f)(2)(A)(ii).
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Public Comment portion of the agenda provides the public with an opportunity to address the Town Council on matters not otherwise listed on the agenda. Under California law the Town Council is prohibited from generally discussing or taking action on items not included in the agenda; however, the Town Council may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public. Therefore, the Town Council will listen to all public comment, but will not generally discuss the matter or take action on it. Requests for service from the Town may also be made at the Town offices during regular business hours.
Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Opportunity to add urgency items pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)2, if necessary.
5. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
5.1 Introduction of new Community and Economic Development Director Nolan Bobroff and recognition of his ten year anniversary with the Town.
6. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS (AS NEEDED)
6.1 February 2024 Public Works Engineering CIP Update.
7. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
7.1 2023 Mammoth Disposal Annual Report.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
8.1 Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 17, 2024.
8.2 Approve the minutes of the special meeting of January 31, 2024.
8.3 Authorize the Contract for the Airport Pavement Maintenance Management Plan Update to Brandley Engineering Inc.
8.4 Approve the Resolution adopting the Town of Mammoth Lakes Paid Sick Leave Policy.
8.5 Approve the Resolution adopting the Town of Mammoth Lakes Snow Patrol Policy.
8.6 Accept Check Register 1/18/24 in the amount of $643,826.79. Accept Check Register 1/24/24 in the amount of $573,932.57. Accept Check Register 1/31/24 in the amount of $145,053.30.
9. POLICY MATTERS
9.1 Approval of Employment Agreement with Rob Patterson for the position of Town Manager.
9.2 Consider Certified Properties Proposal from STR Advisory Committee.
9.3 Receive information and provide direction on STR Advisory Committee Recommendations.
9.4 Approve the MOU between Blue Forest Finance Inc., World Resources Institute and Eastern Sierra Climate and Community Resilience Project – Wildfire Resilience Action Team (WRAFT), subject to final legal partner agency review.
9.5 Review and provide comments on the Town Civic Center design.
9.6 Council Update and Direction on Proposed Legislation and Related Items.
10. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Informational reports from Councilmember representatives on committees, commissions, and organizations; general reports on Councilmember activities
11. ADJOURNMENT
The Town Council will adjourn to a regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 4:00 p.m.
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: February 2024 Public Works Engineering CIP Update Council Meeting Date: 2/7/2024
Prepared by: Amy Callanan, PE, Engineering Manager
Recommended Motion: None
Summary: The February 2024 CIP update includes most of the Town’s active construction projects. Some continuing projects are under winter suspension, some new projects have gone out to bid, and several new projects are being planned for construction this summer.
Capital Project Update
February 2024 Update
Created January 31, 2024
*** Text shown in bold has changed from the previous update *** Project Notes Budget
CRC The CRC continues to be open and available to the public, however the contractor has many miscellaneous punchlist items to complete.
~$15M
CRC - Mobility Hub All site work is complete except for installation of parking lot lighting to be installed by TOML staff in the spring.
$1.75M
CRC - Interior TI Work Plans for interior work have been submitted for building permit, to be bid for construction later this fall or winter. Scope items include bleachers, stairs and ADA lift, rubber flooring, office space, and east patio railing. $1.05M
The Parcel Phase 1 Exterior work on both buildingsis substantially complete. Building B interior is nearly complete with the exception of low voltage cabling and corridor flooring, and additional work is focusing on cleanup and punchlist items. Much work continues inside Building A, with interior utility work on the first floor common area and daycare space. Commissioning of building systems (e.g. fire alarms, elevators etc) is expected in mid-February. The childcare playground fencing is now complete, as is the joint utility trench along Tavern Rd. Upcoming work scheduled for this spring includes the Center St sidewalk, additional MUPs, streetlights, bus shelters, landscaping and the public playground and park.
~$5.6M
(infrastructure)
The Parcel Phase 2 Tree removal is complete. Funding for Phase 2.2 (four 3-story “tuck-under” buildings along Inyo St and Tavern Rd) has been approved. Applications for building and grading permits have been submitted and are being reviewed by staff. Funding for Phase 2.1 (one 4-story “podium” building in NE corner of site) is pending.
Chaparral Extension (The
Parcel)
The project is currently in winter suspension. Work will resume on underground dry utilities (electrical and telecom), sidewalks and multi-use paths in the spring. $1.8M
60 Joaquin Underground building utilities are being installed in anticipation of receiving approval for foundation and modular superstructure construction. $2.42M
Laurel Mountain Rd Rehab
& Sidewalk
All work is complete with the exception of the installation of the 25-ft street light poles at the intersections with Tavern Rd and Sierra Nevada Rd. $3.5M
Fuel Island Work is complete and the fuel island is now back in service. However, while the concrete material and installation is serviceable, it does not meet Town specifications, and may be removed and replaced in the spring at the contractor’s cost.
$466K
Main Street Landscaping
Phase 1
Staff continues to discuss the project with potential contractors and we hope to have additional info towards the end of February.
$250K
OMR Beautification Phase 1 Staff continues to discuss the project with potential contractors and we hope to have additional info towards the end of February.
$500K
Town Civic Center Staff has received Design Development documents, and the project will be brought to PEDC for Design Review approval in February, after which the design team will proceed working on construction drawings and specifications adequate for bidding and permit submittal in April. The Town expects to hear results of a second $10 million grant application for construction of the EOC/Community Resiliency Center component of the project in April. Staff anticipates awarding a contract in mid- ~$20M + (TBD)
June. Construction on site – including grading, utilities, and building foundations - could begin as early as July 2024.
Childcare Center (Core &
Shell only)
The project was released for bid on January 26, with bids scheduled to close on February 23. Staff anticipates awarding a contract in March. Construction on site could begin in early spring, with re-location of the portable units occurring in late July after the end of the school year. This project currently consists of providing a core and shell building only. The details of childcare facility operation are in progress.
$1.65M
Dog Park The project is currently in winter suspension. Construction of concrete curb, asphalt, and fencing will occur along with installation of the restroom and artificial turf in the spring.
$1.1M
SHARP Trailhead
Infrastructure
The project will be released for bid on February 2, with bids scheduled to close on on February 22. Staff anticipates awarding a contract in March. Construction on site could start in spring of next year.
$1M
2024 Road & MUP Rehab Staff is developing plans for the rehabilitation of several road and MUP segments throughout Town. Proposed treatment methods include full removal and replacement of existing failing asphalt as well as fog seals to preserve the life of pavement on many arterial and collector roads. The full extent of work is also dependent on the outcome of an approximately $1M grant application. We anticipate releasing the project for bid in mid-March and awarding a contract in early May, with work beginning in June or July. Due to the large scope of work, the project may extend into 2026.
~$4M - $5M
(TBD)
Mammoth Creek Park West
(CRC)
Staff is developing plans for rehabilitation and augmentation of Mammoth Creek Park adjacent to the CRC. Scope includes installation of a picnic/performance pavilion, bouldering structure, playground wood chips, asphalt path, irrigation and grass, some artificial turf, and fence repair. We expect to bid the project in February, with the goal of completing all work prior to the Town’s 40th Anniversary celebration on Labor Day.
~$500K (TBD)
Mammoth Arts & Cultural
Center (MACC)
The Town has received the Design Development submittal for review. The project will likely be brought to PEDC for Design Review approval in March, with bidding and permit submittal occurring in April at approximately the same time as the Town Civic Center. Staff anticipates awarding a contract in mid-June and beginning construction in July.
~$15M + (TBD)
Town Facility Painting Staff is developing plans for exterior and interior painting of several Town facilities. Work is expected to occur this summer.
TBD
Town Fencing Repairs Staff is developing plans for fencing repairs at a variety of Town locations. Work is expected to occur this summer.
TBD
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: 2023 Mammoth Disposal Annual Report
Council Meeting Date: 2/7/2024
Prepared by: Pam Kobylarz, Assistant to the Town Manager Recommended Motion: No Action.
Summary: In accordance with the Franchise Agreement between Mammoth Disposal and the Town of Mammoth Lakes for Solid Waste Services, Mammoth Disposal will provide an annual report to the Town Council. The report will include the following items:
Performance for the prior calendar year;
Any new programs or services anticipated for the next year; Changes recommended to improve the Town’s ability to meet the goals and/or requirements of state mandates including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383; Any specific plans for provision of such new services; The estimated expenses and adjustments to rates if any are necessary to compensate Mammoth Disposal for providing such services, or a justification indicating why they believe that such services are not feasible for the Franchise Area; A discussion of any significant achievements or problems for the preceding year; Vehicle fleet summary and information; and
Any relevant updates for technological, economic, and/or regulatory changes in solid waste collection and processing.
Mammoth Disposal has provided the attached report for 2023 and will provide a verbal report at the meeting.
Mammoth Disposal | Three Year Review
2021, 2022 & 2023
Meet Our Team!
Mike – District Manager
Michelle – Operations Manager
Peter - Operations Manager
Rob – Operations Supervisor
Kendra – Sustainability Coordinator
Maui – Office Manager
Debra – Customer Service
Representative
Kory - Customer Service Representative
Our Awesome
Drivers
Blake
Cesar
Eddie
Hector
James
Javier
Marco
Oscar
Scott
Uriah
Recycling Center
and Transfer
Station Staff
Carlos
Christian
Fernando Jr.
Fernando Sr.
Israel
Lauren
Miguel
Nico
Tanner – Mechanic
Victor
2023 Tonnage/Monthly Reports
➢ Mammoth Disposal Transfer Station
Town of Mammoth Lakes total municipal solid waste tonnage 2023 = 11,979.65 tons ➢ Pumice Valley Landfill tonnage and item types
Total tonnage diverted to Pumice Valley Landfill = 3,512.71 tons Includes green waste (Christmas trees, yard waste, etc.), construction & demolition debris, bulky items (appliances/white goods) and electronic waste.
➢ Mandatory Commercial Recycling (MCR - AB 341) rate for 2023 = 100% compliant ➢ Diversion Rate = 10.01% average for the year
➢ Mattresses recycled:
2021 = 270
2022 = 43
2023 = 242
➢ 77 total commercial cardboard bins in service in 2023 ➢ Customer breakdown (bear carts, commercial, transfer station, etc.) Customer counts:
Commercial - Year 2021 = 584 Year 2023 = 611
Roll-Off Accounts - Year 2021 = 44 Year 2023 = 72
Residential - Year 2021 = 2166 (135 curbside) Year 2023 = 2302 (191 curbside) Recycling Curbside - Year 2021 = 210 Year 2023 = 179
➢ 2023 Customer Complaint Log: 150 total customer complaints recorded – resolved within one day-one week.
#1 issues - wheel or carbineer lock repair/replacement. #2 issues – missed service, blocked by snow or vehicle. #3 issues – replace bin or update/new bin.
Equipment & Vehicles Purchased – CARB Compliant
> Year 2021:
2 - 2021 Peterbilt roll-offs $422,000.
New Retriever Body $166,187.00
1 - Conex container $22,628.00
Roll-off boxes 2-40yd 1-10yd $40,384.00
100 - 95-gallon Bear carts $25,314.00
7- three compartment recycling boxes $23,504.00
33 - New Trash bins 2,3,4,6,yd $57,305.00
Trash bins rebuilt $26,294.00
TOTAL $783,616.00
> Year 2022:
1 – 2022 Material Handler $442,847.00
2 - 2022 Peterbilt front loaders $849,260.00
1- 2022 forklift $57,242.00
2022 Supervisor Pick-up Truck $47,500.00
33 - Trash Bins 2,3,4,6yd $66,836.00
44 - trash Bins 2,3,4,6yd $96,462.00
1- 2022 Yard Mule $50,587.00
Bobcat $131,621.00
Trash bin rebuilt $34,816.00
TOTAL $1,777,171.00
> Year 2023:
4 -2022 Peterbilt front loaders $1,698,520.00
1 - Used loader 2 - Snow blower attachment for bobcat $11,171.00 8- Roll-off boxes 10,30,40yd $85,337.00
75 - 95-gallon Bear carts $19,914.00
1 - Material Handler Grapple $29,258.00
64 - Trash bins $104,838.00
3 -Roll-offs 40yd $29,499.00
Trash bins rebuilt $38,627.00
TOTAL $2,017,164.00
TOTAL 3-Years $4,577,951.00
CA State Recycling Legislation Affecting TOML
➢ AB 939 The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989 as amended [IWMA]) made all California cities, counties, and approved regional solid waste management agencies responsible for enacting plans and implementing programs to divert 25 percent of their solid waste by 1995 and 50 percent by year 2000. Later legislation mandates the 50 percent diversion requirement be achieved every year.
➢ AB 341 Purpose: To reduce GHG emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California.
Business Commercial Recycling Requirements. A business (includes public entities) > that generates four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week or is > a multifamily residential dwelling of five units or more shall arrange for recycling services. Businesses can take one or any combination of the following in order to reuse, recycle, compost or otherwise divert solid waste from disposal:
• Self-haul.
• Subscribe to a hauler(s).
• Arrange for the pickup of recyclable materials.
• Subscribe to a recycling service that may include mixed waste processing that yields diversion results comparable to source separation.
➢ AB 1826 In October 2014 Governor Brown signed AB 1826 Chesbro (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014), requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units (please note, however, that multifamily dwellings are not required to have a food waste diversion program). Organic waste (also referred to as organics throughout this resource), for the purposes of AB 1826, means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste.
▪ The law phased in the requirements for businesses over time, while offering an exemption process for rural counties. Additionally, the law contains a 2020 trigger that further increased the scope of affected businesses. As such, in September of 2020, CalRecycle reduced the threshold to 2 cubic yards of solid waste (solid waste is the total of trash, recycling, and organics) generated by covered businesses.
CA State Recycling Legislation Affecting TOML
➢ SB 1383 In September 2016, Governor Brown set methane emissions reduction targets for California in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP).
The targets must:
• Reduce organic waste disposal 75% by 2025.
• Rescue for people to eat at least 20% of currently disposed surplus food by 2025. ➢ SB 54 California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) on Jun 30, 2022, requiring all packaging in the state to be recyclable or compostable by 2032. California’s SB 54 is one of the most comprehensive plastic legislations to be passed, based on input received from businesses, environmental organizations, and waste management groups. The law will impact manufacturers and sellers of all goods offered for sale in California. Law will require all plastic-covered materials offered in California to be recycled at the following levels: At least 30 percent on and after Jan 1, 2028. At least 40 percent on and after Jan 1, 2030. At least 65 percent on and after Jan 1, 2032.
➢ AB 1276 Prohibits full-service restaurants from providing single-use plastic straws or foodservice ware unless the customer requests it. Took effect JUNE 1, 2022. Reducing singleuse food serviceware. The bill expands California’s existing plastic straw-on-request law to include other single-use serviceware, such as utensils. The bill applies to most restaurants, take-away counters and third-party delivery platforms. Restaurants must supply single-use serviceware if requested by customer. However, restaurant must not provide single-use serviceware if not requested by customer. Enforced by local enforcement agency. Fines enforced for non-compliance. Effective June 1, 2022. Fines up to $25/day. ▪ Buoy is a great option for a reusables program currently being piloted in TOML in 7 restaurants.
➢ AB 1162 AB 1162 effectively prohibits the use of small plastic toiletries, including shampoo, conditioner, and bath soap, across California hotels and lodging establishments. Effective Jan. 1, 2023, the state mandate applies to lodging establishments with more than 50 rooms, and January 1, 2024, it will apply to all lodging establishments with 50 rooms or less. AB 1162 establishes that a lodging establishment found to be in violation of this act shall be liable for a civil penalty of $500 for the first offense and $2,000 for a second or subsequent offenses. ➢ SB 1013 approved by Governor Newsom on September 27, 2022, makes major changes to the Beverage Container Recycling Program, notably: Brings wine and distilled spirits into the California Beverage Container Recycling Program (BCRP) starting January 1, 2024. Expands the convenience zones and significantly modifies the role of dealers in the BCRP. Introduces new grant programs to strengthen and support the circular economy of beverage containers in California.
➢ SB 353 brings 100% fruit juice over 46 oz and vegetable juice over 16 oz to the CRV program.
CalRecycle’s SB 1383 Mandate & Town of Mammoth Lakes
In 2022 CalRecycle approved
our applications for waivers of
exemption, for rural and
elevation. We will be required
to adhere to certain guidelines
within SB 1383, including
collection of green waste and
education and outreach.
However, will be exempt from
a large portion, including
separation of organics, due to
our elevation and rural
location. Kendra will provide
updates as we progress.
Regulated entities are
required to maintain records
that demonstrate how they
are complying with the law.
These records will assist
regulated entities with
preparing for compliance
inspections required by local
and state agencies. Kendra is
collaborating with Inyo Mono
Advocates for Community
Action (IMACA), amongst other
agencies, to maintain our
records and ensure
compliance.
In 2022-23 CalRecycle
awarded Town of
Mammoth Lakes
$20,000 for SB 1383
grant funding. Kendra
writes and implements
these grant funds in
schools and in our
community. In 2024-
2025 we will receive
$75,000 for SB 1383
which will go towards
community green waste
collection day events,
composting and demos,
and education and
outreach. Our green
waste will be hauled to
Carson City, NV at Full
Circle Organics, for
composting.
Mandate Outreach
All info provided to local businesses, restaurants and lodging, in English and Spanish.
2023 Sustainability Outreach
➢ 8 tower gardens placed and harvested in every
school, 4 CalRecycle grants written and received –
for water filling stations, tower gardens, Vons
enclosure and more, 1 Chamber of Commerce
Business After Hours event for Mammoth Disposal,
1 ribbon cutting event for our NEW transfer station
with Town Council, 3 school assemblies at MES,
MMS and MHS, 12 Earth Week events and
recycling demos, 32 Zoom meetings, 6 bi-monthly
meetings with Sustainability Coordinators of Waste
Connections, 25 SB 1383, SB 1013 & SB 54
CalRecycle workshops/webinars, 8 recycling
webinars and events, 87 Site Visits & Trash
Assessments for businesses and multifamily.
➢ Recycling education presentations to the following
26 groups/organizations: High Sierra Energy
Foundation | Southern Mono Historical Society |
Mammoth Lakes Restaurant Association | Lions
Club | Mammoth Lakes Lodging Association |
Mammoth Schools Wellness Committee |
Community Services Solutions | Mammoth Voices
| Volunteer Eastern Sierra | Bishop Elementary
School | Lee Vining Elementary School | Lee Vining
High School | IMACA | Noon Rotary | Trails HOA |
2 Snowcreek HOA’s | Inyo 350 | 350 Mono | Lone
Pine Paiute Shoshone Tribe | Bishop Chamber of
Commerce | Bishop Composting Group |
Mammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce | Inyo
County | Town of Mammoth Lakes | Mono County
Board of Supervisors
➢ Our new Transfer
Station!
Benton Crossing Landfill
closed in December
2022. Our new $6.6
million Transfer Station
was built to
accommodate the solid
waste from both Town of
Mammoth Lakes and
Mono County. We also
built a new scale house
and made updates to our
Recycling/Buy Back
Center. With CalRecycle
grant funding we
purchased a new sort
line and recycling
containers.
Stop by for a tour!
>Magnet with QR code for Recycle Right Guide
>Our Team having fun!
➢NEW Recycling/Sustainability Programs for
2024
> CalRecycle’s SB 1013 & SB 353 Mandates bring wine/alcohol and juice to the California Redemption Program (CRV).
> Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Grant received for $46,500 for 2-year cycle. We will implement FREE e-waste, and other HHW materials, collection day events.
> SB 1383 Grant funding for $75,000 for 2-year cycle. We will implement FREE green waste collection day events. All green waste collected will be composted.
> PaintCare Grant, up to $100,000 for 2-year cycle for new reuse shed/storage facility. We will implement a new paint and reuse program. > CalRecycle Beverage Container Grant for TOML and Mammoth Disposal will fund $275,000 for recycling and equipment over a 2-year cycle starting this summer. We will purchase much needed new cardboard containers and other recycling equipment for our community.
Town Council of Mammoth Lakes
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 17, 2024, 4:00 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members Present: Mayor Bill Sauser, Mayor Pro Tem Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, Councilmember Amanda Rice, Councilmember John Wentworth
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Parks and Recreation Director Stuart Brown led the flag salute.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments given at this time.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
5.1 Elections Update presented by Mono County Clerk-RecorderRegistrar Queenie Barnard.
Town Council Minutes
January 17, 2024
Ms. Barnard gave a presentation regarding the upcoming election. There was discussion among members of Council and Ms. Barnard.
Councilmember Bubser arrived at 4:12 p.m.
6. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS (AS NEEDED) Fred Wong, District Ranger of the Mammoth Ranger District, gave an update regarding current Forest Service activities. There was discussion among members of Council and Mr. Wong.
Administrative Services/Finance Director Rob Patterson gave an update regarding the STR Advisory Committee.
Parks and Recreation Director Stuart Brown gave an update regarding the Town's new website and the Community Recreation Center.
6.1 Did you Know? Short-term Rentals – Taxable Items.
6.2 Receive the monthly Parcel Affordable Housing Project Construction Update.
Engineering Manager Amy Callanan gave a presentation regarding the construction update for The Parcel. There was discussion among members of Council and staff. Shellan Rodriguez, SMR Development representing the Pacific Companies, gave an update regarding Phase 2 and Phase 3 of The Parcel.
6.3 Mammoth Main Base Redevelopment Project Update (“Evolving Main”) (Mammoth Mountain Main Lodge Area).
Jen Murillo, Lisa Wise Consulting, gave an update regarding the Mammoth Main Base Redevelopment Project. There was discussion among members of Council, Ms. Murillo, and staff.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Councilmember John Wentworth
Seconded by Councilmember Amanda Rice
Approve the Consent Agenda.
For (5): Mayor Bill Sauser, Mayor Pro Tem Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, Councilmember Amanda Rice, and Councilmember John Wentworth Carried (5 to 0)
Town Council Minutes
January 17, 2024
7.1 Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 3, 2024.
7.2 Approve the minutes of the special meeting of January 10, 2024.
7.3 Authorize the Contract for the Design of the Airport Parking Lot Reconstruction Project to Brandley Engineering Inc.
7.4 Authorize the Contract for Construction Management During the AWOS Relocation and Upgrade Project to Brandley Engineering Inc.
7.5 Accept Check Register 11/11/24 in the amount of $683,535.57.
8. POLICY MATTERS
8.1 Consider Adoption of the Second Amendment to the Solid Waste Services Agreement between the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mammoth Disposal Company related to rate adjustments.
Town Manager Daniel C. Holler outlined the information in the staff report.
Mike Smith, Mammoth Disposal, spoke about the need for the contract amendment. There was discussion among members of Council and Mr.
Smith.
Moved by Councilmember John Wentworth
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Chris Bubser
Adopt the Second Amendment to the Solid Waste Services Agreement between the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mammoth Disposal Company related to rate adjustments.
For (5): Mayor Bill Sauser, Mayor Pro Tem Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, Councilmember Amanda Rice, and Councilmember John Wentworth
Carried (5 to 0)
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.1 Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Solid Waste Disposal Charges and Rates for January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2027.
The Mayor opened the public hearing at 5:31 p.m.
Town Council Minutes
January 17, 2024
Assistant to the Town Manager Pam Kobylarz outlined the information in the staff report. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.
Mike Smith, Mammoth Disposal, spoke about the fuels surcharge. There was discussion among members of Council and Mammoth Disposal staff.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Tom Cage, Main Street commercial property owner, said that there were a lot of dumpsters in the area and asked if we could consolidate and reduce the number of dumpsters. There was discussion among members of Council and Mr. Cage.
Diana Hawkins asked about short term rentals.
The Mayor closed the public hearing at 5:49 p.m.
There was discussion among members of Council and staff.
Moved by Councilmember John Wentworth
Seconded by Councilmember Amanda Rice
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Solid Waste Disposal Charges and Rates for January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2027.
For (5): Mayor Bill Sauser, Mayor Pro Tem Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, Councilmember Amanda Rice, and Councilmember John Wentworth
Carried (5 to 0)
10. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Rea attended the Mammoth Lakes Recreation Board meeting.
Councilmember Wentworth attended the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District Board meeting, the STR Advisory Committee meeting, and the State Conference on Climate Change.
Councilmember Rice attended the Eastern Sierra Community Housing meeting and the STR Advisory Committee meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Bubser attended the Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) Board meeting.
Town Council Minutes
January 17, 2024
Mayor Sauser gave the "puck drop" to start the hockey season at the Community Recreation Center. He attended the ESTA Board meeting.
There was discussion among members of Council.
11. CLOSED SESSION
At 6:08 p.m. the Mayor announced that the Council would be entering into closed session for the purposes as stated in the agenda.
11.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, the Council will hold a conference to consider evaluation of a public employee: Town Manager.
12. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN AFTER CLOSED SESSION
The Council reconvened from closed session at 6:45 p.m. and announced that there was no reportable action taken.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Jamie Gray, Town Clerk
Town Council of Mammoth Lakes
Minutes of Special Meeting
January 31, 2024, 3:30 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members Present: Mayor Bill Sauser, Mayor Pro Tem Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, Councilmember Amanda Rice, Councilmember John Wentworth
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Mayor Pro Tem called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes.
Councilmember Rea requested that she be allowed to join the meeting remotely under the just cause provisions of Government Code Section 54953(f)(2)(A)(i) due to illness of her child.
Mayor Sauser requested that he be allowed to join the meeting remotely due to a family medical emergency under Government Code Section 54953(f)(2)(A)(ii).
ACTION:
It was moved by Councilmember Amanda Rice, seconded by Councilmember John Wentworth, and carried by a 5-0 vote to allow Mayor Sauser to participate in the meeting remotely.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments given at this time.
Town Council Minutes
January 31, 2024
3. CLOSED SESSION
At 3:38 p.m. the Mayor Pro Tem announced that the Council would be entering into closed session for the purposes as stated in the agenda.
3.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, the Town Council will hold a conference with its representatives in regard to property negotiations pertaining to:
Property: State Route 203 Public Right of Way
Agency Negotiators: Daniel C. Holler, Amy Callanan, and Rob Patterson
Negotiating Parties: Town of Mammoth Lakes and California Department of Transportation
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment.
3.2 Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (two cases).
3.3 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, the Town Council will hold a conference with its representatives in regard to property negotiations pertaining to:
Property: 1629 Majestic Pines, Unit 91 (APN: 033-301-091-000) – Bigwood Complex
Agency Negotiators: Daniel C. Holler, Nolan Bobroff, and Rob Patterson
Negotiating Parties: Town of Mammoth Lakes and Property Owner, Mark Bense
Under Negotiation: Sales price and terms of payment for the purchase of the property.
3.4 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, the Town Council will hold a conference with its representatives in regard to property negotiations pertaining to:
Property: 384 Joaquin Road, Unit 34 (APN: 033-172-034-000) – Forest Creek Complex
Town Council Minutes
January 31, 2024
Agency Negotiators: Daniel C. Holler, Nolan Bobroff, and Rob Patterson
Negotiating Parties: Town of Mammoth Lakes and Property Owner, Zarrinkelk Family Trust 01-28-15
Under Negotiation: Sales price and terms of payment for the purchase of the property.
3.5 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov’t Code Sec. 54957) Title:
(Town Manager).
4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN AFTER CLOSED SESSION
The Council reconvened from closed session at 5:46 p.m. and announced that they were proceeding with the appointment Rob Patterson as the next Town Manager subject to final approval on compensation and employment agreement to be considered at the February 7, 2024 Council Meeting.
5. ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned the meeting at 5:46 p.m.
Jamie Gray, Town Clerk
1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Authorize the Contract for the Airport Pavement Maintenance Management Plan Update to Brandley Engineering Inc.
Meeting Date: February 7, 2024
Prepared by: Sierra Shultz, Deputy Airport Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Town Council authorize the agreement with Brandley Engineering, Inc. to perform a Pavement Maintenance Management Plan (PMMP) for all airfield pavements at Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MMH) in an amount not to exceed $135,000.
BACKGROUND:
A PMMP provides reporting of surface conditions, remaining pavement life, and recommendations for schedule, type, and cost of maintenance to extend the life of the pavement or reconstruction. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires sponsors to prepare and maintain an updated PMMP for the airport to remain eligible for federal funding. The last full PMMP that was prepared for the airport was in December of 2014.
A Pavement Maintenance Management Plan should be done every 5 to 10 years. On September 12, 2023, staff executed an Airport Infrastructure Grant (AIG) agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the purposes of funding this Pavement Maintenance Management Plan.
ANALYSIS:
Brandley Engineering Inc. has been conducting engineering and architectural services for Mammoth Yosemite Airport for many years. Staff issued a Request for Qualifications for engineering and architectural services at the airport in June of 2023 and after reviewing Statements of Qualifications and conducting interviews. Brandley Engineering Inc., along with one other firm, was selected to provide on-call engineering services as needed.
A record of negotiation and independent fee estimate was completed by staff to ensure a reasonable fee and scope of work. The proposed contract scope of work for this project includes several major components, as follows:
a. Deep-Seated Distress
Non-destructive testing will be conducted to obtain the necessary basic data to evaluate the airfield pavements. Where deep-seated distress analysis is required, all pavements will be tested with the falling weight deflectometer. This method will be used to determine the predicted time of failure under fatigue loading.
2 b. Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Determination
A detailed visual inspection of all pavements will be performed to identify distress or failure due to weathering, other environmental efforts, age, traffic, or lack of maintenance.
c. Engineering Analysis and Report
The engineering analysis and report will include traffic determination and forecasting, analysis and recommendations, rehabilitation costs, and the pavement maintenance management program report. The pavement maintenance management program report will summarize the above information and detail the pavement rehabilitation plan and schedule including estimated budgets.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The amount of funding received through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Infrastructure Grant (AIG), number 3-06-0146-051-2023, was $126,924. The grant requires a sponsor match of $13,076, bringing the total funds available for this project to $140,000. The available funds are sufficient to cover the cost of the PMMP and Town administrative expenses.
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Approve the Resolution adopting the Town of Mammoth Lakes Paid Sick Leave Policy.
Council Meeting Date: 2/7/2024
Prepared by: Amanda Pelham, Human Resources Manager
Recommended Motion: Approve the Resolution adopting the updated Town of Mammoth Lakes Paid Sick Leave Policy, which incorporates amendments to the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 as outlined in California Senate Bill 616, expanding paid sick leave requirements.
Summary: The Town of Mammoth Lakes recognizes that employees may need days off from work to attend to their own health care, or the health care of family members, to ensure a healthier and more productive workplace.
Existing law under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Facilities Act of 2014 (“Act”) establishes requirements relating to employee entitlements to paid sick leave. Effective January 1, 2024, California Senate Bill 616 (“SB 616”) expands that Act by increasing the amount of paid sick leave to five (5) days or 40 (forty) hours (up from three (3) days or twenty-four (24) hours), increases the annual usage cap from twenty-four (24) to forty (40) hours, and continues to allow employers to choose between an accrual or front-load method based on an applicable 12-month period. The Town of Mammoth Lakes Paid Sick Leave Policy (“Policy”) provides employees with five (5) days or forty (40) hours, whichever is greater, of paid sick leave front-loaded at the beginning of a 12-month period, and the 12-month period shall be defined as the start of each calendar year. Additional language in the Policy has been updated to incorporate a “designated person” under the definition of a family member.
The Town of Mammoth Lakes Paid Sick Leave Policy shall be included in this Resolution as Attachment A, is effective upon approval and adoption, with paid sick leave requirements operative as of January 1, 2024, per SB 616.
RESOLUTION NO. 24--XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH
LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
PAID SICK LEAVE POLICY
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Labor Code sections 245 and 246 et seq., it is necessary for the Town of Mammoth Lakes (“Town”) to incorporate legislative requirements, and adopt a Paid Sick Leave Policy allowing employees paid days off from work to attend to their own health care, or the health care of family members; and WHEREAS, the Town has a need to meet the requirements of the Town by providing public services through the use of limited-term employees, and must establish conditions of employment and appropriate benefits for such employees; and WHEREAS, conditions of employment and benefits for limited-term employees have been set in a previous Resolution No. 23-79; and
WHEREAS, California state legislature passed Senate Bill 616 (“SB 616”), amending the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 to set a statewide minimum standard for paid sick leave, and the new California Paid Sick Leave law is effective as of January 1, 2024.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Limited-term employees for the purposes of this resolution are those defined in Chapter 2.44.040 of the Town’s Municipal Code as being excluded from the Town’s Personnel System Rules.
Section 2. Limited-term employees are not eligible for discretionary Town benefits, other than as provided for below and by state or federal law.
Section 3. Limited-term employees are eligible for paid sick leave in accordance with state law and the Town’s Paid Sick Leave Policy.
Section 4. Employees who are eligible for a comprehensive leave benefit provided by the Town pursuant to a memorandum of understanding (represented employees), employee benefits resolution (non-represented employees), or employment agreement, are not eligible for additional paid sick leave as comprehensive leave accruals exceed the minimum requirements of paid leave that can be used for health care.
Resolution No. 24-
Section 5. As defined by Assembly Bill 304 (“AB 304”), retired annuitants are not eligible for paid sick leave.
Section 6. The Town’s Paid Sick Leave Policy shall be included in this Resolution as Attachment A, is effective upon approval and adoption, with paid sick leave requirements operative as of January 1, 2024, per SB 616.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7
th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.
_________________________________
BILL SAUSER, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
I. Purpose and Scope
In accordance with the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (“Act”), and as amended by California Senate Bill 616 (“SB 616”) effective January 1, 2024, The Town of Mammoth Lakes ("Town") recognizes that employees may need days off from work to attend to their own health care, or the health care of family members, to ensure a healthier and more productive workplace. This document establishes the policies and procedures the Town shall adhere to with regards to paid sick leave in accordance with California Labor Code sections 245 and 246 et seq.
This policy applies to temporary, part-time, and seasonal employees who work for the Town for thirty (30) or more days within twelve (12) months from the beginning of employment, and who are not eligible for any form of comprehensive leave benefit provided by the Town to employees in recognized bargaining units.
Employees not covered by this policy are those who are eligible for a comprehensive leave benefit provided by the Town pursuant to a memorandum of understanding (represented employees), employee benefits resolution (non-represented employees), or employment agreement, which exceed the minimum requirements. As defined by California Assembly Bill 304 (“AB 304”), retired annuitants are not eligible for paid sick leave.
II. Policy
A. Entitlement
Employees covered by this policy are entitled to five (5) days or forty (40) hours of paid sick leave annually, which may be used within a twelve- (12-) month period or term of employment. Employees shall be provided five (5) days or forty (40) hours, whichever is greater, of paid sick leave front-loaded at the beginning of a twelve- (12-) month period; the twelve- (12-) month period shall be defined as the start of each calendar year. As the full amount of paid sick leave shall be provided to employees up front at the start of each calendar year, employees shall not be entitled to carry over of paid sick leave from one calendar year to the next.
The maximum benefit is forty (40) hours, except in situations where a day in an employee's regular work schedule is longer than an eight (8) hour day (e.g., an employee authorized to work an alternative work schedule of four (4), ten (10) hour days per week). In such cases, a "day" shall be the equivalent of the hours in the employee's regularly scheduled workday.
Paid sick leave made available under this policy has no cash value, and the Town shall not compensate employees for unused sick leave upon termination, resignation, retirement, or other separation from employment.
B. Usage
1. Paid sick leave shall not be considered “time actually worked” as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the purposes of calculating overtime.
2. An employee shall be entitled to use available paid sick leave beginning on the ninetieth (90th) calendar day of employment. Employees shall not be permitted to use paid sick leave prior to their ninetieth (90th) day of employment. Exceptions to this may be approved at the discretion of the Town Manager, or designee.
3. The Town shall allow the use of paid sick leave upon the oral or written request (e.g., by pho ne, in
person, via text message, or email) of an employee for themselves or a family member for the diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health condition, preventative care, or specified purposes for an employee who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and the purposes described in Labor Code section 230(c) and Labor Code section 230.l(a).
4. "Family member" for purposes of this policy is defined as:
a. A child (biological, adopted, or foster child, stepchild, legal ward, or child to whom the employee stands in loco parentis, regardless of the age or dependency status).
b. A biological, adoptive, or foster parent, stepparent, or legal guardian of an employee or the employee's spouse or registered domestic partner, or a person who stood in loco parentis when the employee was a minor child. c. A spouse.
d. A registered domestic partner.
e. A grandparent.
f. A grandchild.
g. A sibling.
h. A designated person: a person identified by the employee at the time the employee requests paid sick leave. The Town may limit an employee to one (1) designated person per twelve- (12-) month period for paid sick leave.
The employee must provide reasonable advance notification, orally or in writing, of the need to use sick leave, if foreseeable. If the need to use sick leave is not foreseeable, the employee must provide notice as soon as practical. The Town will not condition the use of paid sick leave on the employee finding someone to cover their work.
5. Employees must use paid sick leave in at least one half (0.5) hour increments.
6. Eligible employees shall be authorized to use paid sick leave for a maximum number of hours equal to the number of hours they were scheduled to work. For example, if the employee was scheduled for a four (4) hour shift, they will be compensated with four (4) hours of paid sick leave. If the employee was scheduled for an eight (8) hour shift, they will be compensated with eight (8) hours of paid sick leave.
7. The Town will limit the use of paid sick days to forty (40) hours or five (5) days in each twelve- (12-) month period.
8. New employees will be provided with the full amount of paid sick leave that may be used per calendar year (forty (40) hours or five (5) days) at the commencement of their employment. An employee shall not be entitled to use paid sick leave until the beginning of the ninetieth (90th) day of their employment.
9. Returning temporary, part-time, and seasonal employees who have had a break in service of more than one (1) year from their date of separation, shall be provided with paid sick leave as outlined above. Returning temporary, part-time, and seasonal employees who have a break in service of less than one (1) year, shall have previously provided, and unused paid sick leave reinstated, providing they worked for at least a ninety- (90-) day period in their previous term of employment. The Town shall not reinstate paid time off to an employee who was paid out at the time of termination, resignation, or separation of employment. Employees previously eligible for a comprehensive leave benefit pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, employee benefits resolution, or employment agreement, who return in a temporary, part-time, or seasonal capacity, shall not be entitled to use paid sick leave until the beginning of the ninetieth (90th) day of their temporary employment.
If a returning temporary, part-time, or seasonal employee did not satisfy the ninety- (90-) day requirement during their first appointment, they will not have access to paid sick leave until this requirement has been met. For example, if the employee only worked for a sixty- (60-) day period during their first appointment, they would not have access to their paid sick leave until they have worked for a thirty- (30-) day period during their second appointment. If an employee is re-hired after one (1) year of their termination, they will be required to satisfy the ninety- (90-) day period again.
C. Record Keeping
1. Under Labor Code section 2810.5, a Notice to Employee shall be provided to all employees eligible for paid sick leave at the commencement of their employment.
2. Information showing available paid sick leave shall be displayed on employees’ bi-weekly, itemized pay statements.
3. Records showing paid sick leave usage for individual employees shall be kept for three (3) years following termination, in accordance with the Town's Records Retention Schedule. This information shall be available for review by the Department of Industrial Relations.
III. Responsibility for Review
The Human Resources Manager, or designee, is responsible for reviewing this policy as needed or at least every five (5) years.
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Approve the Resolution adopting the Town of Mammoth Lakes Snow Patrol Policy.
Council Meeting Date: 2/7/2024
Prepared by: Amanda Pelham, Human Resources Manager
Recommended Motion: Approve the Resolution adopting the Town of Mammoth Lakes Snow Patrol Policy.
Summary: The Town of Mammoth Lakes recognizes a need to establish an internal Snow Patrol program (“Program”) for the purpose of continuing to provide additional services to the community during snow events, while taking advantage of state and federal funding opportunities available to support the program.
Based on the type of duties provided to the community of Mammoth Lakes under the Snow Patrol program, employee wages may be eligible for reimbursement through California Gas Tax, and by state and federal agencies such as the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To adequately prepare, and apply for reimbursement opportunities, the Town has a need to quantify wages expensed for duties performed, and outline how employees shall be compensated for hours worked under the program.
Participation in the Snow Patrol program shall be entirely voluntary, authorization for deployment shall be at the discretion of the Town Manager, or designee, and participation shall be approved by each employee’s Supervisor, Department Head, and Human Resources.
The Town of Mammoth Lakes Snow Patrol Policy shall be included in this Resolution as Attachment A and is effective upon approval and adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 24--XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH
LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
SNOW PATROL POLICY
WHEREAS, the Town of Mammoth Lakes (“Town”) recognizes a need to establish an internal Snow Patrol program (“Program”) for the purpose of providing additional services to the community during snow events; and
WHEREAS, the Town has a need to consider the cost of employee wages expensed for services provided under the Snow Patrol program, and seek reimbursement and funding opportunities provided by California Gas Tax, and other state and federal agencies; and WHEREAS, to adequately prepare, and apply for reimbursement and funding opportunities, the Town has a need to quantify wages expensed for duties performed, and outline how employees shall be compensated for hours worked under the program; and WHEREAS, the Town has a need to identify the parameters of the Snow Patrol program through implementation of the Town of Mammoth Lakes Snow Patrol Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes does hereby adopt the Town of Mammoth Lakes Snow Patrol Policy.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7
th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.
_________________________________
BILL SAUSER, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk
A -1
ATTACHMENT A
I. Purpose and Scope
Thew Town of Mammoth Lakes (“Town”) recognizes a need to establish an internal Snow Patrol program (“Program”) for the purpose of increasing support to our Garage Operations, Street Maintenance, and Police Services divisions while performing snow control operations on public streets and other rights-of-way. Participants in the Snow Patrol program provide supplemental support, primarily during weather events creating hazardous road conditions. Duties for Snow Patrol participants include, but are not limited to, assisting stranded motorists, providing chain assistance and chain restriction education, supporting traffic control, and alerting visitors and residents on vehicle parking and snow storage issues affecting snow removal and life safety.
Based on the type of snow control duties provided to the community of Mammoth Lakes under the Snow Patrol program, employee wages may be eligible for reimbursement through California Gas Tax, and by state and federal agencies such as the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Town has a desire to provide Snow Patrol services while taking advantage of all funding opportunities available to support the program.
Therefore, the Town has a need to quantify wages expensed for duties performed under the program, and employees shall be compensated for hours worked as outlined in this policy under the terms of voluntary participation.
Pursuant to California Government Code, section 3100, all public employees are declared disaster service workers subject to such disaster service activities as may be assigned to them by their superiors or by law. The term “disaster service worker” includes all public employees, and the term “public employees” includes all persons employed by the state or any county, city, city and county, state agency, or public district. The Snow Patrol program shall not interfere with the disaster service worker designation assigned to all Town employees.
II. Policy
A. General Provisions
This policy applies only to employees who complete the Snow Patrol Policy Acknowledgement and OptIn Form provided for in Appendix A. Employees who do not complete the Snow Patrol Policy Acknowledgement and Opt-In Form, and receive approval by their Supervisor, Department Head, and Human Resources, are not eligible to participate in program.
The Town Manager, or designee, shall monitor incoming data from various regional weather forecasting agencies, and coordinate with critical local partnersto assess the need to deploy the Snow Patrol program.
B. Terms of Voluntary Participation
1. Participation in the Snow Patrol program is entirely voluntary.
2. Hours worked in the normal workweek within the Snow Patrol program shall be paid out at an employee’s regular hourly rate of pay and allocated to the department designated in the Snow Patrol Policy Acknowledgement and Opt-In Form; the normal workweek for employees is forty (40) hours.
3. For time actually worked beyond forty (40) per workweek within the Snow Patrol program, overtime shall be paid at time-and-one-half an employee’s regular hourly rate of pay and allocated to the department designated in the Snow Patrol Policy Acknowledgement and Opt-In Form. Employees shall not be eligible to accrue compensatory time-off for hours worked under
A -2
the Snow Patrol program.
4. Employees participating in the program shall not be entitled to a minimum number of hours (call out, reporting pay, standby, etc.), and shall only be entitled to compensation for time actually worked performing duties within the scope of the Snow Patrol program.
5. Employees opting-in to the Snow Patrol program shall complete all required training as considered necessary by the Town Manager, or designee, prior to participation in the program.
6. Safety equipment and uniform pieces required for work in extreme weather conditions shall be provided to all participants in the Snow Patrol program, for program use only. Additional requests for the purchase of safety equipment outside of the standard issued uniform for the program shall be made to the Town Manager, or designee, prior to purchase.
7. Participation in the Snow Patrol program requires a minimum attendance of twenty percent (20%) of authorized deployments throughout the fiscal year (July 1st – June 30th).
C. Authorization
1. Authorization for deployment of the Snow Patrol program shall be at the discretion of the Town Manager, or designee; the Town Manager, or designee, shall appoint a Snow Patrol coordinator for each deployment.
2. Authorization for participation in the Snow Patrol program shall be at the voluntary agreement of each employee, and as approved by the employee’s Supervisor, Department Head, and Human Resources.
3. Authorization for participation shall expire at the end of each fiscal year (July 1st – June 30th); a new Snow Patrol Policy Acknowledgement and Opt-In Form must be submitted for approval each fiscal year, and authorizations shall not carry over from one fiscal year to the next.
4. Voluntary participation in the Snow Patrol program may be terminated at any time, for any reason, by the employee or Town Manager, or designee.
III. Responsibility for Review
The Town Manager, or designee, is responsible for reviewing this policy as needed or at least every five (5) years.
IV. Appendices
Appendix A: Snow Patrol Policy Acknowledgement and Opt-In Form
____________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix A: Snow Patrol Policy Acknowledgement and Opt-In Form Step 1: Indicate your work schedule – Please complete only FLSA Work Schedule Week 1 if you work the same scheduled hours each week (exclusive of meal periods). The FLSA Work Schedule Week 2 fields are provided for employees who have an approved alternative work schedule.
FLSA Work Schedule Week 1
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Total Hours
Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End FLSA Work Schedule Week 2
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Total Hours
Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End Step 2: Indicate your scheduled meal period –
Scheduled Meal Period
Start End
Step 3: Read the statement below carefully – Determine if you elect to opt-in to the Snow Patrol Program and acknowledge all the parameters outlined in the Snow Patrol Policy before completing this document with your signature and date.
I understand that by signing this form, I agree that I am electing to voluntarily participate in the Town’s Snow Patrol Program; to abide by the terms and conditions of the Snow Patrol Policy; and that I acknowledge that my participation will incur costs for my department (including overtime), and that these wages are budgeted and authorized.
Human Resources
P.O. Box 1609, Mammoth Lakes, CA, 93546
(760) 965-3610
www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov
Employee Name Fiscal
Year
Department Authorization
Expiration Date
Employee Signature Date
Approved By
Supervisor Date
Department Head Date
Human Resources Date
06/30/2024
Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Approval of Employment Agreement with Rob Patterson for the position of Town Manager.
Council Meeting Date: 2/7/2024
Prepared by: Bill Sauser, Mayor
Recommended Motion: Approve Employment Agreement with Rob Patterson for the position of Town Manager effective March 1, 2024
Summary:
Following an extensive recruitment process the Town Council has selected Rob Patterson, the Town’s current Finance/Administraive Services Director to be the next Town Manager for Mammoth Lakes. The proposed employment agreement and compensation will need to be discussed and if approved the appointment will be effective March 1, 2024. Mr. Patterson will succeed Town Manager Dan Holler who is retiring on February 29, 2024. A copy of the proposed employment agreement is attached.
1 TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE
ROBERT PATTERSON
TOWN MANAGER
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of February 2024, by and between the Town of Mammoth Lakes, a municipal corporation (“Town”) and Robert Patterson, an individual (“Employee”), in order to provide in writing the terms and conditions of employment for Town Manager services. Town and Employee are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”. The employment agreement in effect between Town and Employee immediately prior to the effective date of this Agreement (as set forth in Section 3.2.1) is hereby superseded as of the effective date, provided that the intention of Town and Employee is that Employee’s employment shall continue uninterrupted.
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Employment of Town Manager
Town desires to employ the services of Employee as Town Manager for the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Employee desires to accept employment as Town Manager under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Duties
3.1.1 Designated Duties. Town hereby agrees to employ Employee as Town Manager of Town to perform the functions and duties in accordance with applicable state law, the Town’s Municipal Code (including, but not limited to Chapter 2.08), as well as the approved Town job description for the position. Employee shall also perform other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the Town Council shall from time-to-time assign.
3.1.2 Control and Supervision. Employee shall serve at the will and pleasure of the Town Council pursuant to the terms and limitations of this Agreement and will be under the day-to-day supervision and direction of the Town Council.
3.1.3 Town Council Meetings. Employee shall attend all Town Council meetings, unless excused by Mayor or directed otherwise by Council.
2 3.1.4 Moonlighting. Employee will focus his professional time, ability, and attention on Town business during the term of this Agreement. To the extent consistent with applicable law, Employee shall not engage in any other business duties or pursuits whatsoever or, directly or indirectly, render any services of a business, commercial or professional nature to any other person or organization, whether for compensation or otherwise, without the prior consent of the Town Council, except that:
(1) The expenditure of reasonable amounts of time not in conflict with the Town’s needs and interests, for educational, charitable, community, and professional activities shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement and shall not require prior consent. (2) This Agreement shall not be interpreted to prohibit Employee from making passive personal investments or conducting private business affairs if those activities do not materially interfere with the services required under this Agreement or create conflicts of interest.
3.1.5 Town Documents. All data, studies, reports and other documents prepared by Employee while performing his duties during the term of this Agreement shall be furnished to and become the property of the Town, without restriction or limitation on their use. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other materials either created by or provided to Employee in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Employee. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of the Town Council, be used by Employee for any purposes other than the performance of his duties. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of services under this Agreement, except as required by law. The terms of this Section 3.1.5 shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
3.2 Term; Termination; Severance Pay
3.2.1 Term. This Agreement shall be effective on March 1, 2024 and continue until June 30, 2026 unless terminated or extended by the Town Council as provided herein (“Term”). In the event that Town wishes to extend the term of this agreement Town shall notify Employee prior to the expiration of this Term and Town and Employee shall thereafter negotiate in good faith concerning any extension of the term and conditions of employment, provided that Town’s decision to extend the term shall be made in the Town Council’s sole discretion and that a decision not to extend the term shall not be deemed a termination without cause.
3.2.2 Termination. The Parties understand and agree that the employment relationship created by this Agreement is “at-will” and that the Employee shall serve at the will and pleasure of the Town Council. The Employee may be terminated at any time for cause, with no advance notice. For purposes of this Agreement, a termination for cause shall be any termination for any cause set forth in California Government Code section 19572. In addition, the Town Council may terminate Employee without cause pursuant to section 3.2.5. This Agreement may also be terminated upon mutual agreement in writing, executed by both Parties.
3 3.2.3 Voluntary Termination. Employee may voluntarily terminate his employment, by resignation or retirement, at any time during the term of this Agreement, subject to at least thirty (30) days’ written notice to the Town Council, unless the Town Council and Employee agree otherwise. In such case, Town shall have no further obligation to provide payments and benefits, including severance benefits, upon the effective date of termination of employment, other than payment of accrued comprehensive leave.
3.2.4. Death. In the event the Employee dies while employed by the Town, his beneficiaries or those entitled to his estate shall be paid any earned salary and accrued comprehensive leave at the Employee’s pay rate on the date of death.
3.2.5 Termination Without Cause. In addition to the other means of terminating this Agreement set forth herein, the Town Council may terminate Employee at any time without cause.
In such event, Employee shall be entitled to receive a severance payment equal to twelve (12) weeks of his salary and shall upon termination be entitled to compensation for accrued comprehensive leave. Nothing in any statute, ordinance, or rule shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the Town Council to terminate, without right of appeal or grievance, the employment of the Employee at any time during the Initial Term or any extension of this Agreement, as provided herein. Accordingly, Employee agrees that this Agreement sets forth the only terms and conditions applicable to the termination of his employment.
3.3 Salary
3.3.1 Base Salary. The Town shall compensate Employee at the weekly rate of $3,961.78 for all work on and after March 1, 2024 during the term of this Agreement. This base salary shall be payable bi-weekly at the same time as other employees of the Town are paid.
3.3.2 Salary Range Adjustments. Pursuant to Resolution No. 23-53, adopted by the Town Council on June 21, 2023, which increased the salary ranges for all Town positions for the FY2023-24, FY2024-25, and FY2025-26 years, the following adjustments shall be made to Employee’s salary range for the term of this Agreement. The adjustments shall be effective at the beginning of the first full pay period in July.
July, 2024 3%
July, 2025 3%
3.3.3 Salary Adjustments. The following adjustments shall be made to Employee’s base rate of pay for the term of this Agreement. These base pay adjustments are exclusive to earned merit increases outlined elsewhere in the agreement. The adjustments shall be effective at the beginning of the first full pay period in July.
July, 2024 1.5%
July, 2025 3%
3.3.4 Merit Increase. Employee shall be eligible for a merit increase of not more than 5% based on an annual performance evaluation conducted by the Town Council. Notwithstanding the
4 foregoing, Employee’s salary will not exceed the adopted salary range for the Town Manager as it may be amended from time to time.
3.3.5 Statutory Requirements. This Agreement shall be deemed to incorporate by reference the provisions of Sections 53243 et seq. of the California Government Code, as they may be amended or renumbered.
3.3.6 Deferred Compensation. Town will contribute to a Town Section 457(b) deferred compensation plan for the benefit of Employee. Beginning July 1, 2023, the Town shall contribute into Employee’s Section 457(b) plan an amount equal to the amount contributed by Employee, not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per pay period for twenty-four (24) per periods per year. The amount of the Town’s contribution is subject to a dollar-for-dollar match by Employee. Such contributions shall continue for the Term of this Agreement unless employee matching funds are reduced or eliminated, or the benefit is terminated by amendment to this Agreement. Payments shall occur as part of the first and second pay periods for each month.
3.3.7 Bonus Program. Employee shall be eligible for an annual contingent payment based upon Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues received during the previous fiscal year to allow them to share in the success of the Town, on the conditions set forth herein. The revenue sharing payment shall not exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000), is subject to applicable taxes and withholdings, and shall not be subject to retirement contributions by Employee or Town. The amount, if any, of the payment will be calculated by dividing (i) eight percent (8%) of the amount by which Town’s TOT revenues for a fiscal year exceed the budgeted TOT revenues to be retained by Town (i.e. excluding TOT allocated to third parties for tourism, housing, and transit purposes) by (ii) the number of eligible Town employees to determine Employee’s share, using the same calculation applied to all Employees. In order to be eligible for this contingent revenue sharing payment, Employee must be (a) employed with Town for some part of the fiscal year on which the calculation is based; and (b) employed with Town on the date the payment is made. Employee is not eligible for this payment, and has no right to it, unless both criteria are satisfied. Payments shall be deposited with the first regular payroll in August following the close of the fiscal year upon which the calculation is based.
3.4 Retirement
3.4.1 Retirement Program. Employee is a “PEPRA” Miscellaneous member of the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). The Employee will be covered under the Town’s PEPRA Miscellaneous two percent (2%) at age sixty-two (62) formula and covered in all respects by the Town’s contract with PERS, including any amendments thereto that apply retrospectively and/or affect current employees. As required by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), members hired on or after January 1, 2013 (PEPRA members) are subject to possible increases or decreases to their contribution rate based on the results of annual actuarial valuations. Employee shall pay the entire PEPRA member contribution to CalPERS. Town will pay the required employer contribution to CalPERS and will pay the employer share of Medicare taxes. Employee will receive the Level 4 1959 Survivor Benefit with CalPERS, and two percent (2%) retirement Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). Town will withhold the employee share of Medicare taxes from Employee’s taxable wages.
5 3.5 Leaves
3.5.1 Comprehensive Leave Accruals. Employee may accrue comprehensive leave based upon length of continuous service as determined by his anniversary date of employment with Town according to the following schedule:
Five-year anniversary: 20.67 hours/month
Ten-year anniversary: 22.67 hours/month
Comprehensive leave will not be accrued in excess of eight hundred fifty (850) hours and no more than 850 hours may be carried forward to the following fiscal year.
3.5.2 Elective Payout. Employee may request a payout of comprehensive leave of up to a total of 200 hours per fiscal year. Employee’s request for a payout must retain an accrued comprehensive leave balance of not less than 112 hours after the payout. Payouts will be made at Employee’s then-current regular rate of pay. Employee may elect to take a payout as cash or may elect to deposit a payout through payroll into an eligible 457(b) plan, pursuant to applicable state and federal laws. Payouts will be made in December and June. The requests must be made at least 5 months in advance of the payment and can only apply to leave that will accrue between the date of the request and the pay-out date. Each December and June the Finance Department will notify Employee of the opportunity to request a payout of comprehensive leave for the following June or December. Requests need to be filed on the forms provided by the Finance Department and submitted within the timelines provided on the submission forms.
3.5.3. Administrative Leave. Employee will receive eighty-eight (88) hours of administrative leave per fiscal year. Unused administrative leave will expire at the end of each fiscal will not be carried forward to the next fiscal year or paid out.
3.5.4 Other Leaves. Other leaves will be provided and managed as required by law or Town policy (FMLA, CFRA, Jury Duty, Catastrophic Leave etc.). Employee will integrate the use of comprehensive and administrative leaves for salary purposes as required by law or Town policy but may leave a maximum of 80 hours in comprehensive leave in Employee’s leave bank.
3.6 Insurance
3.6.1 Workers Compensation; Disability Insurance. Town shall provide Employee with State Disability Insurance (“SDI”). Under the California Unemployment Insurance Code, “disability” includes any illness or injury, either physical or mental, including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition that prevents a member from doing their regular or customary work. Employee contributions shall be made via payroll on a pre-tax basis. Employee will pay the amount charged by the State of California for SDI. If Employee is eligible to receive SDI he must utilize paid leave on a prorated basis to supplement SDI payments, in accordance with SDI rules and Town policy. All benefits, including leave accrual, health insurance, and retirement, shall be reduced proportionally to the reduction in paid leave hours utilized in accordance with state and federal laws and Town policy.
6 Employee is covered by the Town’s Workers Compensation insurance program. Whenever Employee is absent due to an illness or injury arising out of and in the course of employment, Employee shall receive full compensation, less any Worker’s Compensation insurance benefits received, during the first fifteen (15) working days of such absence without deduction from accrued comprehensive leave. Thereafter, if Employee is still properly absent from duty, he may receive, from accrued comprehensive leave, if any, an amount equal to the difference between the amount Employee receives as Worker’s Compensation insurance benefits and the amount of his regular compensation until Employee returns to work or accrued leave is exhausted. If comprehensive leave is exhausted, Employee will be compensated at the statutory rate under the current Worker’s Compensation regulations by the Town’s Worker’s Compensation Insurance carrier. All benefits, including leave accrual, health insurance, and retirement, shall be reduced proportionally to the reduction in work hours in accordance with state and federal laws and Town policy; exceptions to the proration may be considered by the Town Council.
3.6.2 Life Insurance. While employed by the Town, Employee will be provided with a term life insurance policy in the amount of $50,000 until the age of seventy (70), after which the policy value shall be reduced to $25,000. Dependents of Employee shall receive a term life insurance policy in the amount of $5,000.
3.6.3 Health Insurance. Employee and his dependents shall be eligible for coverage under the Town’s health plan, subject to the plan’s terms and conditions. Health insurance is provided through a Section 125 flexible benefit account. Employee may participate in other programs offered by the Town by other vendors.
a The Town will contract with CalPERS for a health insurance plan for the period of this Agreement. The town will also maintain a flexible benefit program (Section 125 Plan).
b The Town shall contribute the PEMCHA minimum amount required by CalPERS per month per employee as the “employer contribution” to the cost of the premium for the health program should the employee elect to participate in the plan. c The Town will provide a monthly contribution to the employee in an amount equal to the cost of coverage under the PERS Platinum health insurance plan based upon Employee’s dependent status definition under the PERS health benefit program as “employee”, “employee +1”, or “employee +2” for Employee’s flexible spending (cafeteria) account. This amount is inclusive of the “employer contribution” for the CalPERS health program premium.
3.6.4 Vision and Dental Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) Plan Employee may participate in the Health Reimbursement Arrangement Plan (HRA) as established by the Town to reimburse Employee for vision and dental expenses as defined by IRS Publication 502 and the Town’s Vision and Dental Policy. Employee shall be eligible for reimbursement up to a maximum of $1,500 for Employee and $800 for each eligible dependent (as defined by HRA guidelines specified in IRS Publication 969) per fiscal year. These amounts may be combined for the use of either Employee or any of his/her dependents. When two regular,
7 full-time Town employees are considered to be eligible dependents of one another, they shall not be covered by each other, and their dependent children may only be covered by one parent. Up to 80% of the unused portion of the total benefit may be “rolled over” from one fiscal year to the next, for a total of not more than three fiscal years. For purposes of identifying the unused portion, receipts for the previous year must be submitted within 60 days of the beginning of the fiscal year.
Employee must be in regular, full-time status with the Town at the time the vision/dental services were performed to be eligible for reimbursement.
The current fiscal year benefit amount will be used to pay all reimbursement requests. Once the current fiscal year benefit amount is exhausted, rollover benefit amounts from previous years will be used to fund the reimbursement requests. “Rollover Year 1” benefit will be accessed first for reimbursement requests. Then, “Rollover Year 2” benefit amount will be accessed for reimbursement requests. Finally, if current fiscal year and Rollover Years 1 and 2 benefits have been exhausted, “Rollover Year 3” will be accessed for reimbursement requests. Any amount remaining in “Rollover Year 3” 60 days after the close of a fiscal year will no longer be available to fund reimbursement requests. Employee may elect to not participate in the HRA reimbursement program by notifying Human Resources with a written request to opt out of the plan. Eligibility for reimbursement ends on the last paid day of employment for expenses incurred prior to permanent separation from service. Employee must submit a request to Human Resources in writing prior to permanent separation to be eligible for reimbursement of dental or vision services received prior to their permanent separation. Exceptions to the reimbursement requirements stated in this section are subject to HRA guidelines and Town Council approval.
3.7 Other Terms
3.7.1 Automobile and Transportation. Town shall provide Employee with an automobile for his use on Town business and for occasional de minimis personal purposes, in lieu of providing any vehicle allowance. Town shall be responsible for the costs of operation, repair, maintenance, and liability, property damage and comprehensive insurance for the vehicle. All other travel expenses for which Employee seeks reimbursement will be provided pursuant to Town policies.
As a condition of operating an assigned vehicle, Employee’s driving record shall be monitored, through Town’s existing Employe Pull Notice (EPN) Program, and any deficiencies shall be reported to Town Council for consideration.
3.7.2 Discussion of Amendments. In the event that Town amends the Management Employees Association Memorandum of Understanding to alter the retirement, leave, and/or insurance benefits provided to management employees, Town may request that Employee consider amendments to this Agreement to harmonize it with the revised benefits provided to management employees.
3.7.3 Telephone; Computer. Town will provide a cell phone, capable of receiving and sending email and accessing the Internet. A laptop computer and other related devices for Employee to assist in working hours outside of the Town offices.
3.7.4 Holidays. Employee will be compensated for recognized municipal holidays.
8 3.7.5 Participation in Town Employee Programs. Employee may participate in Town Employee Assistance Program, and Anniversary Awards, or similar benefits provided to all employees, on the same terms as other employees and to the extent that such programs exist.
3.7.6 Work Schedule. The normal work schedule for Employee is from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Additional work hours are anticipated for meetings, workload, events and other work-related requirements. Employee shall receive no extra compensation for hours worked in excess of the normal schedule.
3.7.7 Professional Memberships & Meetings; Other Expenses. Town shall pay for Employee’s professional membership in the League of California Cities and International City / County Management Association (ICMA). Town shall pay for Employee to attend the annual League of California Cities and ICMA conference. Town will pay for such other professional memberships and conference attendance subject to budgetary limits. Town recognizes that certain expenses of a non-personal and job-related nature may be incurred by Employee and shall reimburse Employee for reasonable expenses which are authorized by the Town budget and submitted in accordance with Town policies.
3.7.8 Indemnification. Town shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify Employee against any claim, demand, judgment, or action of any type or kind arising within the course and scope of Employee’s employment to the extent required by Government Code Sections 825 and 995.
3.8 Notices
Notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by deposit in the custody of the United States Postal Service, postage pre-paid, addressed as follows:
Town Town of Mammoth Lakes
P.O. Box 1609
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
ATTN: Mayor
Employee: Robert Patterson
4330 Crowley Lake Dr
Crowley Lake, CA 93546
Alternatively, notices required pursuant to this Agreement may be personally served in the same manner as is applicable to civil judicial practice. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or as of the date of deposit of such written notice in the course of transmission in the United States Postal Service.
3.9 General Provisions
3.9.1 Entire Agreement. The text herein shall constitute the entire agreement between the Parties.
9 3.9.2 Severability. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Agreement is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect.
3.9.3 Bonding. If applicable, the Town shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of Employee in the performance of his duties as Town Manager.
3.9.4 Modification. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing and signed by both Parties. The Town Council may from time to time fix other terms and conditions of employment relating to the performance of Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provision of this Agreement, the Town’s Municipal Code, or other applicable law.
3.9.5 Effect of Waiver. The failure of either Party to insist on strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement by the other Party shall not be deemed a waiver of that term, covenant, or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any right or power at any one time or times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of that right or power for all or any other times.
3.9.6 Assignment. Neither this Agreement, nor any right, privilege or obligation of Employee hereunder shall be assigned or transferred by him without the prior written consent of the Town Council. Any attempt at assignment or transfer in violation of this provision shall, at the option of the Town Council, be null and void and may be considered a material breach of this Agreement.
3.9.7 Law Governing Agreement. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Mono County, California.
3.9.8 No Presumption of Drafter. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the terms and provisions of this Agreement have been negotiated and discussed between the Parties, and this Agreement reflects their mutual agreement regarding the subject matter of this Agreement.
Because of the nature of such negotiations and discussions, it would be inappropriate to deem any Party to be the drafter of this Agreement and, therefore, no presumption for or against validity or as to any interpretation hereof, based upon the identity of the drafter shall be applicable in interpreting or enforcing this Agreement.
3.9.9 Attorneys’ Fees. If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover such amount as the court may award as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
3.9.10 Assistance of Counsel. Each Party to this Agreement warrants to the other Party that it has either had the assistance of counsel in negotiation for, and preparation of, this Agreement or could have had such assistance and voluntarily declined to obtain such assistance. [signatures on following page]
10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of Mammoth Lakes has caused this Employment Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its Town Clerk, and Employee has signed and executed this Employment Agreement effective on the day and year first above written.
TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
By: __________________________________________
Bill Sauser
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Jamie Gray
Town Clerk
Approved as to Form by ________________________
Andrew Morris
Town Attorney
EMPLOYEE
By: ___________________________
Robert Patterson
1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Consider Certified Properties Proposal from STR Advisory Committee.
Meeting Date: February 7, 2024
Prepared by: Rob Patterson, Administrative Services / Finance Director RECOMMENDATION:
The STR Advisory Committee recommends that Town Council review and implement recommendations made to establish a Certified Properties program to address Safety, Penalties, and Fees as outlined and direct staff to make Municipal Code edits to support these administrative changes.
BACKGROUND:
Subcommittee one (Certified Properties) convened to review specific elements of ShortTerm Rental (STR) administration. Town Staff have been working on the program for a year and the general outline included a framework that would correct deficiencies of the current STR management program. However, there were a number of areas where the subcommittee reviewed best practices and appropriate responses based on their knowledge of the industry. These elements included upgraded safety inspection and requirements, tiered penalty structure, and fee schedule. These recommendations, along with an implementation plan defining the timing of the updates, are provided for review.
ANALYSIS:
Safety
The goal of the safety elements is to provide enhanced security for guests, quality of life for the community and improve visitor experience. Our current inspection program includes a review to confirm that safety devices are in place and functional, the unit is in good working order with no defects to structure or fixtures, and all fire mitigation elements are in place and no hazards identified. The full list of the current program is attached (Attachment A).
The recommendations of the subcommittee include the following:
Required Inspections
Currently some properties operating as STRs have never been inspected. They were grandfathered in during the initial push for registration in 2015. The proposal is to have every property certified for STR going through an inspection every 4 years. The 4-year mark is determined by the availability of inspectors, which are outside businesses, not Town employees. With a process of every 4 years, roughly 900 properties per year need to be inspected. In addition to an inspection every 4 years, if a property changes hands, it must go through an inspection before it can be certified for rental. The Town may also conduct
2 interim inspections in response to complaints received. These inspections would be conducted by the Town’s code enforcement unit within the Building department.
Emergency Contact
The emergency contact would need to be either a business in Town providing 24-hour contract services, licensed as such within the Town of Mammoth Lakes, a property management company that provides those services, or an owner who lives within 60 minutes of Town. All information will be verified and published as part of the interactive map.
Interactive Map
The Town would develop an interactive map via link from the Town website of all Certified Properties in the Town of Mammoth Lakes. Each listing would include the name and phone number of the 24-hour emergency contact, manager name and telephone number, occupancy limit of the unit, and available parking spots (if applicable).
Cleaning Services
The cleaning services for each unit can be the owner, property management company, or a licensed business in the Town of Mammoth Lakes. The assigned service provider information will need to be shared with the Town, so that the Town is able to reach out directly with inquiries on the property or health and safety orders or declarations.
Review Occupancy Increase Requests
The Town will review all previously authorized “Increase in Occupancy” that have been issued by the Town’s previous process. The review will be based on tighter criteria than were used for the original approvals. Instead of all being approved unless there is a major concern, applicants would be required to make a case for why the increase is warranted over and above standards. These considerations would be based on unique elements of the property that make it atypical for standards. A simple request for additional occupancy would not be granted.
Educational Materials
Staff to develop a code of conduct document to be provided by each operator for all visitors to review. This is currently in development and may include other media such as videos or marketing pamphlets that may be shared during check in.
Penalties
The goal of any disciplinary action is to encourage operators to remain within regulation with potential implications that are both appropriate and impactful enough to be effective.
The recommendations from the subcommittee were broken into two levels of severity.
Operational Issues – Minor Violations
On occasion, complaints are received on the condition of a property or actions of an operator. The Town can also be made aware of such problems through our normal inspections or code enforcement activity. These minor violations are considered nuisance issues, and the operator should have the opportunity to resolve the issue before any further
3 action is taken. However, in the event that insufficient action is taken, the practices should escalate the Town’s ability to get the problems fixed. Progressive process to address minor violations:
1. The operator is notified of the problems and will have 30 days to resolve the identified problems, to continue renting without penalty or suspension.
2. If the problems are not corrected in the initial 30 days, the operator will receive a fine, in accordance with the Town’s fine schedule for non-compliance.
3. If the problems are not corrected within 45 days of initial notice, the operator would have their license to rent suspended until the problems are resolved to the satisfaction of the Town.
4. Continued operation after suspension, including advertising for rentals, would revert to our enforcement processes that could result in fines of $5,000 per day.
Major Violations of Conduct
These violations are more egregious as they are obvious attempts to defraud the Town of revenue or could create unsafe conditions for patrons as well as the community. This willful intent demonstrates a clear understanding of the rules with a willful intent to disregard them. These violations automatically earn a suspension for a minimum of 90 days.
Examples:
1. During an audit, it is determined that an operator falsely reported income to minimize the amount of tax paid to the Town. During our audits, this occurs roughly 50% of the time and our current practice only requires them to pay penalties and interest on unreported activity. This practice will still require payment of penalties and interest on unreported revenue but would also require a 90-day suspension of activity. Any rental activity or advertisement for rental during the 90-day pause would result in normal enforcement activity up to $5,000 per day.
2. Remodel or construction without a required building permit. If an operator does work without the appropriate permit, they will have their certificate suspended for 90 days. Any rental activity or advertisement for rental during the 90-day pause would result in normal enforcement activity up to $5,000 per day.
3. Three strikes rule. If an operator continues to have minor violations, meaning the problem is resolved but it occurs again due to their practices, they will face a 3- month suspension on the third occurrence. This process would be property based, not owner based, meaning they are issues occurring only at that property. This is important in the event the operator has multiple properties.
4 4. As stated, there is an initial suspension earned on the first occurrence. In the event the operator has multiple violations, they will receive progressive discipline that could suspend their operations for 1 year.
Updated Fees per Certified Property
Town fees are regulated by Proposition 4 and Article XIIIB of the California Constitution which prevents a governmental entity from charging fees that exceed the costs reasonably borne by the entity in providing the product or service. The Town has a set of fees that are based on the cost of staff necessary to issue the license and certificates for any business.
The recommendation is to expand the fee calculation to encompass the entire cost of staff necessary to administer the STR program. Staff has made the following assumptions in assigning the cost of the program to the certified properties engaged in STR activity.
Assumptions of Cost:
1. Use total cost of salary and benefit for the Revenue team and Finance Director, minus one revenue specialist that is assigned to other Business Tax Certificate activity, and 60% of Finance Director to approximate other duties. The department cost, in net of adjustments noted above, is $400,000.
2. Use 20% of Code Enforcement, Public Safety for STR responses - $85,000.
3. Add 1 full-time staff member dedicated to Audit and Enforcement activities - $110,000.
4. Add 1 part-time staff member dedicated to Enforcement Activities - $30,000.
5. Estimated overhead cost of 30% of Staff costs, for facility and other Town costs. $185,000
6. Contract cost for Rentalscape for online monitoring of STR activities. – $90,000
7. Total cost of STR administration - $900,000
8. Total number of Certified Properties, based on current number with incremental growth. 3,600
9. Annual fee for each Certified Property - $250
Recommendation:
Town Staff would collect a $250 fee annually during renewal from each property owner to maintain the certified property and ability to rent transiently in the Town of Mammoth Lakes. The fee would generate $900,000 annually in support of administration, audit, and enforcement activities. The fee will be prorated for Certificates issued during the year. In addition to this fee, the Town would continue to collect the Business Tax Certificate Fee (BTC) annual renewal from the operator. This fee, across all Town businesses, is approximately $325,000 annually.
CONCLUSION
The changes outlined above are part of a comprehensive re-write of Municipal Code Title 3 – Revenue and Finance, and Title 5 – Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations to reflect the removal of TOT certificates, incorporating Certified Properties language. With direction from the Town Council, staff will prepare these edits for first reading on February
5 21, 2024. On this schedule, second reading on March 20, and 30 days to implementation allows these edits to take effect on April 22, 2024.
Termination of the Short Term Rental Moratorium
The termination of the Short Term Rental (STR) Moratorium on the issuance of new STR certificates requires the adoption of an ordinance. The proposal is to introduce an Ordinance to terminate the moratorium on the same time schedule recommended above for implementation of the Certified Property Program. This would terminate the Moratorium on April 22, 24. This is over a month earlier than the operational end date of the Moratorium that was set for May 31, 2024.
1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Receive information and provide direction on STR Advisory Committee Recommendations.
Meeting Date: February 7, 2024
Prepared by: Daniel C. Holler, Town Manager
Rob Patterson, Finance/Administrative Services Director Nolan Bobroff, Community and Economic Development Director RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the STR Advisory Committee recommendations and provide direction regarding next steps on implementation and program design related to:
1) Ballot Tax Measure to fund housing programs.
2) Rental subsidy programs.
3) Housing Down Payment Purchase Program.
4) Continue review of possible zoning changes to the RMF 2 zoning designation.
BACKGROUND:
The Council appointed Short Term Rental (STR) Advisory Committee has completed its work in reviewing the Town’s STR Program, the relationship of STRs to housing, options to incentivize the use of STRs for workforce housing (rental and ownership), and funding options to support recommended programs. The STR Advisory Committee recommends five action items and priorities for implementation.
The Committee recommends the Council proceed with the implementation of the Certified Property Program, which is presented as a separate agenda item for Council consideration.
The implementation of this program requires amendments to the Town Code, which requires an ordinance to be adopted by the Council. Concurrently with this action, it is recommended that an ordinance terminating the STR Moratorium limiting the issuance of new STR Certificates be adopted.
The Committee recognized a funding mechanism is required to incentivize the transition of STRs to assist in meeting workforce housing demand. The priority action item is for the Council to provide directions on a preferred funding source. Two alternatives are presented below.
Recognizing the need for workforce housing now, the Committee supports the implementation of rental subsidy program(s). A few options were discussed and are presented below. The implementation of a pilot program under the Town’s Housing Now! Initiative sooner than later is recommended. This will require the allocation of current Town funds. The design and implementation of the program(s) will take some time. A
2 priority target for this program are households (includes individuals) that are often referred to as those with incomes that are above the limits set for traditional grant funded housing projects (i.e. The Parcel, Aspen Village, etc.) which are not adequate to secure local market rate housing. This is generally incomes that are in the 80%- 150% of the Area Median Income (AMI) tied to household size, with amounts set by the State and Federal Government. The program is not limited only to the “missing middle”, but this provides a targeted expressed need in the community.
Proving long-term, secure housing for the workforce was also determined to be a need in the community. Due to the high cost of purchasing a home, a Down Payment Assistance program is recommended. The program has a similar targeted audience of the “missing middle” households but would look at incomes up to 200% of AMI. The subsidy and down payment assistance program design and guidelines will take time to develop.
The fourth area discussed was a review of the Town’s zoning structure within the current RMF 2 zoning areas. The concept was to consider a split of this zoning district. This will take a substantial amount of staff work. This will amend the current Town Zoning Code and Land Use Plan. The process includes working through the Planning and Economic Development Commission (PEDC), prior to final consideration by the Council. This was a low priority for the STR Committee. Staff still recommend that this work be considered; however, due to the current workload and the time required for this effort, staff agree this should be a low priority item.
An economic analysis and review of related information was also completed by BAE Economics. A copy of the report is attached.
ANALYSIS:
The following information was presented to the STR Advisory Committee at their last meeting on January 30, 2024.
OPTIONS ANALYSIS
1) A Ballot Tax Measure to fund housing programs
The STR (Short Term Rental) Advisory Committee recognizes the need for a stable funding source to support local housing options. To be successful in working with current owners of STRs (or others) there is a need for adequate funding to be able to compete in the rental market or in the purchase of units. The goal of the proposed housing programs is to be added to the Town’s and other agency programs directed at providing affordable, available, community workforce housing. Current housing programs are highly reliant on State and Federal Grant programs that primarily target lower income households (generally at or below 80% of area median income - AMI). Very few housing programs supporting what is referred to as the “missing middle” are available. While the Town has initiated some limited programs the need for households earning from 80% to 200% of AMI is not being met by current grant programs or the general market. The establishment of a dedicated tax was also one of the recommendations of the Community Housing Action Plan.
3 One revenue source is to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate by 2%. The rate could generate between $4.5 million and $3.1 million depending on the amount of TOT used to estimate the amount to be collected. The assumptions looked at a record year of $29.5 million and low of $20 million. The average would be $3.8 million.
A gross receipts tax on Short Term Rentals (all Certified Properties) was discussed. If this funding source is pursued the recommendation was to look at a tax on gross receipts (to be defined) on Short Term Rentals at a rate not to exceed 1.5%. A lower rate may be considered. Depending on what is included in Gross Receipts (i.e., only rental income) the estimated annual revenue based on current activity and all revenues sources ranges from $1.8 million to $2.7 million (average of $2.25 million annually).
Either revenue source will need to be approved by the voters. In preparing a tax measure there is the option to do a general or special tax. The general tax requires a 50% +1 voter approval, and the revenues are part of the Town’s General Fund and are committed by Town Council action. For example, over the five year period from FY17-18 through FY22- 23 the Town Council committed over $30 million to housing programs and projects. A special tax requires a 2/3s voter approval and use of the tax revenue is strictly tied to the purpose(s) provided for in the ballot measure. Other elements may include a sunset provision, oversight requirements, or other conditions.
Options Discussion. The Committee recommended that the Council look at both alternatives, but to only move forward with one tax measure. The leaning of the Committee was for the TOT rate increase of up to 2%. Council will need to set the final rate. If the gross receipts tax on STRs is preferred, a rate not to exceed 1.5% is recommended with the final rate to be set by Council.
To bring a tax measure forward for the November 2024 general election a final ballot measure would need to be completed for submission to the County Clerk prior to August 9 th. This will be a tight, but doable process. To meet this time frame, staff recommend that a single revenue source ultimately be pursued by the Town Council. 2) Rental subsidy programs
Two similar near term rental program subsidy programs were presented. The Committee is recommending that a near term subsidy program be considered. A long-term program will need additional funding commitments. The overall concept is in line with the rental subsidy program that was presented at a recent Chamber of Commerce Power Lunch by Placemates. The program has been launched in a few communities including Truckee, CA representing a comparable program for Mammoth Lakes. The program is referred to as “Lease to Locals”. The program uses the same basic premise of providing subsidy incentives for current owners to rent to locals. The program is based on lease term, number of individuals, bedrooms, other restrictions to qualify, and has an income restriction. The program details will need to be reviewed and refined to fit the Town of Mammoth Lakes.
A copy of the power point presentation is attached. The first year budget estimate is
4 $400,000. The Committee liked the fact that the program is ready to go but requested that the Town explore other options for managing the program. This would slow down the implementation.
An initial rental program presented to the STR Advisory Committee also focused on providing an annual (monthly) subsidy to STR owners to rent long term. The program would set a maximum monthly rent (i.e., $2,500 per month or as adjusted for unit size etc.) and an annual subsidy (i.e., $20,000), which could be a shorter term monthly based subsidy (i.e. 6 or 9 months). The program has flexibility in the actual rent, subsidy amount, and term of the lease. Program details will need to be refined.
Subcommittee 3 provided an outline for a longer-term rental subsidy program looking at a 5 year to 10 year commitment from owners who consider renting units currently used or eligible for short-term rental (STR). The concept looked at providing a monthly or annual subsidy based on the terms of the agreement. The focus was on securing longer-term workforce housing and was a hybrid of programs used by other communities to purchase permanent deed restrictions on units to be leased by local workforce members. Program details will need to be refined. Detailed information was presented at a previous STR Advisory Committee Meeting. If the Council supports this program going forward as a priority, staff will bring forward additional details and program guidelines.
Options Discussion. Implementation of a near term rental subsidy program was a high priority for the Committee. Pending funding, the simplest program is to do a one year pilot with Placemates. The other option is to work with local partners (i.e., Town, Chamber, ESCH, others) to implement a program at the local level but this will take longer to implement.
3) Housing Down Payment Purchase Program
The STR Advisory Committee expressed support for the creation of a Down Payment Assistance program. The program is targeted to households with incomes in the upper missing middle area median income (AMI) range (i.e. up to 200% AMI). The program is designed to compete in the marketplace to assist households purchasing housing units with a focus on transitioning units from STR use to ownership community workforce members.
The program is modeled after similar programs from other communities. The program aids in the purchase of units at an affordable level for the buyer. The program allows for the reimbursement of the Town’s assistance (all or part) and to share in any appreciation in value. The re-use of funds extends out the life of the program. The details, parameters, and overall guidelines will need to be developed. While like the current Town Bridge program, some differences were recommended for consideration. This includes targeting a higher AMI level (current target is 150%), shared appreciation in value, return of downpayment assistance vs. selling units at a reduced price, and less or no deed restrictions on the future sale. A cap would be placed on the dollar value for any single purchase as well as a percentage of the total purchase price. For example, the program may provide up to 49% of the purchase price and may not exceed $400,000. The final structure and guidelines will need to be directed and approved by Council.
5 If the program moves forward, it would be an added alternative program for home ownership options under the Town’s Housing Now! Initiative. Funding for any single purchase will depend on final program guidelines, purchase price of the home, and qualifications of the buyer.
Options Discussion. The program is not currently funded. However, pending availability of housing related funding, a pilot program may be recommended. This would follow completion of the program structure and requirement for participation of both buyers and sellers. A pilot program may be created to target a couple ofsales pending available funding to allow the program to be refined. The program may be designed with implementation pending securing a funding source.
4. Continue review of possible zoning changes to the RMF 2 zoning designation.
The concept for changing the RMF-2 zoning came about during the discussions related to the imposition of the STR moratorium and were based on the numerous comments made that the multi-family complexes in the vicinity of the Ski Portals were developed to directly serve the ski area and provide a critical mass of units/sleeping accommodations intended for transient occupancy (i.e., stays less than 31 days).
The proposal that has come out of the STR Committee is to consider a split of the RMF-2 properties into 2 zones:
The RMF-R (or RMF-3) zone would be an area for the development of multiplefamily development and other lodging types uses where transient occupancy use is emphasized and encouraged. The proposed boundaries for the new RMF-R zone include the existing RMF-2 properties located northwest of Lake Mary Road and Minaret Road and the existing RMF-2 properties on the west end of Meridian Boulevard near Eagle Lodge (see attached map).
The RMF-2 zone would retain the same description and allowed uses as are currently allowed and would be an area for the development of primarily multiplefamily developments, where Transient Rentals, Bed and Breakfasts, and Hotels and Motels are permissible. The proposed boundaries for the existing RMF-2 zone would be the existing RMF-2 zoned properties not described above (see attached map). Key attributes of the zones are:
Transient rentals will continue to be allowed in both zones. One option under consideration is to offer incentives (e.g., rental subsidy, downpayment assistance) with a focus on the RMF-2 zone. Owners in both zones would continue to have the option to short-term rent, live in the unit full-time or part-time, or rent the unit on a long-term basis.
Options Discussion. The Committee set this item as low priority. Staff agrees and at this point, this item is a Low Priority work program item that may be analyzed and considered at a later date.
Attachments
6 Placemate Presentation
Zoning Map
BAE Economic Analysis
Mammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce
Power Lunch
Jan 24, 2024 Chase Janvrin
General Manager
[email protected]
Agenda
Background on Lease to Locals
Market Deep Dive — Truckee, CA
Bringing Lease to Locals to Mammoth Lakes
Placemate’s Vision and Mission:
Vision: We envision a world where communities thrive
because local employees can find stable housing.
Mission: Our mission is to help local employees secure
housing in tourism-based economies, through
innovative public and private partnerships across the
country.
Convert existing
housing stock to
new longer-term
rentals for the local
workforce in tourist
towns
Provide property
owners cash
incentives to convert
their properties into
seasonal and
long-term rentals
Allow local
governments to
quickly and efficiently
address critical
“missing middle”
housing needs
Lease to Locals Program Structure
Lease to Locals Markets Truckee, CA
September 2020
Summit County, CO
October 2021
South Lake Tahoe, CA
January 2022
Placer County, CA
August 2022
Ketchum, ID
October 2022
Eagle County, CO
June 2023
Nantucket
September 2023 Page 90 of 282
People housed
495 1,109
New units unlocked
*Data as of Jan 2024
Results to Date*
Lease to Locals Overall Results
2,446 total property owner leads
Launched September 8, 2020
Market Deep Dive
Property must be
located in Town of
Truckee
Property must NOT have
had full time tenants in
last 12 months
Leases can be seasonal
(5+ months), or long-term
(12+ mo.) and rent can not
exceed $3,500/mo
Incentive amounts vary
based on length of lease
and number of Qualified
Tenants, up to $18,000
At least 50% of the
household must be
locally employed (TTUSD
boundary) at least 20
hours per week
Average adult gross income
can not exceed 150% AMI
($118,125)
Guidelines
Program Policies
Incentive Amounts
Lease length 1 Qualifying
Tenant
2 Qualifying
Tenants
3 Qualifying
Tenants
4 Qualifying
Tenants
Seasonal (5-11 months) $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000
Long Term (12+ months) $4,500 $9,000 $13,500 $18,000
Results - Total Pipeline
822
27 154
Total homeowner leads
Qualified/Interested
Total Properties
641 Not Qualified/Not Interested
Total People
Housed
335
Median
rent/bedroom
$1,066
Median
rent/property
$2,646
Results Tenants
$8,355 average cost of incentive per property
Marketing
$25,702
Admin Grants
Committed
$172,500 $1,088,508
Results Truckee Budget
“Thank you for your program - we would not
have rented our place without it because we
were concerned about all of the unknowns -
you helped clear up many of those!”
- Kim - Truckee Property Owner 6/2/2023
“So great. We love having them in our house
and in our neighborhood.”
- Sunshine - Truckee Property Owner 7/2023
“Thank you for helping me find a place to
live in 2023! It’s been a great year and I look
forward to renewing my lease for 2024!”
- Angi - Truckee Tenant 11/16/23
“...for someone like me, a ski coach at
Northstar, this has been extremely helpful.
It has allowed me to not have to move to
Reno for cheaper rent and a big commute
while also being close to my daughter....
This is a great program and I hope other
resort towns that all face the same local
affordable housing problems find ways to
copy this awesome program for local
workers.”
- Rob - Truckee Tenant 1/6/2024
“It’s gone well and we get along great! Any
additional income offsets and incentives are
always a great idea to keep locals here and
help them afford the rental costs.”
- Michael - Truckee Tenant - 6/27/23
Feedback
Bringing Lease to Locals to:
Define types of eligible
properties and target unit
size:
● Short-Term Rentals
● Empty second /
vacation homes
● Private rooms
● ADUs / In-law units
● SFH vs MFH
Determine incentive
structure and budget:
● Anchored off of STR
data / income
● Incentive amounts
● Program budget
Define “workforce” and
who the town will serve,
including:
● Local employment
● Income cap
● Rent cap
Lease to Locals - Program Definition
Lease to Locals STR Data
2021 2022 2023
Currently, 36% of the
housing stock is
Short-term Rented
Lease to Locals STR income
Monthly Net Income of Short-Term Rentals in Mammoth
1bd 2bd 3bd
Gross Income $3,866 $5,028 $6,246
Cleaning Fees (10%) $387 $503 $625
PM Fee (10%) $387 $503 $625
Utilities (10%) $387 $503 $625
Airbnb Fee (3%) $116 $151 $187
Net $2,590 $3,369 $4,185
Lease to Locals Proposed Incentive
Amounts
Lease Length 1 Qualifying
Tenant
2 Qualifying
Tenants
3 Qualifying
Tenants
4 Qualifying
Tenants
Seasonal (5-11 months) $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000
Long-term (12+ months) $4,500 $9,000 $13,500 $18,000
Lease to Locals — Hypothetical Success
Unit Size Number
of Units
People
Housed
Average per
unit Incentive
Costs
Private Room 2 2 $4,500 $9,000
Studio 4 4 $4,500 $18,000
1bd 4 6 $6,750 $27,000
2bd 12 30 $11,250 $135,000
3bd 8 24 $13,500 $108,000
30 66 $9,900 $297,000
Lease to Locals Budget Estimate
$297,000 Incentive Costs
$97,500 Placemate Admin Cost
$5,500 Marketing Expenses
$400,000 Total Program Cost for Year 1
Lease to Locals Placemate’s Role
Compliance and
Reporting
● Submit full application
packet to Town Staff
● Ongoing compliance
with mid-year and
year-end check ins
● Reporting and regular
updates to Town staff
and Town Council
Tenant
Qualification
● Ability to create renter
profile on Placemate to
match with properties
● Verify local
employment/income
via paystub or
employer letter
● Verify tenant ID
Property Owner
Qualification
● Oversee targeted
marketing
● Dedicated program
webpage / phone #
● Onboarding phone call
and ongoing support
● Ability to self-list property
on Placemate
Lease to Locals Timing and Next Steps
Gain consensus,
aligning on program
goals, policies, and
budget
1 Build program
guidelines and
allocate budget for
1-3 years of program
2 Launch program
with full marketing
and PR plan to gain
momentum
3 This process typically takes 3-6 months and the
launch date is targeted around tourism seasonality Page 107 of 282 Chase Janvrin
[email protected]
Questions
!(
!(
!(
Convict
Place
Forest
Lane
Sunshine
Canyon
Place
Creekview
Place
Forest
P al ce
Slalom
Lane
Kitzbuhel
Place
White Bark
Northstar
Circle
Ruby
Lane
Lakeview
Road
June
Street
Crest Lane
Greyhawk
Court
Mala
Ulice
Sanctuary
Creek
Lane
McQueen
Street
Star w ood Co urt
Pine Knoll
Place
Links
Way
Thompsons
Way
Vacation Place
Junipe r Court
Fascinat oi n
Canyon
ParkingLot
Waterford
Avenue W Bear
Lake Drive
Evergre en
Street
Timbe rs Court
Solitu de
Oak Tree Way
Trails End
Road
Viewpoint Road
Villa Vista
Drive
Ru sty L a ne
Wa g on
Ro ad
Clu
Dr
b
ive
Lee
Road
ClearCreek Road
Aspen
Lane
Timber
Ridge Court
Connell
Street
Bear
Court
Madera
Street
St. M oritz
Ro ad
Tyrol
Lane
North Frontage Road
Arrowhead
Drive
Sunnyslope
Lane
O
wen Street
Meadow
Lane
Muse umWay
Cr awfo rd
Avenu e
Jahan
Drive
Cente r Stree t
Laurel
Mounta ni Road
Shadow
Street
N o rth Street
Banner Road
Mountain
Boulevard
Mammoth
Scenic Loop
Dorrance
Drive
Ritter Road
Bern e r Stre et
Commerce
ri C el c
Horseshoe Drive
Be aver Trail
Convict
Drive
Kelley Ro ad
Cr ystalLane
Woodm
e n
Str eet
College Parkway
Wa mr ing
Hut II
West Bear
ekaL
Drive
Ski
Trail
Silver
Tip Lane
ValentineRoad
Mamm othSlopes Drive
dl
oG en Creek
Hill Street
She wr ni
Street
MillStreet
Juniper
S pri ng sDrive
Twin Lakes La ne
Tamarack
Street
JuniperR
ao d
Shady Rest
ParkRoad
Joaquin Road
Red Fir Road
Tavern Road
Holiday
VistaDrive
S ei rra Star Parkway
Obsidian Place
Lup ni Street
Unknown
S ei rra Manor Road
Summit
Street
Pine
Glen Cam p or
g
und Road
Azimuth
Drive
Hi dden Vall ey R
dao
ValleyVist a Drive
Main Street
Ridge Way
St. AntonCcri el
Alpine
Circle
Hillside
Drive
Camp High
Sierra
Road
North M ajestic
P ni es Dri ve
Ridgecrest
Drive
Starw ood Drive
Mam
moth
Knolls Dr vi e
Sierra
Nevada Road
P yramid Peak Driv e
Pinecrest Avenue
Davison Road
Brid g es Lane
Fairway
Drive
Lodestar Drive
Rainbow
Lane
Grindelwald Road
Majesti c
PinesDr ive
SnowcreekRoad
Sierra Park Road
Ranch
Road
Chateau Road
Mono Street
Manzanita Road
Wagon
Wheel Road
East Bear Lake Driv e
South
Frontage Road
Sawmill
Cutoff Road
Monterey P ni e Road
John Muir Ro a d
Mammoth Creek Road
Lakevie w Bou el vard
CanyonBoulevard
Sherwin Creek Road
Old Mammoth Road
Lake Mary Road
Forest Trail
Meridian Boulevard
Minaret Road
0 0.15 0.3
Miles ¯
RMF-R (STRs
Allowed)
RMF-2 (STRs
Allowed; Eligible
for Incentives)
!( Ski Portals
bae urban economics
Short-Term Rental (STR) Study
Prepared for the Town of Mammoth Lakes
January 26, 2024
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Report Contents ......................................................................................................1 Definition of an STR .....................................................................................................................3 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON STR IMPACTS ................................................................................. 4 Housing Availability and Affordability..........................................................................................4 Lodging Industry Occupancy and Rates................................................................................... 11 TOURISM AND OVERNIGHT ACCOMODATIONS INDUSTRY TRENDS ....................................... 13 Tourisms Economic Contribution ............................................................................................. 13 Tourist Accommodations Inventory.......................................................................................... 14 HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS AND TRENDS ....................................................................... 24 Housing Stock Utilization.......................................................................................................... 24 Housing Vacancy Characteristics............................................................................................. 25 For-Sale Housing Prices............................................................................................................ 29 Rental Housing Prices............................................................................................................... 33 Near-Term Migration Trends..................................................................................................... 36 Labor Force Trends ................................................................................................................... 37 INDUCED WORKFORCE HOUSING DEMAND ........................................................................... 39 PEER COMMUNITY REGULATORY APPROACHES ..................................................................... 41 Existing Mammoth Lakes Regulations..................................................................................... 42 STR Regulations in Peer Communities .................................................................................... 45 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 51 APPENDIX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 57 APPENDIX B: HOTEL/MOTEL INVENTORY DETAIL .................................................................. 63 APPENDIX C: TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES GUIDE TO ZONING FOR TRANSIENT USE............ 64 APPENDIX D: SINGLE-FAMILY AND CONDOMINIUM HOME SALES TABLES ........................... 66 APPENDIX E: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CHANGE OF ADDRESS DETAILED TABLE ....................... 71
ii
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Literature Review Findings of the Impacts of STRs on Rental and For-Sale Home Pricing ...................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Summary of Literature Review Findings of the Impacts of STRs on Induced Workforce Housing Demand and Reduced Long-Term Housing Supply ....................................... 9 Table 3: Summary of Literature Review Findings of the Impacts of STRs on Revenue and Occupancy within the Permanent Lodging Inventory ...................................................................12 Table 4: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2020 and 2020..........................................25 Table 5: Affordable Home Purchase Prices, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2023..........................31 Table 6: Market Rate Rental Listings, Town of Mammoth Lakes, December 2023 .................33 Table 7: Affordable Rental Rates, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2023 ..........................................35 Table 8: Workforce Housing Demand Induced by New STRs, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2022................................................................................................................................................40 Table 9: Transient Use Allowances by Zoning District.................................................................43 List of Figures
Figure 1: Leisure and Hospitality Jobs as a Share of Total Nonfarm Employment, 2000-2022......................................................................................................................................13 Figure 2: Overnight Tourist Accommodations Inventory, November 2023................................14 Figure 3: Hotel/Motel Inventory Trends, January 2000 to May 2023 .......................................15 Figure 4: 12-Month Average Hotel Occupancy Rate, Town of Mammoth Lakes, Jan 2000 to Oct 2023.....................................................................................................................................15 Figure 5: 12-Month Average Hotel ADR and RevPAR,.................................................................16 Figure 6: Estimated Market Capitalization Rate, Hotel/Motel Properties, Town of Mammoth Lakes, January 2000 to May 2023.............................................................................17 Figure 7: Average Number of “Entire Place” Listings, with Monthly Min and Max, Oct 2014 to Sept 2023.........................................................................................................................18 Figure 8: Average Annual STR Occupancy, Mammoth Lakes, 2018 to Sept 2023 ..................18 Figure 9: Average Nights Available and Occupied Per STR Listing, Mammoth Lakes, 2017 to Sept 2022.........................................................................................................................19 Figure 10: Average Daily Rates (ADR) and Revenue Per Available Room Night (RevPAR), Mammoth Lakes, 2018 to Sept 2023 ..........................................................................................20
iii
Figure 11: Average Gross Revenue per STR by Type, Mammoth Lakes, Nov 202 - Oct 2023................................................................................................................................................20 Figure 12: STR Listings by Size, Mammoth Lakes, Nov 2023....................................................21 Figure 13: STRs with Schedule F TOT Certificates by Zone ........................................................21 Figure 14: STRs with Schedule F TOT Certificates and Town Zoning Districts, October 2023................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 15: Percent of Schedule F TOT Certificate Operators and STRs by Management Class, Dec 2023 .............................................................................................................................23 Figure 16: Housing Stock Utilization, Town of Mammoth Lakes ................................................24 Figure 17: Occupied and Vacant Housing Units by Tenure with Functional Vacancy Rates, 2020 ....................................................................................................................................26 Figure 18: Seasonal Vacant Housing Units, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2020..........................27 Figure 19: Seasonal Vacant Housing Units, Mono County, 2020 ..............................................28 Figure 20: Single-Family and Condominium Sales Volumes (Units), 2010-2022.....................30 Figure 21: Single-Family and Condominium Per Sq. Ft. Sales Prices, 2010-2022...................30 Figure 22: Single-Family and Condominium Sales Prices, 2010-2022.....................................30 Figure 23: Prevalence of HUD Defined Housing Problems, 2016-2020 Five-Year Sample .....34 Figure 24: U.S. Postal Service Change of Address Requests for ZIP Code 93546, 2019 to July 2022 ....................................................................................................................................36 Figure 25: K-12 School Enrollment, Mammoth Unified School District, 2016-17 to 2022-23 ..........................................................................................................................................37 Figure 26: In- and Out-Commuter Rates, Mono County, 2016-2020 ACS.................................37 Figure 27: Employment and Unemployment Trends, Town of Mammoth Lakes, Jan 2015 through Oct 2023.................................................................................................................38
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Although the concept of renting privately owned housing units short-term (i.e., for less than 30 days) is not a new concept in Mono County and the Town of Mammoth Lakes, the rapid expansion of online booking platforms has expanded the pool of potential short-term rental (STR) owners and property managers, facilitating transactions and drawing new players into the market. This observed growth has drawn concern among residents of many destination communities, who observe impacts to the availability and cost of housing, as well as increases in the prevalence of nuisance issues like noise, trash, parking, and traffic. To address these concerns, the Town of Mammoth Lakes contracted with BAE Urban Economics, Inc. (BAE) to assess the association between the prevalence of STRs in the market and the availability and affordability of long-term housing, and to provide recommendations regarding potential updates to the Town’s STR policies and programs. The following is a brief summary of key findings from the research.
Empirical Research on STR Impacts
For the purposes of this research, BAE reviewed more than 50 peer reviewed academic articles and industry publications on the subject.
Impacts to Housing Markets
Within the academic literature, there is a strong consensus that STRs do impact the availability and cost of long-term housing, though the impact coefficients identified through statistical analysis vary widely based on the geography being analyzed and the methods being used. The magnitude of the impacts can range from marginal to fairly significant; though one article notes that while some of the coefficients seem marginal, the size and rapid growth of the industry implies a sizable cumulative effect.
According to the literature, STRs impact the cost of for-sale housing by providing a revenue stream that potential investors and second-home buyers can rely on to cover at least a portion of their carrying costs. This not only increases what many potential buyers are willing to pay to purchase a housing unit to use as an STR, but also increases the pool of potential buyers by increasing purchasing power. In this way, STRs facilitate the consumption of housing resources by the second home market and the tourism industry in what is sometimes called the “hotelization” of the housing stock. STRs then influence the rental housing market via a cumulative reduction in the available supply of rental housing.
Shortcomings of the academic literature include an overemphasis on larger urban markets and a lack of research focused on smaller destination resort communities like Mammoth Lakes. The professional literature on the subject fills this gap somewhat, though with less rigorous methods. The professional literature generally agrees that STRs do have an impact on local housing markets, though research conducted in markets where STRs account for a
v
relatively small share of the total housing stock (e.g., San Luis Obispo County) determined that in those cases STRs do not represent enough of a demand driver to justify further regulation.
Impacts to the Hotel Industry
In addition to evaluating impacts on the housing market, the academic literature also includes research on impacts to the traditional hotel and motel sector. While the research findings are somewhat mixed, there is a general consensus that STRs likely do have an impact on occupancy and pricing among hotel and motel properties within the same market. The impacts appear larger with regard to pricing compared to occupancy. The impacts are primarily due to a variable increase in the competitive supply of tourist accommodations. The literature also notes that a larger competitive supply of STR units can create a disincentive to invest in hotel development and renovation. Because STR supply is ‘instantaneous,’ it can readily supplement hotel inventory during peak periods, reducing the need to make significant investments in new hotel inventory that may go underutilized during much of the year.
Nonetheless, recognizing the functional differences between STRs and traditional hotel units, some hotel operators are integrating home sharing-like attributes to more effectively compete with STRs, such as with the condo type units recently added to the property at Outbound. The Town has also seen growth in the condo-hotel (aka. condotel) market segment, with are often treated as STRs but which function as hotel units. The benefits of this to the hotel industry is that the operator can effectively outsource the capital cost of providing the hotel unit.
Tourism and the Overnight Accommodations Industry
The tourism sector represents the key economic driver of the Mammoth Lakes and Mono County economies. The sector directly supports around half of all jobs within the county, brings in more than $580 million in visitor spending and generates around $44 million in local tax receipts. The Town of Mammoth Lakes relies on transient occupancy tax (TOT) received as a result of overnight rentals (both hotel and STR) for around 70 percent of General Fund revenues. While the Town features a blended inventory of overnight accommodations, the current inventory is heavily skewed towards STRs, with hotel rooms accounting for only around 16 percent of the overnight accommodations inventory and STRs and condotel units making up the remainder.
There is relatively little data available on the change in the number of STRs that are active in the Mammoth Lakes market over time. The available data show moderate growth in the STR inventory over the last five years or so, while the hotel inventory contracted somewhat. Growth in average daily rates (ADR) and revenue per available room night (RevPAR) appears to have been fairly consistent over time for both STRs and hotels.
The large difference between the two product types is occupancy. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, hotel occupancy dropped by more than 20 percentage points to around 45 percent as a result of stay-at-home orders and similar mandates and has yet to fully
vi
recover. STR occupancy, meanwhile, increased by around 15 percentage points even though STRs were legally covered by the same public health orders, and has remained high.
The available data on STRs indicates that the average STR in Mammoth Lakes is essentially a full-time tourist accommodations unit, with average availability in 2022 of more than 300 nights and bookings averaging around 175 nights per year. Also, roughly two-thirds of all STRs in Mammoth Lakes are managed by large property managers (i.e., more than 10 units under management) versus by individual owners with only one or two properties.
Data indicate that the majority of STR listings in Mammoth Lakes are for rentals with three or fewer bedrooms. Also, data from the Town indicate that around two-thirds of all permitted STRs are located in the Resort Multifamily-2 (RMF-2) zone, with the remainder largely concentrated in the Resort (R) zone and the North Valley Specific Plan (NVSP) zone.
Housing Market Conditions and Trends
As illustrated in Exhibit A, below, the Town estimates that as of 2022, there were 9,636 housing units in Mammoth Lakes. Assuming that the distribution of housing units by tenure has remained the same as in 2020, BAE estimates that as of 2022 there would have been around 3,030 full-time occupied housing units (31.4 percent of the housing stock) in Mammoth Lakes, including 1,444 owner occupied units (15.0 percent) and 1,586 renter occupied units (16.5 percent). Of the remainder, 5,692 units (59.1 percent) were vacant for seasonal and occasional use. Another 535 units (5.6 percent) were vacant as a result of actively being marketed for rent or for sale, though this estimate is likely exaggerated due to inaccuracies in the 2020 Decennial Census. The figure shows 379 units in the “other vacant” category, which includes units identified in the Census Bureau’s “vacant other” category, as well as units that had been sold or rented but not reoccupied and units held vacant for migrant workers. While not a perfect comparison, as of December 2023, the Town of Mammoth Lakes reported having 3,462 permitted short-term rentals, which represent around 35.6 percent of the total housing stock. The Town reports that there are 6,559 units eligible to be short-term rented under regulations, meaning that around 52.8 percent of eligible units were rented and
68.1 percent of the Town’s housing stock were eligible to rent.
vii
Exhibit A: Housing Stock Utilization, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2022 Est.
Notes:
(a) Based on the distribution of vacant housing units by type as reported in the 2020 Decennial Census, multiplied by the total number of housing units, as reported by the Town of Mammoth Lakes for 2022. (b) Includes units that are vacant as a result of being available for rent and for sale. (c) Includes units that are held vacant for seasonal and occasional use. (d) As reported by the Town of Mammoth Lakes for 2022.
(e) Includes units that are rented or sold, but not yet reoccupied, as well as units held vacant for migrant workers, and units that fall into the Census Bureau’s “other vacant” definition. (f) As reported by the Town of Mammoth Lakes as of December 2023.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; Town of Mammoth Lakes; BAE, June 2023.
A Shift Towards Seasonal Vacancy
According to 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census data, the Town of Mammoth Lakes lost a net total of just under 300 housing units over the decade. The data also show a notable shift away from full-time occupancy towards seasonal vacancy which, as of 2020, accounted for around 60 percent of the housing stock. More specifically, the Town added around 530 seasonally vacant housing units over the decade, which represents growth of around ten percent. At the same time, the number of owner-occupied units decreased by more than 100 and the number of units that were vacant because they were for sale also decreased.
Meanwhile, the number of renter-occupied housing units decreased by more than 190, the number of units that were vacant for rent decreased by almost 530, and the number of units that were rented but not yet reoccupied decreased by almost 150. This implies that the inventory of housing available for rent decreased by almost 870 units over the decade.
viii
Housing Sale Prices and Rental Rates
This analysis considered home sales price data provided by the Town of Mammoth Lakes for the period from 2010 through 2022. The data indicate that properties located within zoning districts that allow short-term renting sold at a significant premium compared to properties located in areas that do not allow short-term renting, both in total dollar terms and on a price per square foot basis. The data suggest that the per square foot price premium is likely equal to 35-40 percent for single-family homes and 10-20 percent for condominium units. The data also indicate that this price premium increased with the pandemic, as interest in short-term renting as a way to facilitate second home ownership increased throughout California.
With a median single-family home sale price of $1.1 million in non-transient use zones and $3.3 million in transient use zones, single-family ownership housing is likely well beyond the means of most workforce households, including those working in high paying professional positions. The median sale price for condominium units, however, was notably lower at $711,200 in non-transient use zones and $750,000 in transient use zones in 2022. These costs may be affordable at incomes around 200 percent of the area median family income (MFI), which for a family of four is equal to around $200,000 per year in gross income.
Nonetheless, factors like the size of the downpayment and homeowners’ association (HOA) dues and special assessments likely reduce the relative affordability of condominium units.
To assess the relative affordability of rental housing, BAE collected information on rental listings from local property managers and identified 236 listings and eight vacancies, which equals a rental vacancy rate of 3.4 percent. On average, rentals were priced at just over $1,000 per bedroom, on average. At this price point, rental housing in Mammoth Lakes is likely affordable to low- and moderate-income renter households, though the relative lack of available rentals likely poses a significant challenge to many workforce households.
Near-Term Migration Trends
The onset of the global pandemic and the embrace of remote work led to significant changes to regional migration patterns throughout the nation. In 2019, prior to the pandemic, Mammoth Lakes lost a net total of around 60 permanent resident households. With the onset of the pandemic and resulting housing affordability and availability challenges, data from the U.S. Postal Service indicates that the community began losing residents at an exaggerated pace, which peaked with the loss of around 1,000 permanent residents in 2022. As of mid2023, the pace of outmigration has slowed somewhat, though it remains above the level reported for 2019. Data from the California Department of Education confirm a significant decrease in local school enrollment in the 2020-2021 through 2022-2023 academic years.
Labor Force Trends
With limited options on where workers can live and still commute into Mammoth Lakes for work, the Mammoth Lakes business community, as well as that of Mono County at large, is primarily reliant on the resident workforce to meet near-term labor needs. Data from the
ix
California Employment Development Department (EDD) indicate that the size of the local labor force was relatively stable from 2015 through 2019, despite significant seasonal variation.
With the onset of the pandemic in 2020, the size of the resident labor force shrunk significantly and has not yet fully recovered. Prior to the pandemic, the unemployment rate in Mammoth Lakes dropped consistently from a high of around 7.5 percent in 2015 to less than
0.5 percent in 2018 and 2019. Although unemployment spiked in 2020, it dropped quickly, and in spring 2021 fell to an official estimate of zero, where it has stayed in the years since.
Induced Workforce Housing Demand
In addition to impacting housing availability and pricing through the consumption of housing for use as tourism accommodations, STRs also impact the market by creating demand for new workers who subsequently demand housing. Based on data from Visit California and Dean Runyan, spending by visitors staying in hotel, motel, and STR accommodations supports just under 4,400 jobs in Mono County across a variety of industry sectors. With more than 660,000 visitor nights spent in hotel, motel, and STR accommodations, BAE estimates that the industry supports one job for every 151 occupied nights. With an average of 174 occupied nights per STR in Mammoth Lakes, BAE estimates that the average STR supports around 1.2 full-time equivalent jobs. With an average of 1.65 workers per household, BAE estimates that the creation of one average STR likely generates demand for 0.7 new workforce housing units.
Regulatory Approaches in Peer Communities
To provide additional insight into how Mammoth Lakes could approach updates to its STR regulations, this study reviewed regulations enacted by 17 peer communities. While regulations vary significantly among the peer communities, a variety of themes emerged:
• Definition of a Short-Term Rental or Vacation Rental
STRs typically include residential real estate used to house visitors for no more than 30 to 90 days. Many jurisdictions define STRs to include only single-family homes and duplexes, though some communities also include condominiums. Some jurisdictions prohibit the short-term renting of multifamily housing. • Caps on the Number of STRs that may be Permitted
Most peer communities have “caps” on the number of STRs that may be legally established either throughout the jurisdiction or in one or more subareas. • Geographic Carve-Outs and STR Density Limitations
Most peer communities have some form of geographic restrictions on where STRs may be established, and/or limitations on how close an STR can be to another similar use.
This may include only allowing STRs in certain zones, and/or restricting the density of STRs, such as the distance between STRs or the share of units in a neighborhood that may be rented short-term.
x
• Exemptions for Owner Occupied Housing and Hosted Rentals Twelve of the peer communities differentiate between hosted and/or owner-occupied STRs. However, recent case law in California invoking the “dormant commerce clause” may limit the ability of jurisdictions to prohibit non-owner-occupied units from being rented short-term. It is not clear if a policy based on full-time occupancy (either by the owner or a full-time renter) or host status, would face the same legal challenge. • Variations in the local application processes and procedures Application procedures and approval type vary significantly between peer communities.
Most require some kind of registration, though some like Mariposa County provide approvals over the counter. Others, like Mono County, require multiple rounds of discretionary approvals that are much more onerous.
• Initial and ongoing inspection requirements
Most peer jurisdictions have inspection requirements for STRs. Inspections are generally required prior to issuance of the STR permit or license. Some jurisdictions also require recurring inspections either annually or every three or four years. • Recertification or Renewal Requirements
Eleven of the jurisdictions require annual renewal, while permits in Santa Cruz County remain effective for five years. In four of the jurisdictions with renewal requirements, the STR must be active (i.e., actively remitting TOT) to be eligible for renewal. Note that these jurisdictions also have caps on the number of STRs. • Nuisance Mitigation Programs and Enforcement Penalties Thirteen communities require a local contact who can be reached 24 hours per day when an STR is rented. Penalties for non-compliance with STR regulations typically consist of fines and suspension/revocation of permits, with the possibility of misdemeanor charges in some cases. Many jurisdictions have a waiting period before a property owner can apply for a new STR permit.
• Policies Related to Fractional Ownership Models
Two of the peer communities have policies related to fractional homeownership.
These fractional ownership models typically consist of the purchase of a property by a limited liability corporation (LLC), with ownership split between two to eight buyers who then use the property as a shared vacation home. Sonoma County restricts fractional ownership to zones that allow timeshares and private residence clubs, while Moab, Utah, was developing a similar policy until legal authority to do so was pre-empted by the state.
• Ties to Complementary Policies and Programs
While most STR policies are stand-alone ordinances, some jurisdictions are beginning to tie STR regulations to other complementary programs. For example, the Town of Truckee recently adopted a Short-Term Rental Workforce Housing Token Pilot Program (STR Token Program) that offers in-kind payment for workforce housing deed
xi
restrictions in the form of STR “Tokens.” A Token is redeemable for a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate, which is required to short-term rent a property.
STR Study Recommendations
Based on the research summarized above, BAE presents the following recommendations for consideration by the STR Advisory Committee and Town Council.
Administrative and Process Updates
To reduce the cost of administering the STR program, streamline the applications process, and improve data collection, BAE recommends that the Town consider enacting the following:
1) Update the Definition of an STR
Update the definitions for an STR and other related uses to better reflect the functional differences between different forms of transient visitor accommodations. 2) Maintain Records to Allow Ongoing Analysis
Update the administrative process for issuance of TOT certificates to collect more information on the types of properties providing tourist accommodations and their occupancy levels to aid in long-term evaluation of program effectiveness. 3) Update Code Language on Vested Interests
The Town should update the Code of Ordinances to incorporate language similar to that used by El Dorado County regarding STR permits and the conveyance of vested interests and entitlements, which was upheld in recent court proceedings. 4) Require STR Platforms to Submit Data
Consider adopting code language that requires STR platforms, like Airbnb, to regularly disclose information regarding each home sharing and/or vacation rental listing, the names of the persons responsible for each listing, and any associated attribute data necessary for the Town to assess compliance with applicable local regulations. 5) Update TOT Property Search Tool
Update the TOT Property Search Tool to improve the user experience and make it easier to find relevant information on permitted STRs.
Update Eligibility Standards
To improve program administration and address the influence of STRs on the availability and pricing of long-term housing, BAE recommends that the Town consider the following:
6) Prohibit Short-Term Renting of Properties Recently Subject to Eviction To reduce the incentive for property owners to evict existing tenants in order to convert properties to STRs, consider prohibiting units that have recently been subject to an eviction from being registered as an STR for a specified period.
xii
7) Establish a Waiting Period for New Home Purchases
Establish a waiting period of at least one year following the purchase of a residential property before that property is eligible to apply for an STR permit. 8) Update Fractional/Timeshare Code
The Town should update the fractional ownership/timeshare portions of the Municipal Code to restrict new fractional ownership conversions and acquisitions to defined geographic areas.
Update Enforcement Penalties
To encourage owners and managers of STRs to engage with the Town’s permitting process in good faith, BAE recommends that the Town consider updating the enforcement penalties to better align with the economics of short-term renting.
9) Increase Enforcement Penalties
Consider increasing the flat-fee penalty from $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for all subsequent violations within three years to something more substantial. 10) Register Rentals of 90 Days or Less
Consider requiring property owners and managers to declare long-term rentals of 90 days or less and to notify the Town in the event that the rental is cancelled, or the lease broken, within 30 days after the start date. The intent is to discourage the illegal avoidance of STR regulation. In the event that a rental is cancelled within 30 days of the start date, require the property owner or manager to pay applicable TOT. Consider applying strict penalties for chronic repeat offenders.
Limit the Number and Type of STRs
To facilitate managing the inventory of tourist accommodations available in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and to address concerns regarding impacts to the availability and pricing of long-term housing, BAE recommends that the Town consider the following:
11) Establish a Cap or Caps on the Number of Permitted STRs Consider limiting the total number of STRs that may be permitted within certain areas, including within the Residential Multi-Family-2 (RMF-2) zone or portions thereof. The cap may be set at or near the existing level, and may be adjusted over time as needed. 12) Create a Mechanism to Reduce Allowed Permits When Needed If the Town of Mammoth Lakes elects to limit the number of STRs allowed in certain areas, it will be important to also establish a mechanism or process for decreasing the number of permits that may be issued, as needed.
xiii
13) Consider Fewer Restrictions on Hosted STRs
Consider using differential regulations for hosted and non-hosted STRs, to limit the prevalence of absentee landlords and corporate ownership within the STR market.
The impact of such provisions on the market will depend on the details of the policy. 14) Consider a Cap on Nights Rented in Non-Hosted STRs
To discourage the further proliferation of non-hosted STRs, consider establishing a maximum number of nights per year that a new non-hosted STR may be rented in certain areas where full-time resident occupancy is the preferred use. This provision, if implemented, should be dovetailed with any potential cap or unit restrictions.
Geographic Targeting and Density Limits
To discourage the over-concentration of STRs while ensuring the availability of tourist accommodations in desirable locations, BAE recommends that the Town:
15) Consider Further Geographic Targeting of STR Regulations Recognizing the concentration of tourism demand in certain parts of Town, consider applying different standards within specific geographic areas to ensure the availability of visitor accommodations in areas appropriate for such activity (e.g., resort portals). 16) Consider STR Density Limits
Consider establishing a minimum distance between permitted STR units or a maximum share of units within a certain defined area that may be short-term rented.
Related Policies and Programs
The Town should also consider actions that better dovetail sustainable tourism management, land use policy, economic development strategy, and community housing resources. 17) Update Analysis of Workforce Housing Need
Prepare an updated analysis of workforce housing needs in Mammoth Lakes that characterizes the order of magnitude of workforce housing needs and which includes a survey of both worker and employer needs and perceptions. 18) Strongly Oppose Legislation Similar to SB 584
Although Senate Bill (SB) 584 was not advanced during the last legislative session, the Town should continue to monitor new legislative proposals and should strongly oppose consideration of any new state legislation that would be similar to Senate Bill (SB) 584, which proposed the imposition of a 15 percent statewide TOT on STRs. 19) Encourage Development of Other Accommodation Types
Encourage development of new tourist accommodations other than STRs, like hotel and condotel projects, that do not impact how the housing stock is utilized, including construction and renovation.
xiv
20) Lobby for Tenants Rights Reform
Lobby state lawmakers to advance tenants’ rights reform which strikes a better balance between tenant protections and property owner interests. 21) Expand and Diversify the Housing Supply
Encourage and facilitate construction of a diversity of housing types that meet the needs of a wider array of workforce households, similar to development at The Parcel. 22) Establish Additional Dedicated Local Funding Sources for Housing Programs Consider options for creating more local funding sources that can generate consistent and dedicated financial resources for housing programs. 23) Aggressively Expand Inventory of Deed Restricted Housing Continue to aggressively pursue acquisition of affordable and workforce housing deed restrictions on new and existing housing units within the community. 24) Pursue Economic Development Initiatives
Prioritize efforts aimed at increasing the local wage levels and the number of living wage jobs that are available in the community. The Town should also continue to engage with large landowners and employers to provide additional developable land and housing resources for workers and for the community at large.
1 INTRODUCTION
The concept of renting privately owned housing units short-term (i.e., for less than 30 days) is not a new concept in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono Count more broadly. In years past, listing a unit for rent often involved taking out an advertisement in a local newspaper or working with a local property management company. This was not always easy, particularly if renting independently (e.g., vetting tenants), and came with significant costs (e.g., management and cleaning fees, maintenance, etc.).
The landscape of the short-term rental market changed drastically starting in the mid-2000s with the introduction of HomeAway (now VRBO) and Airbnb, the first online platforms for booking private short-term rental accommodations. While Airbnb remains one of the most prominent platforms in the market, other competitors have also emerged, including Vacasa, Turnkey, FlipKey (owned by TripAdvisor), Booking.com, and Hotels.com, among others. The rapid expansion of online booking platforms has expanded the pool of potential short-term rental owners and property managers, facilitating transactions and drawing new players into the market. This observed growth has drawn concern among residents of many destination communities, who observe impacts to the availability and cost of housing, as well as increases in the prevalence of nuisance issues like noise, trash, parking, and traffic.
To address community concerns, the Town of Mammoth Lakes contracted with BAE Urban Economics to assess the association between the prevalence of short-term rentals (STRs) and changes in the availability and affordability of long-term housing, as well as the impact of changes in STR supply on the performance of dedicated hotel and motel uses, and to provide recommendations regarding potential updates to the Town’s STR policies and programs.
Summary of Report Contents
The following provides additional detail regarding the contents of each section of this report:
Review of the Contemporary Literature
Due to the inherent complexities associated with this topic, this research includes an initial review of the contemporary academic literature on the relationship between STRs and long-term housing availability and pricing, both rental and for-sale, recognizing that such research is conducted to a much higher standard compared to what may be possible with the data available within Mono County, and within the current schedule and budget. Nonetheless, key findings from the literature provide useful indications of how STRs can impact local communities. The review also includes consideration of various professional studies that have been prepared for other communities. Though less prevalent in the literature, the review also included studies related to the impact of STRs on occupancy and pricing (e.g., average daily
2 rates or ADR, etc.) for hotel and motel uses. For a full list of articles and publications reviewed for this research, please refer to Appendix A.
Tourism and Overnight Accommodations Industry Trends
The tourism industry is a primary economic driver for Mono County and the Town of Mammoth Lakes, accounting for a majority of employment and economic activity. The analysis summarizes key metrics regarding the tourism industry broadly, as well as characteristics and trends within the tourism accommodation sector. This includes comparison between the inventory of hotel and motel rooms versus STRs, as well as analysis of trends in room rates and occupancy characteristics. Data for this analysis were primarily collected from CoStar and AirDNA, both private data vendors.
Housing Market Conditions and Trends
In conjunction with the analysis of available data pertaining to the STR market, this report also considers existing conditions and trends within the Town of Mammoth Lakes housing market. This includes evaluation of changes to the housing inventory over time, as well as analysis of housing vacancy characteristics and both rental and for-sale home pricing and comparative affordability. Data on housing inventory characteristics are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Home sales records from the local multiple listing service were provided by the Town, while information on long-term rental rates was obtained through consultation with local property managers.
Near-Term Migration Trends
Recognizing the significant impact that regional migration has had on many visitorserving economies throughout the nation, this report compares the available statistics on household and business relocations published by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), as well as data on school enrollment from the California Department of Education (DOE).
Labor Force Trends
Recognizing Mammoth’s remote location, the analysis documents in- and outcommute patterns and changes in labor force composition and the unemployment rate from 2010 through October 2023. This analysis confirms the tightening labor market which aligns closely with regional outmigration patterns.
Estimating Induced Housing Demand
Recognizing tightening labor availability, this report also evaluates the extent to which the creation of new tourist accommodation units in Mammoth Lakes likely results in the creation of new demand for workforce housing. This is done using data on the economic impacts of tourism by visitor accommodation type published by Dean Runyan and Associates, as well as information on STR overnight stays provided by Visit Mammoth and AirDNA. BAE then converts the estimated direct and induced employment to workforce households based on an estimate of the average number of
3 workers per household calculated using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), then converts from workforce households to housing units demanded based on an assumed structural vacancy rate.
Regulatory Approaches in Peer Communities
To provide additional insight into some of the ways that the Town of Mammoth Lakes could approach the possible regulation of STRs, this study includes an overview of the Town’s current regulations pertaining to STRs, as well as the regulatory approaches enacted by 17 peer communities. The review of STR policies in peer communities is organized around key themes and policy approaches which may be considered by local decision makers as components of a revised STR regulatory structure.
Definition of an STR
For the purposes of this research, an STR use includes real property designed for long-term residential use, including the availability of full kitchen and bathroom facilities, among other attributes. This differentiates STR units from more traditional hotel and motel uses, which often lack full kitchen facilities, and are located in developments that are intended primarily for use by transient occupants (e.g., hotels, motels, condotels, etc.), including tourists and business travelers. STRs in this analysis include single-family homes, duplex and triplex units, townhomes, condominiums, mobile homes, and apartment units. By comparison, hotel and motel properties, bed and breakfasts, time shares, and condo-hotels (condotels) primarily function as part of the more permanent inventory of visitor accommodations, as opposed to STRs that can readily transition between residential and visitor use.1 While there is some “gray area” inherent to these definitions, they offer a way to operationalize the concept of short-term renting that aligns with the priorities expressed by the local decision makers.
The section titled “Existing Mammoth Lakes Regulations,” starting on page 42, provides a more detailed review Chapter 5.40 of the Town of Mammoth Lakes Code of Ordinances, which provides definitions of what constitutes a “transient rental,” and “transient occupancy facility,” and a “residential property” for regulatory purposes. These definitions are largely consistent with the operational definition of an STR provided above. The section also provides an overview of the Town’s existing regulatory framework relating to STRs. 1 A condotel is a condominium property that facilitates the short-term rental of units in a centrally organized way, often including advertising of available rental listing, screening of prospective renters, provision of a staffed checkin desk, provision of periodic housekeeping services, and concierge services, among other amenities and benefits.
4 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON STR IMPACTS
Recognizing the recent growth of interest in the impacts of STRs on local housing and tourist accommodations markets, BAE reviewed more than 50 peer reviewed academic articles and industry publications on the subject. The following section provides a brief summary of the key findings and themes discussed within the contemporary academic and professional literature.
Housing Availability and Affordability
The academic body of work pertaining to the relationships between STRs and long-term housing is mainly focused on impacts within major urban tourist markets, such as Barcelona, London, Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco, among other locations. One peer reviewed study included a descriptive analysis of the prevalence and characteristics of STRs within 237 communities throughout Oregon, including smaller, more rural, communities (DiNatale, Lewis, and Parker, 2018). Another study identifies the ways in which peer-to-peer accommodations can facilitate economic development in rural areas without significant hotel inventories (Yeager, Soulard, Deale, and Milazzo, 2023). Despite being mainly focused on evaluating the impacts of STRs in urban settings, the academic literature nonetheless provides valuable quantitative documentation of the existence of real relationships between STRs and conditions in the long-term housing market that can be used to better understand ongoing trends in the Town of Mammoth Lakes. In addition, BAE reviewed the results from five studies completed by private consulting firms for local jurisdictions in the Mountain West which estimate the relationship between STRs and new induced workforce housing demand, as well as housing availability.
Findings from the Academic Literature
The contemporary academic literature reviewed for this study consistently found statistically significant relationships between proportionate increases in the number of STR listings and the availability and pricing of long-term housing, both rental and for-sale (Goncalves, Peralta, Pereira dos Santos, 2022; Benitez-Aurioles and Tussyadiah, 2021; Franco and Santos, 2021; Li, Kim, and Srinivasan, 2021; Koster, Ommeren, and Volkhausen, 2021; Shabrina, Arcaute, Batty, 2021; Thackway, Ng, Lee, Shi, and Pettit, 2021; Garcia, Miller, and Morehouse, 2021; Bao and Shah, 2020; Etxezarreta-Etxarri, Izagirre-Olaizola, Morandeira-Arca, and Carollo, 2020; Garcia-Lopez, Jofre-Monseny, Martinez-Mazza, Segu, 2020; Zou, 2019; Barron, Kung, and Proserpio, 2018; Wachsmuth, Chaney, Kerrigan, Shillolo, and Basalaey-Binder, 2018; Wachsmuth, Kerrigan, Chaney, and Shillolo, 2017; Gurran and Phibbs, 2017; Lee, 2016; Merante and Horn, 2017; Sheppard and Udell, 2016). These studies also found that an increased prevalence of STRs incentivized the conversion of housing that was otherwise available for long-term occupancy to STRs, in a process referred to as the ‘hotelization’ of the housing stock (Seguera, Nofre, Diaz-Parra, Gil, Yrigoy, Mansilla, Sanches, 2022; Li, Kim, and Srinivasan, 2021; Barron, Kung, and Proserpio, 2018; Lee, 2016). STRs can also increase the
5 prevalence of nuisance issues, which in some cases can have a negative impact on neighborhood livability and home values (Garcia, Miller, and Morehouse, 2021).
Those studies that incorporated a geographic concentration element into their analysis generally determined that STRs tend to be concentrated in proximity to major tourist attractions, and that greater concentrations of STR listings correlated with more significant impacts to housing availability and pricing (Franco and Santos, 2021; Li, Kim, and Srinivasan, 2021; Thackway, Ng, Lee, Shi, and Pettit, 2021; Shokoohayar, Sobhani, and Sobhani, 2020; Zou, 2019; Wachsmuth, Kerrigan, Chaney, and Shillolo, 2017; Dudas, Gyorgy, Tamas, and Lajos, 2017). The research also indicates that the negative effects of STRs are stronger in places with less owner-occupied housing (Barron, Kung, and Proserpio, 2018) and smaller inventories of hotel and motel accommodations (Peric, Smiljanic, Kezic, 2021). Also, smaller communities that are more dependent on transient occupancy taxes and that have more limited inventories of available rental housing may experience disproportionate impacts (DiNatale, Lewis, and Parker, 2018). There is no specific mention of the impact of STRs in markets dominated by large numbers of second homes, though this topic is addressed in the professional literature discussed in the next section.
The available research generally indicates that the relationship between the prevalence of STRs and housing affordability is stronger for for-sale prices compared to rents (BenitezAurioles, Tussyadiah, 2021; Shokoohayar, Sobhani, and Sobhani, 2020; Garcia-Lopez, JofreMonseny, Martinez-Mazza, Suge, 2020; Wassmer, 2019). This is because for-sale home prices in areas with high concentrations of STRs are directly correlated with the revenue generating potential of the unit on the STR market. The impacts of STRs also vary based on the type and size of the property (Goncalves, Peralta, Pereira dos Santos, 2022). Rental housing prices, by comparison, are indirectly impacted through reductions in the available long-term rental supply, which increases pricing competition between renter households.
Other research indicates that STR regulation can have an appreciable impact on market rate rents (Seiler, Siebert, Yant, 2023).
The research identifies an increasing prevalence of investor owners of STRs in certain markets, including a rise in owners with multiple properties. Zou (2019) indicates that “…urban space becomes more valuable as tourists and residents take advantage of STRs...with limited urban supply for new development, investors will seek to convert the existing housing stock into STRs, bidding up property prices and making life more difficult for first-time homebuyers and long-term renters.” Wachsmuth and Weisler (2018) similarly describe the increasing prevalence of investor owners as “gentrification without redevelopment,” adding that a price gap emerged between market rate long-term rents and STR revenue and “…a strong economic incentive followed for real estate investors to evict existing long-term tenants or to cash out existing homeowners. They then converted properties to STRs without building anything new.” Lee (2016) found that 60 percent of the properties listed on Airbnb in Los Angeles were used solely for commercial purposes.
6 Sheppard and Udell (2016) similarly found that STRs are often used as speculative assets which have the potential for capital appreciation, generating rental income during the hold period to defray costs. These benefits can entice investors to purchase properties not for their own use, and to hold onto properties for longer, since they can offset carrying costs, though the factors contributing can vary between markets (Krause and Aschwanden, 2020).
Nonetheless, Bei and Celata (2023) found that local STR regulation can have a substantive impact on composition of the STR market, including decreasing the prevalence of hosts that own and manage multiple listings.
Table 1: Summary of Literature Review Findings of the Impacts of STRs on Rental and For-Sale Home Pricing
Source: BAE, 2023.
Table 1, above, summarizes the statistical relationships between the prevalence of STRs and long-term rental rates and for-sale home prices, as documented in the available peer reviewed academic literature. The magnitude of the impacts ranged from relatively marginal to fairly significant; though one article notes that while some of the coefficients seem marginal, the Author Published Geography Effect on Rents Effect on Sale Prices Goncalves, et al. 2022 Lisbon n.a.
8% on average and 20%
for tw o-bedrooms
resulting from a ban
Shabrina, et al. 2022 London 8.0% per 100% increase in
illegal/ non-conforming STRs n.a.
Benitez-Auriole, et al. 2021 London 0.014% per 100 listings 0.032% per 100 listings Franco & Santos 2021 Portugal n.a. 3.7% per 1% increase in STRs
Koster, et al. 2021 Los Angeles 4.9% increase per 1%
increase in STR listings
5.1% increase per 1%
increase in STR Listings
Thackw ay, et al. 2021 Sydney n.a.
2% per 1% increase in
STR density
Etxezarreta-Etzarri, et al. 2020 San Sebastian 7.3% increase per standard deviation n.a.
Garcia-Lopez, et al. 2020 Barcelona
1.9% in areas of low
concentration and 7.0% in
areas of high concentration,
for every 200 listings
4.6% in areas of low
concentration and 7.0% in
areas of high
concentration, for every
200 listings
Zou 2019 Washington DC n.a. 0.66% - 2.24% Overall
Barron et al. 2018 United States 0.018% per 1% increase in STR listings
0.026% per 1% increase
in STR listings
Lee 2016 Los Angeles 0.2% per 1% increase in STR
listings n.a.
Merante & Horn 2016 Boston 0.4% per standard deviation
increase in STR listings n.a.
Sheppard & Udell 2016 New York n.a. Doubling STRs equals 6.0- 31%
7 significant growth in the sector in recent years likely results in sizable cumulative impacts over time (Dogru, Mody, Suess, 2019).
Among the known limitations of the available academic literature is the possibility that the research has omitted significant variables that have a bearing on the relationship between STRs and long-term housing availability and pricing. In addition, there is a reliance on webscraped data from Airbnb and other online platforms, which is known to be incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. Zou (2019) specifically indicates that “…any statement with a high level of confidence would require direct data from STR platforms with accurate details.” Therefore, the research findings summarized here should be interpreted with caution.
Findings from the Professional Literature
There have been a variety of studies done by private consulting firms for local jurisdictions and stakeholder groups throughout the country regarding the impacts of STRs on local housing markets. This research identified two studies that were prepared specifically on behalf of the STR industry, which contribute to the literature, but which should be interpreted with caution.
This research also identified six professional studies prepared on behalf of various stakeholders that leveraged tourism and housing market trends analysis to identify associations between changes in the STR inventory and changes in housing market conditions. Lastly, this research identified three professional studies that replicate statistical methods used in the academic literature to quantify the impact of STRs on housing markets.
Industry Sponsored Studies
The oldest professional study reviewed for this report is a 2016 analysis prepared by ECONorthwest on behalf of HomeAway, an online STR platform, in response to proposed STR regulation in Seattle and should be reviewed with caution. Another study prepared by HR&A on behalf of Airbnb in Colorado in 2022, found a rough association between STRs and housing availability and pricing but recommended increased subsidies for affordable housing and workforce housing construction and preservation, rather than additional STR regulation.
STR and Housing Market Trends
This research identified six professional studies that use STR and housing markets trends analysis to highlight relevant associations.
Three of the studies reviewed for this research were prepared by BAE Urban Economics in the communities of Placer County, Mariposa County, and the Town of Truckee. These studies identified the large concentrations of housing within each market which was vacant for seasonal and occasional use and identified similar increases in the number of housing units engaged in short-term renting. These analyses highlight the ways in which short-term renting can be used to facilitate purchases of residential properties for second home use, leading to increased home prices and an expanded pool of potential second home buyers. The research also identified an increasing prevalence of dedicated STRs in some communities, most notably
8 in Mariposa County, that were expressly purchased or built with the intent of exclusively making them full-time STRs, without any secondary residential use. The study prepared for the Town of Truckee also evaluated the profitability of STRs compared to long-term renting.
In addition to the three studies prepared by BAE, this research also evaluated three descriptive studies prepared by Beacon Economics for San Luis Obispo County and by PlaceWorks for San Bernardino County, as well as a study prepared by the Milken Institute for the State of California. The San Bernardino County and San Luis Obispo studies both concluded that STRs are not the primary driver of housing availability and pricing issues in those communities.
In San Bernardino, PlaceWorks documented significant increases in the number of STRs located within certain county subareas, notably near Joshua Tree National Park, which were associated with significant increases in home sale prices and rents. PlaceWorks relies heavily on differences in unit size and quality to justify this differential, versus acknowledging that entities buying units with the express intent of short-term renting can and are willing to pay more than other households. They also note the significant prevalence of corporate-owned STRs. PlaceWorks also acknowledges the significant difference between the revenue generation potential of STRs compared to long-term rentals but downplays this by recognizing the industry’s seasonality. The study relies on data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicating an increase in renter occupancy, coupled with data showing that more than 60 percent of active STRs were built or substantially improved since 2018 to imply that the STR industry is not taking units out of full-time occupancy. While they do acknowledge the existence of some anecdotal evidence presented by members of the community regarding the conversion of longterm housing to STR use, they suggest that this does not represent a significant market driver.
The studies prepared by Beacon Economics for San Luis Obispo County and the Milken Institute for the State of California clearly acknowledge the importance of tourism spending to the economic and fiscal health of many communities. These studies also highlight that STRs can offer a different consumer experience compared to traditional hotels and were notably more resilient to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to traditional hotels due to their more isolated home-like offerings. These studies acknowledge that San Luis Obispo, as well as the State of California, feature relatively small concentrations of STRs as a share of the total housing stock (i.e., less than 0.5 percent in San Luis Obispo County and only one percent across California as a whole). They also compare the characteristics of typical STRs (e.g., larger and more expensive single-family homes) with the needs and ability to pay of lowincome households, concluding that the units engaged in short-term renting would make poor candidates for occupancy by low-income households. This perspective fails to acknowledge the growing challenges faced by many moderate- and above moderate-income households in supply-constrained communities who compete directly with second home and STR property owners. These studies also fail to evaluate the localized impacts of STRs in areas with higher concentrations of STRs and second homes, suggesting that additional research is needed.
9 Workforce Housing Demand Impacts
Five professional studies reviewed for this research used comparable methodologies to evaluate the relationship between the addition of new STRs to the local market and new induced demand for workforce housing created as a result of new visitor spending. These reports include studies prepared by BAE for the Town of Truckee and Mariposa County, which applied the same methodology used in this report, as well as a study prepared by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) for the town of Breckenridge in Colorado, and a study prepared by Root Policy Research for the town Pagosa Springs, also in Colorado. The key findings from these studies are summarized in Table 2 and indicate that in many markets, visitor spending associated with creation of 100 new STRs results in creation of demand for between ten and 20 new workforce housing units. In Mariposa and Mono Counties, the analysis found that induced workforce housing demand can be much higher, with the creation of 100 new STRs generating demand for between 60 and 80 new workforce housing units, not including a vacancy allowance. The reasons for the higher impacts in Mariposa and Mono counties may be due to having a tourism oriented economic base, though other factors may also be at play.
Table 2: Summary of Literature Review Findings of the Impacts of STRs on Induced Workforce Housing Demand and Reduced Long-Term Housing Supply Source: BAE, 2023.
Induced Workforce Supply Impacts to
Housing Demand Long-Term Housing
Author Published Geography Per 100 New STRs For-Sale Rental BAE Urban Economics 2023 Mono County, 69.8 Units n.a. n.a.
California
PlaceWorks 2023 San Bernardino n.a. n.a. n.a.
County, California
BAE Urban Economics 2023 Mariposa County, 64.9 Units n.a. n.a.
California
Beacon Economics 2023 San Luis Obispo n.a. n.a. n.a.
County, California
BAE Urban Economics 2022 Truckee, 17.2 Units n.a. n.a.
California
Milken Institute 2022 California n.a. n.a. n.a.
Root Policy Research 2022 Estes Park, n.a.
Colorado
Root Policy Research 2022 Pagosa Springs, 11.6 U nits
Colorado
2021 Breckenridge, 11.0 Units n.a. n.a.
Colorado
Michael Baker International 2017 South Lake
Tahoe, California
n.a. n.a. n.a.
-0.014% to -0.041%
per 1% increase in
STR listings
-0.011% to -0.022%
per 1% increase in
STR listings
-0.012% to -0.023%
per 1% increase in
STR listings
-0.015% to -0.041%
per 1% increase in
STR listings
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
10 Workforce Housing Supply Impacts
In addition, one study prepared in 2017 by Michael Baker International and two studies prepared more recently by Root Policy Research go a step further to estimate statistical relationships between the STRs and the availability and pricing of housing for long-term occupancy using statistical methods similar to those reflected in the academic literature.
The 2017 study by Michael Baker was prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe and determined that the average STR with an overnight capacity of nine people was valued around
8.5 percent higher than comparable homes that were not permitted for STR use. The study also determined that the presence of an average number of STRs within one-tenth of a mile increased a home’s sale price by 2.9 percent, while the presence of STRs within one quarter mile increased a property’s value by 3.6 percent. Interestingly, the study found that the presence of STRs from one-quarter to one-half mile of a home decreased value by 5.3 to 9.1 percent due to negative externalities, such as community-wide traffic and parking issues.
Two other statistical analyses were conducted by Root Policy Research for the communities of Estes Park and Pagosa Springs in Colorado. To conduct their analysis, Root Policy Research first applied the coefficients of impact estimated in the peer reviewed article titled “The effects of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from Airbnb” published by Barron, Kun, and Proserpio in 2021 to local STR and housing stock data. It is not clear why this article in particular was chosen as the basis for their analysis, as other high-quality research exists which found varying coefficients of impact. In addition, Root Policy Research also prepared alternative statistical models using data for the State of Colorado and for areas within Colorado that have elevated seasonal vacancy rates, estimating that a doubling in the number of STRs resulted in a decrease in the number of long-term rental housing units of 1.4 to 4.1 percent and a decrease in the number of owner-occupied housing units by 1.1 to 2.2 percent.
These results were consistent across the two studies prepared for Estes Park and Pagosa Springs, likely due to the use of national and state-level data as the basis for the analysis. BAE anticipates that if the statistical models were more finely specified to align with local economic and housing market conditions, the impact coefficients would more likely vary significantly.2 2 Economic theory suggests that impact coefficients associated with an increase in the number of STRs should vary based on the size of the local housing stock, the magnitude of demand for second homes, the magnitude of demand for overnight tourist accommodations, the share of the existing housing stock that is held vacant for seasonal and occasional use, and the volume of new residential construction that could absorb new second home and STR demand, among other factors. Estes Park is a much larger community with a total of 4,562 housing units compared to 907 in Pagosa Springs as of the 2020 Decennial Census. While the residential vacancy rate in both communities is quite similar at just over 30 percent, the share of the housing stock held vacant for seasonal use averaged around 30 percent in Estes Park compared to 13 percent in Pagosa Springs. With a smaller housing stock and a smaller share of second homes, theory suggests that the impact coefficients associated with an increase in the number of STRs in Pagosa Springs should be higher than in a much larger community like Estes Park. Therefore, BAE anticipates that the impact coefficient estimates prepared by Root Policy Research may not accurately reflect the true impact of an increase in the number of STRs in these communities, but rather reflect the broader relationships that may be anticipated when analyzed at a regional, statewide, or national level.
11 Lodging Industry Occupancy and Rates
Findings from the Academic Literature
Table 3 summarizes the relationship between the STR supply and hotel performance, as documented in recent available literature on the subject. While the research results in the literature are somewhat mixed, there is a general indication that STRs likely do have an impact on the pricing of existing hotel and motel properties (Dogru et al., 2022; O’Neill and Yeon, 2021; Dogru, Hanks, Ozdemir, et al., 2020; Yeon, Song, and Lee 2020; Nguyen, 2019; Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers, 2017), as well as average hotel and motel occupancy in some cases (Dogru, Hanks, Mody, et al., 2020; Dogru, Mody, and Suess, 2019).
While many studies have documented the negative impacts of STRs on the lodging industry, the negative effects have been shown to vary widely across different hotel classes, seasons, types of locations, and regions (Dogru et al., 2022; Dogru, Hanks, Ozdemir, et al., 2020; Dogru, Hanks, Mody, et al., 2020; Nguyen, 2019; Mody and Gomez, 2018). For example, Yeon, Song, and Lee (2020) found that STRs have a limited impact on luxury hotel properties and a greater impact on lower- and mid-tier properties. O’Neill and Yeon (2021) found significant negative impacts for all classes of hotels in the United States, but also determined that STRs tend to have greater negative impacts on the revenues of lower priced hotels relative to higher priced hotels. The research also found that impacts were generally more limited to urban and tourist-oriented hotels compared to more suburban hotels oriented towards business travelers (O’Neill and Yeon, 2021). Zervas et al. (2017) found that independent hotels, hotels that do not cater to business travelers, and lower-end hotels are all more heavily affected by STRs. Overall, the research generally suggests that the impacts from STRs are mainly limited to less aggressive pricing and do not consistently translate to reduced hotel occupancy (Dogru et al., 2022; Dogru, Hanks, Ozdemir, et al., 2020; O’Neill and Yeon, 2021; Yeon, Song, and Lee 2020), though some studies (Dogru, Mody, and Suess, 2019; Dogru, Hanks, Mody, et al., 2020) did identify impacts to average hotel and motel occupancy, in addition to revenue per available room night (RevPAR). Mody, Suess, and Dogru (2017) also found that the early-stage expansion of the STR inventory in Boston had the effect of also inducing an expansion of overnight tourism demand, such that impacts to the hotel industry (i.e., occupancy and rates) were largely moderated over the study period in that case.
Because STR supply is ‘instantaneous,’ it can readily supplement hotel inventory during peak periods, reducing the need to make significant investments in new hotel inventory that may go underutilized during much of the year (Farronato and Fradkin, 2018). Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers (2017) found that Airbnb supply was 60 percent greater during the South by Southwest Festival (SXSW) in Texas compared the rest of the year, and that the impact on hotel revenues was 1.5 percentage points larger at that time, which they attribute to supply and demand dynamics rather than the “idiosyncratic preferences of the SXSW demographic.” The authors further indicate that a ten percent increase in hotel room supply resulted in a 1.6 percent decrease in hotel room revenue, compared to a 0.39 percent decrease in hotel room revenue
12 resulting from a similar ten percent increase in STR supply. CB Richard Ellis, a major global real estate firm, recommended as early as 2020 that hotel operators and investors conduct detailed analysis on the quantity and quality of STR product offerings in any market where ten percent or more of the supply of tourist accommodations is made up of STR units (CB Richard Ellis, 2020). In more recent years, some hotel operators have begun integrating home sharing-like attributes to compete with STRs more effectively (Mody and Gomez, 2018), such as with the condominium type units recently added to the property at Outbound Mammoth.
Table 3: Summary of Literature Review Findings of the Impacts of STRs on Revenue and Occupancy within the Permanent Lodging Inventory Source: BAE, 2023.
Author Published Geography Effect on RevPAR Effect on ADR Effect on
Occupancy
Dogru et al. 2022 United States
(all states)
-0.009% per 1%
increase in STR
listings
-0.008% per 1%
increase in STR
listings
No significant effect
on occupancy
O’Neill & Yeon 2021 United States &
Europe
-0.05% to -0.08%
per 1% increase in
STR listings
n.a. n.a.
Dogru, Hanks,
Mody, et al.
2020
London, Paris,
Sydney, and
Tokyo
-0.016% to -
0.031% per 1%
increase in STR
listings
No significant effect
on ADR
-0.016% per 1%
increase in STR
listings
Dogru, Hanks,
Ozdemir, et al. 2020 United States
(all locations)
-0.029% to -.077%
per 1% increase in
STR listings
-0.043% to -0.089%
per 1% increase in
STR listings
No significant effect
on occupancy
Dogru, Mody, &
Suess 2019 United States
(10 cities)
-0.02% per 1%
increase in STR
listings
-0.02% per 1%
increase in STR
listings
-0.004% per 1%
increase in STR
listings
Nguyen 2019 New York City -1.2% per 10%
increase in STRs
-1.3% per 10%
increase in STRs n.a.
Zervas,
Proserpio, &
Byers
2017 Texas (all
cities) n.a.
-0.039% per 1%
increase in STR
listings
n.a.
13 TOURISM AND OVERNIGHT ACCOMODATIONS
INDUSTRY TRENDS
The following section summarizes characteristics and trends within the tourism and overnight tourism accommodations industries in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County.
Tourism’s Economic
Contribution
Data from the California
Employment Development
Department (EDD) indicates that
the Leisure and Hospitality sector –
which includes recreation,
accommodations, and food service,
among other activities – represents
Mono County’s single largest
employment sector, accounting for
nearly half of all jobs. It also
represents the only significant
growth industry within the county
and accounts for an increasing
share of countywide employment,
as shown in Figure 1.3 Additional
data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that the sector also represents nearly one quarter of countywide gross domestic product, a share that has increased in recent decades.
Additional data from Dean Runyan and Associates, which estimates the economic impacts of travel by county for Visit California, indicates that visitors spent $580.6 million in Mono County in 2022, which supported more than 6,000 jobs directly and indirectly throughout the county.4 Tourism spending also generated approximately $44.2 million in local tax receipts. The Town of Mammoth Lakes estimates 2021-2022 fiscal year transient occupancy tax (TOT) collections at $16.9 million, which represented 38 percent of total townwide revenue, with the 2023- 2024 fiscal year budget projected to include around $18.25 million in TOT revenue.5 3 Though employment fluctuates significantly on both a seasonal and annual basis. 4 Direct impacts represent the immediate effects of visitor spending, such as jobs supported at the location where the spending occurred (e.g., restaurants, hotels, etc.). Indirect impacts represent the multiplier effect, where dollars spent at the point of sale are then re-spent on the goods and services needed to operate the point-of-sale business (e.g., restaurant produce, retail products, utilities, etc.). 5 Town of Mammoth Lakes. (2023). Town of Mammoth Lakes Fiscal Year 2023/24 Operating Budget. Available at: https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13504/Full-Book-Final-Reduced Figure 1: Leisure and Hospitality Jobs as a Share of
Total Nonfarm Employment, 2000-2022
Sources: California Employment Development Department, Industry Employment and Labor Force Data; BAE, 2023.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
California Mono County
42.4%
9.2%
45.8%
10.5%
48.5%
11.8%
9.2%
40.6%
50.1%
10.9%
14 Tourist Accommodations Inventory
Due to its remote location, the Town of Mammoth Lakes relies heavily on overnight tourist visitation to support visitor spending and associated economic activity and tax collections. The inventory of tourist accommodations is diversified with various accommodation types (e.g., hotel/motel, STR, second homes, campgrounds, etc.) across a variety of quality levels (e.g., luxury, upscale, midmarket, economy). Figure 2 illustrates that while the overnight accommodations inventory in the unincorporated county is mostly made up of traditional hotel and motel accommodations, the Mammoth Lakes inventory is heavily skewed towards STRs.
Figure 2: Overnight Tourist Accommodations Inventory, November 2023 Note:
(a) The number of STR bedrooms assumes an average of 3.18 bedrooms per STR unit based on a review of AirDNA data.
Sources: Town of Mammoth Lakes; CoStar; AirDNA and Visit Mammoth; BAE, 2023.
Hotel/Motel Inventory
According to data from CoStar, a private data vendor, there are a total of 26 hotel and motel properties located within the Town boundary.6 Figure 3 illustrates growth in the hotel and motel room inventory from January 2000 through May 2023. The data indicate robust growth in the hotel and motel inventory in the early to mid-2000’s. With the onset of the Great Recession in 2008, the hotel room inventory remained relatively static until 2018 with the addition of around 30 new hotel rooms. However, with onset of the global coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the hotel sector experienced significant distress, with a number of hotel properties either converting to other uses or undertaking significant renovations. As of May 6 There are three properties located in the Town of Mammoth that are outside of the Urban Growth Boundary.
These include the Mammoth Mountain Inn, the Mammoth Mountain Chalets, and the Tamarack Lodge and Resort. 2,195 ,
16%
11,769 ,
84%
Hotel Rooms & STR Units
Hotel rooms STR Bedrooms
2,195 ,
37%
3,701 ,
63%
Hotel Rooms & STR Units
Hotel Rooms STR Units
15 2023, CoStar
estimates that
there were
around 2,260
lodging rooms of
varying sizes
and qualities in
the Town of
Mammoth
Lakes. With
increased
tourism demand
in the postpandemic
economy, the
Town currently
has five new
hotel
development projects under review which are projected for delivery in the next few years. If delivered as planned, these projects will increase the hotel inventory to 2,714 total tourist accommodation units by 2025-2026, including both hotel rooms and condominiums. For a full inventory of existing and planned hotel properties, see Appendix B.
Hotel Occupancy Rates
Most hotel operators target an
average occupancy rate of at
least 60 to 70 percent in order
to sustain operations. Figure
4 illustrates the 12-month
running average occupancy
rate for hotels in Mammoth
Lakes. The data show
significant drops in occupancy
in the later 2000’s,
corresponding the Great
Recession, as well as in 2020-
2021 corresponding with the
global coronavirus pandemic
and associated stay-at-home
orders issued by the
Governor’s office. As of 2022,
occupancy rates had
Figure 4: 12-Month Average Hotel Occupancy Rate,
Town of Mammoth Lakes, Jan 2000 to Oct 2023
Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2023.
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
Figure 3: Hotel/Motel Inventory Trends, January 2000 to May 2023 Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2023.
1,800
1,900
2,000
2,100
2,200
2,300
Jan 2000
Dec 2000
Nov 2001
Oct 2002
Sep 2003
Aug 2004
Jul 2005
Jun 2006
May 2007
Apr 2008
Mar 2009
Feb 2010
Jan 2011
Dec 2011
Nov 2012
Oct 2013
Sep 2014
Aug 2015
Jul 2016
Jun 2017
May 2018
Apr 2019
Mar 2020
Feb 2021
Jan 2022
Dec 2022
16 recovered to an average of around 63 percent, which remained somewhat below the high of 68 percent experienced in late 2019. Meanwhile, occupancy rates among STR units spiked in 2020 in line with a shift in consumer preferences towards socially distanced accommodations, with STR occupancy rates remaining elevated from 2020 through 2023 at 50-60 percent.
Hotel Nightly Rates
Hotel rates are typically
tracked based on the
average daily rate (ADR)
as well as the average
revenue per available
room night (RevPAR).
Figure 5 illustrates
change in the ADR and
RevPAR for hotel
properties in the Town
of Mammoth Lakes.
The data indicate that,
on average, both ADR
and RevPAR have
increased steadily over
time. The exceptions
are brief decreases that
occurred as a result of the global Coronavirus pandemic between 2020 and 2021, with rates resuming their prior trajectory as of 2022. CoStar estimates the ADR for the 12-months from November 2022 to October 2023 at $227, while the monthly average rates ranged from $182 to $297. RevPAR for the same period averaged $145, and ranged from $106 to $177, depending on the month.
Figure 5: 12-Month Average Hotel ADR and RevPAR,
Jan 2000-Oct 2023
Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2023.
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Jan 2000Jan 2001Jan 2002Jan 2003Jan 2004Jan 2005Jan 2006Jan 2007Jan 2008Jan 2009Jan 2010Jan 2011Jan 2012Jan 2013Jan 2014Jan 2015Jan 2016Jan 2017Jan 2018Jan 2019Jan 2020Jan 2021Jan 2022Jan 2023 ADR RevPAR
$226 $158 $185
$148
$60
$35
$71
$125
$72
$144
17 Hotel Capitalization Rates
Capitalization (cap) rates reflect the
revenue generating potential of a
commercial real estate asset as a
share of the property’s full market
value. In times of economic
uncertainty, investors often elect to
invest in properties with
comparatively high cap rates, as
those investments are perceived to
be lower risk. Decreasing cap rates
generally reflect improving
confidence in the future performance
of certain investment types. Figure 6
illustrates estimates from CoStar of
market average cap rates for hotel and motel properties in Mammoth Lakes from January 2000 through May 2023. The data indicate that cap rates for hotel properties decreased steadily from 2000 until the onset of the Great Recession in 2008. This corresponds with the significant increases in hotel inventory observed in Figure 3. Cap rates increased to more than nine percent during the Great Recession, but largely recovered by the mid-2010s when rates began to increase modestly, peaking in 2020 at 8.2 percent. Cap rates recovered fairly quickly in late 2021 and 2022 and stabilized in 2023 at around 7.5 percent on average.
Short-Term Rental Inventory
According to data from AirDNA and provided to the Town by Visit Mammoth, there were approximately 3,193 unique STR listings in the Mammoth Lakes market between January and September 2022. Of those, 3,163 listings (99.1 percent) were “entire place” listings, which designates that the entire unit is included in the listing. By comparison, 29 listings were for private or shared rooms within larger units. The Town reports having 3,701 permitted STR units with Schedule F TOT certificates as of November 2023, though not all may be active.
Figure 6: Estimated Market Capitalization
Rate, Hotel/Motel Properties, Town of
Mammoth Lakes, January 2000 to May 2023
Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2023.
7.0%
7.5%
8.0%
8.5%
9.0%
9.5%
10.0%
10.5%
Mar 2000
Sep 2001
Mar 2003
Sep 2004
Mar 2006
Sep 2007
Mar 2009
Sep 2010
Mar 2012
Sep 2013
Mar 2015
Sep 2016
Mar 2018
Sep 2019
Mar 2021
Sep 2022
10.3%
8.5%
8.0%
9.2%
7.9%
7.7%
8.1%
8.3%
7.5%
18 Figure 7 illustrates change in
the number of “entire place”
listings tracked by AirDNA,
which include properties
listed on Airbnb and VRBO.
Note that the available data
extends as far back as 2014-
2015, though the initial years
of the inventory are likely
incomplete, with additional
data from VRBO being added
only in June 2017.
Therefore, the trends data is
only reasonably reliable for
the years 2018 and later.
Based on this data, it
appears that the average
number of listings decreased
by around 325 listings
between 2018 and 2020,
with the average number of
active listings rebounding to above 2018 levels by late 2023.
STR Occupancy
Figure 8 illustrates the
average annual occupancy
rate for STRs in Mammoth
Lakes from 2018 through
September of 2023, as
reported by AirDNA. These
data clearly illustrate the
significant increase in
occupancy experienced
within the STR sector with
the onset of the pandemic
in 2020. This is attributed
to consumer preferences
during the pandemic for
socially distanced
accommodations, though it is notable that occupancy rates have remained elevated. Prior to the pandemic, STR occupancy rates averaged in the low 40 percent range, increasing to around 55 percent or higher post-pandemic.
Figure 7: Average Number of “Entire Place” Listings,
with Monthly Min and Max, Oct 2014 to Sept 2023
Note:
(a) The available data extends as far back as October 2014, though data for 2014 through 2017 are likely incomplete. Data for VRBO was added only in June 2017. Therefore, data prior to 2018 are likely unreliable.
Sources: AirDNA: Visit Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD
2023
Ave. Available Listings Ave. Booked Listings
(a)
Figure 8: Average Annual STR Occupancy, Mammoth
Lakes, 2018 to Sept 2023
Sources: AirDNA; Visit Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
40.4%
42.6%
54.7% 55.0%
52.1%
58.2%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD 2023
2,891 2,566
3,164
2,341 2,291
2,999
19 Dividing the total number of
available unit nights by the total
number of listings returns the
average number of available
nights per listing. Likewise,
dividing the total number of
booked unit nights by the total
number of booked listings
returns the average number of
booked nights. These figures
are reported in Figure 9 and
indicate that STR units in
Mammoth Lakes were available
for booking almost 85 percent of
the calendar year in 2022,
though units were booked
around 50 percent of the year.7
In 2023 there were 105
weekend days in the calendar. With an average STR being booked around 175 nights per year, the data imply that an average STR in Mammoth Lakes is more or less rented every weekend of the year, plus more than 75 weekdays throughout the year. Depending on the definition used, an average STR in Mammoth Lakes may be considered to be a full-time tourist accommodation unit, with some occasional secondary residential use. 7 Please note that many STR owners and operators make units available for large portions of the year, book what they can, then use the property during un-booked times as a second home and/or private residence. Therefore the reported availability of STRs within the Mammoth market may be exaggerated in the data.
Figure 9: Average Nights Available and Occupied Per
STR Listing, Mammoth Lakes, 2017 to Sept 2022
Sources: AirDNA; Visit Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
137 141
170 179 174
145
275
290 277
296 307
236
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD 2023
Ave. Nights Booked Ave. Nights Available
20 STR Nightly Rates
Similar to the trend in
STR occupancy
described above, ADRs
and RevPAR for STR
units in Mammoth
Lakes have increased
fairly steadily since
2018, with modest
decreases in 2021 and
2022 compared to
2020. As of September
2023, the ADR in
Mammoth Lakes was
$415, which was equal
to the 2020 peak.
RevPAR shows a similar
trend, with 2023
RevPAR averaging $242
per unit, compared to a high of $227 observed in 2020. Rates appear to have been relatively resilient in 2020, despite the pandemic, due to a decrease in the number of listings and increase in occupancy compared
to hotel units. According to key
stakeholders, the decrease in
listings was primarily driven by
owners electing to use the units
themselves during periods of
social distancing. As of October
2023, RevPAR had increased to
$246.50 per available room
night.
Average STR Revenue
According to more recent
estimates from AirDNA, the
average STR listing between
November 2022 and October
2023 generated $87,300 in gross revenue over the 12-month period. As shown in Figure 11, whole house rentals averaged significantly greater revenue at $158,400 in gross revenue compared to apartment units at $81,200 in gross revenue.
Figure 10: Average Daily Rates (ADR) and Revenue Per
Available Room Night (RevPAR), Mammoth Lakes, 2018 to
Sept 2023
Sources: AirDNA; Visit Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
$354
$389 $415
$396 $412 $415
$143
$166
$227
$218 $215
$242
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD
2023
ADR
RevPAR
Linear (ADR)
Linear (RevPAR)
Figure 11: Average Gross Revenue per STR by
Type, Mammoth Lakes, Nov 202 - Oct 2023
Sources: AirDNA; BAE, 2023.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$87,500
$158,400
$81,200
21 STR Unit Size
Figure 12 illustrates the
distribution of STR
listings by unit size.
These data indicate that
nearly 90 percent of all
listings have three or
fewer bedrooms. These
data indicate that most
units engaged in shortterm renting would
likely be functionally
suitable for full-time
occupancy by workforce
households.
Geographic
Distribution
The Town of
Mammoth Lakes
currently allows new
STRs to be
established only
within certain zoning
districts, including
the Downtown (D),
Mixed Lodging/
Residential (MLR),
Old Mammoth Road
(OMR), North Valley
Specific Plan (NVSP),
Resort (R), and
Residential
Multifamily-2 (RMF-2) zones. There are also a number of existing permitted STRs in the Residential Multifamily-1 (RMF-1) and Public-Quasi Public (P-QP) zones. Figure 13 illustrates the relative concentration of permitted STRs within each zoning district. Figure 14 Illustrates the relative concentration and distribution of permitted STRs throughout the community.
Figure 12: STR Listings by Size, Mammoth Lakes, Nov 2023 Sources: AirDNA; BAE, 2023.
22%
38%
27%
11%
2%
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
5+ Bedroom
Figure 13: STRs with Schedule F TOT Certificates by Zone Sources: Town of Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1 10 1 64 99
523
816
1,948
0
22 Figure 14: STRs with Schedule F TOT Certificates and Town Zoning Districts, October 2023 Sources: Town of Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
23 Schedule F Operators
While the currently available data are insufficient to accurately characterize the prevalence of corporate ownership of STRs or the prevalence of owners with multiple STR units, the Town of Mammoth Lakes does maintain records related to Schedule F TOT certificates on the number of units operated by individual filers. Figure 15 illustrates that the STR market in Mammoth Lakes is largely bifurcated between small and large operators. The data indicate that nearly 90 percent of all operators have only one STR unit, though these operators manage only around one-third of the total STR inventory, or around 1,150 units in total. Mid-sized operators with 2-10 units represent only around eight percent of the market. Larger operators with 11- 99 units meanwhile
represent only 1.3
percent of operators,
but account for nearly
one-quarter of the STR
inventory. The data
indicate that there are
only seven operators
with more than 100
STR units, representing
only 0.6 percent of
operators, though
these entities control
around 36 percent of
all STR units in
Mammoth.
On average, the largest
operators manage
almost 185 STR units
each.
Figure 15: Percent of Schedule F TOT Certificate Operators and STRs by Management Class, Dec 2023
Sources: Town of Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4-10 11-99 100+
90%
5% 1% 1% 1.3% 0.6%
32%
4% 1% 3%
24%
36%
PERCENT OF TOTAL
OPERATOR CLASS (# OF UNITS)
% of Operators % of STR Units
24 HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
The following section summarizes recent conditions and trends within the Mammoth Lakes housing market. The analysis is based primarily on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the California Department of Finance, the Town of Mammoth Lakes, and local property managers.
Figure 16: Housing Stock Utilization, Town of Mammoth Lakes Notes:
(a) Based on the distribution of vacant housing units by type as reported in the 2020 Decennial Census, multiplied by the total number of housing units, as reported by the Town of Mammoth Lakes for 2022. (b) Includes units that are vacant as a result of being available for rent and for sale. (c) Includes units that are held vacant for seasonal and occasional use. (d) As reported by the Town of Mammoth Lakes for 2022.
(e) Includes units that are rented or sold, but not yet reoccupied, as well as units held vacant for migrant workers, and units that fall into the Census Bureau’s “other vacant” definition. (f) As reported by the Town of Mammoth Lakes as of December 2023.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; Town of Mammoth Lakes; BAE, June 2023.
Housing Stock Utilization
As illustrated in Figure 16, above, the Town estimates that as of 2022, there were 9,636 housing units in Mammoth Lakes. Assuming that the distribution of housing units by tenure has remained the same as in 2020, BAE estimates that as of 2022 there would have been around 3,030 full-time occupied housing units (31.4 percent of the housing stock) in Mammoth Lakes, including 1,444 owner occupied units (15.0 percent) and 1,586 renter occupied units (16.5 percent). Of the remainder, 5,692 units (59.1 percent) were vacant for seasonal and occasional use. Another 535 units (5.6 percent) were vacant as a result of
25 actively being marketed for rent or for sale. The figure shows 379 units in the “other vacant” category, which includes units identified in the Census Bureau’s “vacant other” category, as well as units that have been sold or rented but not reoccupied and units held vacant for migrant workers. While not a perfect comparison, as of December 2023, the Town of Mammoth Lakes reported having 3,462 permitted short-term rentals, which represent around
35.6 percent of the total housing stock. The Town reports that there are 6,559 units eligible to be short-term rented under regulations, meaning that around 52.8 percent of eligible units were rented and 68.1 percent of the Town’s housing stock were eligible to rent.
Table 4: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2020 and 2020 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010 and 2020; BAE, 2023.
Housing Vacancy Characteristics
Table 4 reports the distribution of housing units in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and unincorporated Mono County by occupancy and vacancy status, as reported by the 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census’. According to this data, the Town of Mammoth Lakes lost a net total of just under 300 housing units over the decade. The data also illustrate a notable shift away from full-time occupancy towards seasonal vacancy. More specifically, the Town added around 530 seasonally vacant housing units over the decade, which represents growth of around 10 percent. At the same time, the number of full-time occupied housing units decreased by almost 300, and the number of units available for rent and for sale also decreased. The number of owner-occupied housing units decreased by more than 100 and Town of Mammoth Lakes Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Occupied units 3,229 33.5% 2,934 31.4% (295) -9.1%
Owner-Occupied 1,502 15.6% 1,398 15.0% (104) -6.9%
Renter-Occupied 1,727 17.9% 1,536 16.5% (191) -11.1%
Vacant units 6,397 66.5% 6,396 68.6% (1) 0.0%
For rent 1,016 10.6% 487 5.2% (529) -52.1%
For sale only 54 0.6% 31 0.3% (23) -42.6%
Rented, not occupied 278 2.9% 130 1.4% (148) -53.2%
Sold, not occupied 11 0.1% 177 1.9% 166 1509.1%
For seasonal, rec, or occasional use 4,981 51.7% 5,511 59.1% 530 10.6% For migrant workers 4 0.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0%
Other vacant 53 0.6% 56 0.6% 3 5.7%
Total Units 9,626 100% 9,330 100% (296) -3.1%
Unincorporated Mono County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Occupied units 2,539 59.2% 2,540 59.6% 1 0.0%
Owner-Occupied 1,726 40.3% 1,719 40.4% (7) -0.4%
Renter-Occupied 813 19.0% 821 19.3% 8 1.0%
Vacant units 1,747 40.8% 1,719 40.4% (28) -1.6%
For rent 109 2.5% 80 1.9% (29) -26.6%
For sale only 64 1.5% 38 0.9% (26) -40.6%
Rented, not occupied 11 0.3% 20 0.5% 9 81.8%
Sold, not occupied 9 0.2% 28 0.7% 19 211.1%
For seasonal, rec, or occasional use 1,402 32.7% 1,398 32.8% (4) -0.3% For migrant workers 17 0.4% 16 0.4% (1) -5.9%
Other vacant 135 3.1% 139 3.3% 4 3.0%
Total Units 4,286 100% 4,259 100% (27) -0.6%
2010 2020 Change 2010-2020
2010 2020 Change 2010-2020
26 the number of units that were vacant because they were for sale also decreased. Meanwhile, the number of renter-occupied housing units decreased by more than 190, the number of units that were vacant for rent decreased by almost 530, and the number of units that were rented but not yet reoccupied decreased by almost 150. This implies that the inventory of housing available for rent decreased by almost 870 units over the decade.
Functional Housing Vacancy Rate
The functional housing vacancy rate is the percentage of the housing stock that is available for full-time occupancy. It is calculated by dividing the number of housing units that are available for sale or for rent by the total number of housing units that are occupied, available for rent or for sale, or
rented/sold but not
yet occupied. Figure
17 illustrates the
estimated functional
vacancy rate
according to the
2020 Decennial
Census. This data
indicates that within
the ownership
housing market, the
functional vacancy
rate was only around
1.9 percent in 2020.
The functional
vacancy rate within
the rental market, by
comparison, was
closer to 22.6
percent, according to the Decennial Census, which included a total of 487 vacant rental units compared to a long-term rental inventory of 2,153 units. Discussions with local property managers indicates that the reported vacancy is likely a result of near-term changes in employment that occurred in 2020 as a result of the Governor’s public health orders which resulted in the closure of Mammoth Mountain and many other businesses for much of 2020.
Property managers indicated that the 2020 rental vacancy rate, therefore, is likely not representative of the of the current functional vacancy rate within the long-term rental market, which managers indicate is likely in the low single digits.
Seasonal Vacancy Rate
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, seasonal vacancy includes housing units that are vacant to allow for seasonal, recreational, or otherwise occasional use. As reported in Table 4, the Figure 17: Occupied and Vacant Housing Units by Tenure
with Functional Vacancy Rates, 2020
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE, 2023. 1,606
2,153
31 487
1.9%
22.6%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Owner Renter
FUNCTIONAL VACANCY RATE
NUMBER OF UNITS
HOUSEHOLD TENURE
Occupied Vacant Vacancy Rate
27 Figure 18: Seasonal Vacant Housing Units, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2020 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; Town of Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
28 Figure 19: Seasonal Vacant Housing Units, Mono County, 2020 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; Mono County; BAE, 2023.
29 Town of Mammoth Lakes added 530 seasonally vacant units between 2010 and 2020, during a time when the total number of housing units decreased, resulting in an increase in the seasonal vacancy rate from 51.7 percent in 2010 to 59.1 percent in 2020. Over the same period, seasonal vacancy in unincorporated Mono County remained virtually unchanged.
Though there are a variety of functional differences between housing in Mammoth Lakes compared to unincorporated Mono County, one of the key differences is the County’s more burdensome approvals process for STRs, which requires dual discretionary approvals.
Figure 18 and Figure 19, above on pages 27 and 28, illustrate areas with relatively high concentrations of seasonally vacant housing, as reported by the 2020 Decennial Census at the Census Block level. According to this data, within the Town of Mammoth Lakes, the areas with the highest concentrations of seasonal vacancy include areas on the west side of Old Mammoth Road, parts of Meridian Boulevard, and the area to the north of Lake Mary Road.
Throughout Mono County more broadly, the areas of highest seasonal vacancy include the Town of Mammoth Lakes and June Lake, as well as Virginia Lakes and Twin Lakes. There is also some seasonal vacancy concentrated near Crowley Lake and small amounts illustrated in Bridgeport and Walker. These areas also correspond with areas of higher STR concentration, though both second home and STR demand are correlated with proximity to tourist nodes.
For-Sale Housing Prices
Figures 20 through 22 illustrate for-sale home prices in Mammoth Lakes. The figures differentiate between homes sold in zoning districts that allow transient uses (i.e., STRs) versus those that do not. For a list of the zoning districts that allow and do not allow transient uses, please see Appendix C. Detailed tables on home sales are provided in Appendix D.
Detailed data on both single-family and condominium home sales from 2010 through 2022 indicate that units located within zones that allow transient uses consistently sold for more than units in areas that do not allow transient use. Though sales prices vary from year to year, single-family homes in transient use areas sold for an average of $955,000 more than units in non-transient use zones between 2010 and 2019, which increased to a premium of $1.6 million between 2020 and 2022. On a per square foot basis, single-family homes in transient use zones sold for an average of $123 more than in non-transient zones, which increased to $179 between 2020 and 2022 (the premium in 2022 was $257 per square foot).
Condominium sales in transient use zones also sold for an average of $20,550 more compared to non-transient use zones between 2010 and 2019, which increased to an average premium of around $100,000 between 2020 and 2022. On a per square foot basis, condominium units in transient use zones sold for around $25 more per square foot between 2010 and 2019, which increased to $68 per square foot between 2020 and 2022 (the premium in 2022 was $93 per square foot, with preliminary data $112 in 2023).
30 Figure 20: Single-Family and Condominium Sales Volumes (Units), 2010-2022 Sources: Town of Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
Figure 21: Single-Family and Condominium Per Sq. Ft. Sales Prices, 2010-2022 Sources: Town of Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
Figure 22: Single-Family and Condominium Sales Prices, 2010-2022 Sources: Town of Mammoth Lakes; BAE, 2023.
-
20 40
60 80
100
120
Single-Family
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
Single-Family
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
Single-Family
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
Condominium
Transient Use
Not Permitted
Transient Use
Permitted
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Condominium
Transient Use
Not Permitted
Transient Use
Permitted
-
100
200
300
400
500
Condominiums
Transient Use
Not Permitted
Transient Use
Permitted
31 Table 5: Affordable Home Purchase Prices, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2023 (Page 1 of 2) Sources: HCD; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey; BAE, 2023.
Persons Per Household
2023 Income Limits (a) One Two Three Four Five
Acutely Low -Income (15% MFI) $10,050 $11,500 $12,900 $14,350 $15,500 Extremely Low -Income (30% MFI) $17,850 $20,400 $24,860 $30,000 $35,140 Very Low -Income (50% MFI) $29,750 $34,000 $38,250 $42,500 $45,900 Low -Income (80% MFI) $47,600 $54,400 $61,200 $68,000 $73,450 Median Income (100% MFI) $67,050 $76,650 $86,200 $95,800 $103,450 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $80,450 $91,950 $103,450 $114,950 $124,150 MF Achievable (200% MFI)(b) $134,100 $153,300 $172,400 $191,600 $206,900 Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 1-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Acutely Low -Income (15% MFI) $251 $206 $9 $36 $0 $251 $7,907 $39,534 Extremely Low -Income (30% MFI) $446 $366 $15 $64 $0 $446 $14,050 $70,248 Very Low -Income (50% MFI) $744 $611 $25 $107 $0 $744 $23,437 $117,184 Low -Income (80% MFI) $1,190 $978 $41 $172 $0 $1,190 $37,486 $187,432 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $2,011 $1,652 $69 $290 $0 $2,011 $63,349 $316,744 MF Achievable (200% MFI) $3,353 $2,754 $115 $484 $0 $3,353 $105,623 $528,117 Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 2-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Acutely Low -Income (15% MFI) $288 $237 $10 $42 $0 $288 $9,072 $45,362 Extremely Low -Income (30% MFI) $510 $419 $17 $74 $0 $510 $16,066 $80,328 Very Low -Income (50% MFI) $850 $698 $29 $123 $0 $850 $26,776 $133,880 Low -Income (80% MFI) $1,360 $1,117 $46 $196 $0 $1,360 $42,842 $214,208 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $2,299 $1,889 $79 $332 $0 $2,299 $72,421 $362,106 MF Achievable (200% MFI) $3,833 $3,149 $131 $553 $0 $3,833 $120,744 $603,720 Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 3-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Acutely Low -Income (15% MFI) $323 $265 $11 $47 $0 $323 $10,175 $50,874 Extremely Low -Income (30% MFI) $622 $511 $21 $90 $0 $622 $19,594 $97,969 Very Low -Income (50% MFI) $956 $785 $33 $138 $0 $956 $30,115 $150,576 Low -Income (80% MFI) $1,530 $1,257 $52 $221 $0 $1,530 $48,197 $240,984 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $2,586 $2,124 $88 $373 $0 $2,586 $81,462 $407,310 MF Achievable (200% MFI) $4,310 $3,540 $147 $622 $0 $4,310 $135,770 $678,850
32 Table 5: Affordable Home Purchase Prices, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2023 (Page 2 of 2) Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the CA Department of Housing and Community Development-adjusted median family income of $95,800 ($2023). (b) Based on an average interest rate in November 2023. (c) Based on the tax rate area 051-027.
(d) Based on an average of quoted insurance premiums from the Homeowners Premium Survey.
Sources: HCD; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey; BAE, 2023.
Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 4-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Acutely Low -Income (15% MFI) $359 $295 $12 $52 $0 $359 $11,309 $56,545 Extremely Low -Income (30% MFI) $750 $616 $26 $108 $0 $750 $23,626 $118,129 Very Low -Income (50% MFI) $1,063 $873 $36 $153 $0 $1,063 $33,486 $167,429 Low -Income (80% MFI) $1,700 $1,396 $58 $245 $0 $1,700 $53,552 $267,760 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $2,874 $2,361 $98 $415 $0 $2,874 $90,534 $452,672 MF Achievable (200% MFI) $4,790 $3,935 $164 $692 $0 $4,790 $150,891 $754,453 Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 5-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Acutely Low -Income (15% MFI) $388 $319 $13 $56 $0 $388 $12,222 $61,112 Extremely Low -Income (30% MFI) $879 $722 $30 $127 $0 $879 $27,690 $138,448 Very Low -Income (50% MFI) $1,148 $943 $39 $166 $0 $1,148 $36,163 $180,817 Low -Income (80% MFI) $1,836 $1,508 $63 $265 $0 $1,836 $57,836 $289,181 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $3,104 $2,550 $106 $448 $0 $3,104 $97,780 $488,898 MF Achievable (200% MFI) $5,173 $4,249 $177 $747 $0 $5,173 $162,955 $814,777 Ownership Cost Assumptions
% of Income for Housing Costs 30% of gross annual income Mortgage Terms
Dow n payment 20% of home value
Annual interest rate (b) 6.8% fixed
Loan term 30 years
Annual property tax rate (c) 1.10% of home value
Annual homeow ners insurance (d) 0.26% of home value
33 Affordable Home Purchase Price
Table 5, above, reports affordable home purchase prices in Mammoth Lakes based on data from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and area mortgage brokers. Assuming a 20 percent downpayment and an interest rate of 6.8 percent, the estimated income needed to afford condominium unit priced around the median ($711,200 in 2022) would be around $180,000 per year, which is equal to almost 190 percent of the area median family income (MFI) as estimated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Notably, at this pricing level, the median condominium unit would fall under the 2023 conforming loan limits for Mono County.
The calculations reported in the table assume a 20 percent downpayment, which would require the purchaser to provide $142,240 up front. This is likely to be a challenge for many workforce households. Decreasing the downpayment amount to five percent of the purchase price would decrease the downpayment requirement to only $35,560, but would increase the monthly payment to nearly $5,200, which would require an income of nearly $208,500 per year, or 218 percent of the area MFI. Downpayment assistance programs are available, though many are associated with State and Federal funding sources which can have strict eligibility requirements that often preclude middle-income households from participating.
Homeowners’ association (HOA) dues and special assessments are also an important factor in the relative affordability of multifamily condominium units. According to local property managers and HOA representatives, typical HOA dues can range from $300 to $600 per month. Also, as many of the condominium properties in Mammoth are quite old, many condominium property owners are also subject to additional special assessments that were imposed to help cover costs associated with significant repairs, such as roof replacements, that were not fully covered by the association’s replacement reserve.
Single-family for-sale housing is largely out of reach of area workforce households, with an income of more than 290 percent of the area MFI needed to afford a median priced home.
Rental Housing Prices
Based on outreach
conducted with area
property management
companies, BAE identified
236 rental housing listings,
with only eight vacancies,
which represents a vacancy
rate of 3.8 percent. Table 6
reports a total of four
available rentals in units
with two or fewer bedrooms,
Table 6: Market Rate Rental Listings, Town of Mammoth
Lakes, December 2023
Sources: Mammoth Lakes Area Property Managers; BAE, 2023.
Unit Size Count Per Unit Per Bdrm Number Rate
Studio 39 $1,091 $1,091 1 2.6%
One Bedroom 54 $1,506 $1,506 1 1.9%
Tw o Bedroom 71 $1,976 $988 2 2.8%
Three Bedroom 19 $2,694 $898 1 5.3%
Four Bedroom 6 $4,725 $1,181 2 33.3%
Five Bedroom 1 $4,250 $850 0 0.0%
Unknow n 46 n.a. n.a. 1 2.2%
All Units 236 $1,633 $1,084 8 3.4%
Average $/Month Vacancy
34 which equals a vacancy rate of less than 2.5 percent. Due to limited inventory, the three vacancies identified in units with three or more bedrooms result in exaggerated vacancy rates.
Table 6, above, further reports that the average monthly rent in Mammoth Lakes is $1,633 per month, or just under $1,100 per bedroom per month. Per bedroom rents in larger shared rental units are generally lower than for studio or one-bedroom units.
Affordable Rental Rates
Table 7, on the following page, reports the rental rates that may reasonably be considered affordable at different income levels. Compared to the data provided in Table 6, the average market rate rental in Mammoth Lakes could be considered affordable to low-income households, though the larger the unit the less affordable the unit becomes on average.
HUD Defined Housing Problems
Although market rate rental rates appear to be relatively affordable at lower-income levels, data published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) indicate that almost three-quarters of low-income households in Mammoth Lakes experience at least one of the four HUD defined housing problems, which include overpayment, overcrowding, and/or inadequate kitchen or bathroom facilities. Given the community’s reliance on service sector employment,
overpayment
represents the most
common of the four
HUD defined
housing problems.
Interestingly, the
data show a
relatively low
prevalence of
housing problems
among very lowincome households,
which is explained
by the presence of
income-restricted
housing complexes
in Mammoth Lakes.
Figure 23: Prevalence of HUD Defined Housing Problems,
2016-2020 Five-Year Sample
Note: HAMFI stands for HUD Area Median Family Income.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2016-2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2023.
68.4%
30.3%
72.9%
31.6%
69.7%
27.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Extremely Low Income
(≤30% HAMFI)
Very Low Income (>30%,
≤50% HAMFI)
Low Income (>50%,
≤80% HAMFI)
1 or more of 4 Housing Problem No Housing Problems
35 Table 7: Affordable Rental Rates, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2023 Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the CA Department of Housing and Community Development-adjusted median family income of $95,800 ($2023).
(b) Affordable rents equal to 30 percent of gross monthly income, minus a utility allowance. The utility allowance is published by Stanislaus Regional Housing Authority (as referred to by Eastern Sierra Community Housing) in 2023. Utility allowance estimated assume that all heating, cooking, and water heating would be done using propane. Other electricity usage is also included, accounting for lighting, refrigeration, and small appliances.
Sources: CA Department of Housing and Community Development; Eastern Sierra Community Housing and Stanislaus Regional Housing Authority; BAE, 2023.
Persons Per Household
2023 Income Limits (a) One Two Three Four Five
Acutely Low -Income (15% MFI) $10,050 $11,500 $12,900 $14,350 $15,500 Extremely Low -Income (30% MFI) $17,850 $20,400 $24,860 $30,000 $35,140 Very Low -Income (50% MFI) $29,750 $34,000 $38,250 $42,500 $45,900 Low -Income (80% MFI) $47,600 $54,400 $61,200 $68,000 $73,450 Median Income (100% MFI) $67,050 $76,650 $86,200 $95,800 $103,450 Moderate-Income (120% MFI) $80,450 $91,950 $103,450 $114,950 $124,150 Unit Size
Affordable Rents (b) Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom Acutely Low Income
1-Person $110 $87
2-Person $124 $77
3-Person $112 $67
4-Person $148 $103 $52
5-Person $132 $81
Extremely Low Income
1-Person $305 $282
2-Person $346 $299
3-Person $411 $366
4-Person $539 $494 $443
5-Person $623 $572
Very Low Income
1-Person $603 $580
2-Person $686 $639
3-Person $745 $700
4-Person $852 $807 $756
5-Person $892 $841
Low
1-Person $1,049 $1,026
2-Person $1,196 $1,149
3-Person $1,319 $1,274
4-Person $1,489 $1,444 $1,393
5-Person $1,580 $1,529
Moderate
1-Person $1,870 $1,847
2-Person $2,135 $2,088
3-Person $2,375 $2,330
4-Person $2,663 $2,618 $2,567
5-Person $2,848 $2,797
36 Near-Term Migration Trends
The following section summarizes the available information regarding population and household migration trends, with a focus on the period from 2020 and 2023.
Household Relocation Trends
To provide a more thorough evaluation of recent in- and out-migration patterns in Mammoth Lakes, BAE downloaded publicly available data published by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) regarding change of address requests by ZIP Code. BAE then sorted the data to highlight records for individuals, households, and businesses that filed change of address requests for moves either into, or out of, area ZIP Codes areas between 2019 and October 2023. The data include breakouts for temporary and permanent change of address requests filed by businesses, households, and individuals.
Recognizing the purpose of this analysis, which is to assess pandemic induced population and household change, BAE made the assumption that business change of address requests are most likely associated with permanent moves. Therefore, BAE then subtracted the reported number of business change of address requests from the total number of permanent change of address requests to estimate the total number of permanent residential change of address requests. BAE then subtracted the total number of residential requests for those moving out of the study area ZIP Codes from those moving in to estimate the net change.
Figure 24 illustrates
that the 93546 ZIP
Code, which
represents the
broader Mammoth
Lakes area,
experienced a net
outflow of 60
permanent
relocations in 2019.
The pace of migration
increased with onset
of the pandemic in
2020, with a net
outflow of 283
permanent
relocations, which increased further in 2021 to 576 outgoing households and to nearly 1,070 outgoing households in 2022. The outflow slowed as of late 2023, with a net outflow of 219 permanent relocations (see Appendix E for more information).
Figure 24: U.S. Postal Service Change of Address Requests for ZIP Code 93546, 2019 to July 2022
Sources: U.S. Postal Service, National Change of Address Dataset; BAE, 2023. (1,100)
(900)
(700)
(500)
(300)
(100)
100
2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD 2023
(60)
(283)
(576)
(1,068)
(219)
37 Countywide School Enrollment
Data collected from the California Department of Education (CDE) indicates that enrollment in the Mammoth Unified School District decreased sharply during the 2019-2020 and 2020- 2021 academic years, with a cumulative loss of around 90 students, who have not returned.
Additional data for the
Eastern Sierra Unified
School District, as well
as the Jan Work and
Sawtooth Ridge
Community Schools
indicate that the
county as a whole
experienced a net loss
of just over 100 K-12
students with the
pandemic, with
enrollment having yet
to fully recover.
Labor Force Trends
In- and Out-Commuting
Due to its comparatively remote location, communities in Mono County must predominantly rely on the existing resident labor force to meet workforce needs. Data from the 2020 fiveyear American Community Survey (ACS), the most recent data available, indicate that there were 8,162 persons on average employed in Mono County, with 87 percent also living within the county, and only 13 percent commuting into the county from outside. In-commuters primarily originate from the neighboring communities of Inyo County in California and Douglas County in Nevada. By comparison, the County had an average of 8,095 employed residents, again with around 88 percent working within the community and 12 percent commuting out.
Figure 26: In- and Out-Commuter Rates, Mono County, 2016-2020 ACS Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS); BAE, 2023. 87%
13% Workers
County Residents
In-Commuters
Figure 25: K-12 School Enrollment, Mammoth Unified
School District, 2016-17 to 2022-23
Sources: California Department of Education, DataQuest, Enrollment Multi-Year Summary by Grade; BAE, 2023.
1,213
1,200
1,209
1,189
1,119 1,125 1,118
1,100
1,120
1,140
1,160
1,180
1,200
1,220
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 88%
12% Employed
Residents
County Workers
Out-Commuters
38 Labor Force Availability
Due to their remote location and increasing cost of living, both the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County have experienced significant declines in labor force availability in recent years. Figure 26 illustrates monthly employment and unemployment trends, including the unemployment rate, in Mammoth Lakes from January 2015 through October 2023. The data indicate that total labor force availability remained relatively stable at 5,000 to 6,000 workers between 2015 and 2019, though the unemployment rate decreased significantly from six to seven percent in 2015 to three percent in 2017 to less than 0.5 percent in 2018. Between April and May of 2020, corresponding with the Governor’s pandemic-era public health orders and closure of Mammoth Mountain, the total labor force in Mammoth Lakes dropped to only 3,140 workers. While the total labor force recovered to between 4,000 and 5,000 workers in 2020 and 2021, the reported number of unemployed workers remained quite low and, as of January 2021, declined to zero, where it has reportedly remained through October 2023.
Figure 27: Employment and Unemployment Trends, Town of Mammoth Lakes, Jan 2015 through Oct 2023
Sources: California Employment Development Department (EDD); BAE, 2023.
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
WORKERS
Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate
39 INDUCED WORKFORCE HOUSING DEMAND
The following section estimates demand for workforce housing created as a result of STR occupancy and associated visitor spending. Data for this analysis were primarily collected from the 2022 The Economic Impact of Travel: California report prepared by Dean Runyan and Associates on behalf of Visit California.8 Additional data regarding average occupancy for STRs located in the Town of Mammoth Lakes were collected from AirDNA and Visit Mammoth.
According to Dean Runyan, out-of-town visitors to Mono County spent approximately $580.6 million within the county in 2022. This spending supported an estimated 5,990 jobs, including direct, indirect, and induced employment.9 This equals an average of nearly $96,928 in visitor spending per supported job. Dean Runyan estimates that visitor spending associated with travelers staying overnight in hotel, motel, and vacation rental accommodations in Mono County totaled roughly $424.8 million in 2022. Applying the jobs multiplier derived from all visitor spending, BAE estimates that visitor spending associated with people staying in hotel, motel, and vacation rental accommodations supported around 4,380 jobs, or around 73 percent of all jobs supported by destination visitor spending in Mono County. Dean Runyan further reports that the 2022 visitor spending and employment impact figures were based on an estimate of 662,159 total occupied room nights in hotel, motel, and vacation rental properties.10 This implies a multiplier of 151 occupied room nights per supported job.
According to AirDNA, a private data vendor, the average STR in Mammoth Lakes was rented for 174 nights during calendar year 2023. BAE estimates that the average STR therefore supports around 1.2 jobs across the economy. Assuming 1.65 workers per household, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), BAE estimates that the Town of Mammoth Lakes may experience demand for 0.7 new workforce housing units for each new STR that enters the market on average, as reported in Table 8. 8 Dean Runyan and Associates. (April 2023). The Economic Impact of Travel: California, 2022p (Preliminary).
Prepared for Visit California. Available at: https://industry.visitcalifornia.com/research/economic-impact 9 Direct employment represents jobs that are immediately supported by visitor spending, such as the hotel concierge and restaurant servers. Indirect employment represents jobs that are secondarily supported by visitor spending, such as grocery store suppliers, maintenance professionals, and other local area goods producers and service providers. Induced impacts are generated by households with earned income re-spending those dollars within the community on everyday goods and services.
10 This figure is not reported in the 2022 travel impacts report, but was provided by Dean Runyan in an interview with BAE staff.
40 Table 8: Workforce Housing Demand Induced by New STRs, Town of Mammoth Lakes, 2022
Notes:
(a) Includes all types of spending that occur at the destination, excluding spending for ground transportation and air travel impacts that accrue to other California visitor destinations, travel arrangement services and convention/trade show services. (b) Excludes employment impacts associated with other Travel, such as ground transportation and air travel impacts for travel to other California visitor destinations, travel arrangement services and convention/trade shows services. (c) Includes all destination spending associated with visitors staying in hotel, motel, and vacation rental accommodations (d) Equal to the total destination spending for travelers staying in hotel, motel, and vacation rental accommodations divided by the average visitor spending per job supported for the tourism industry in Mono County. (e) Equal to the total visitor nights for travelers staying in hotel, motel, and vacation rental accommodations, as reported by Dean Runyan through personal communication with BAE Urban Economics. (f) Equal to the total visitor nights for travelers staying in hotel, motel, and vacation rental accommodations divided by the total number of jobs supported by destination spending for travelers staying in said accommodations. (g) As reported by AirDNA, a private data vendor, in data provide to Visit Mammoth and the Town of Mammoth Lakes. (h) Equal to the average occupied nights per year for STRs in the Town of Mammoth Lakes divided by the average visitor nights per supported job in Mono County.
(i) Equal to the average number of workers per household as reported in the U.S. Census Bureau's Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) for the Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) covering Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, and Tuolumne counties.
(j) Equal to the average number of STRs per unit of workforce housing demanded.
Source: Dean Runyan, The Economic Impact of Travel - California 2022p; Dean Runyan, Personal Communication; AirDNA and Visit Mammoth; BAE, 2023.
Visitor Spending Per Job Supported
Destination Spending, Total (a) $580,600,000
Supported Jobs, Total (b) 5,990
Spending Per Job Supported $96,928
Visitor Spending by Accommodation Type
Hotel, Motel, Vacation Rental (c) $424,800,000
Jobs Supported by Accommodation Type
Hotel, Motel, Vacation Rental (d) 4,383
Visitor Nights by Accommodation Type
Hotel, Motel, Vacation Rental (e) 662,159
Visitor Nights Per Job Supported
Hotel, Motel, Vacation Rental (f) 151
STRs Per Workforce Unit Demanded
Ave. Occ. Nights Per Year (g) 174
Jobs Per Average STR (h) 1.2
Workers Per Workforce Household (i) 1.65
Workforce Units Demanded per STR (j) 0.70
41 PEER COMMUNITY REGULATORY APPROACHES
To provide additional insight into some of the ways that the Town of Mammoth Lakes could approach the possible updates to the existing STR regulatory framework, this study includes an overview of the Town’s current regulations pertaining to STRs, as well as the regulatory approaches enacted by 17 peer communities. The peer communities reviewed for this research include ten jurisdictions in California, including:
• City of Morro Bay
• City of Santa Cruz
• City of South Lake Tahoe
• Town of Truckee
• El Dorado County
• Mariposa County
• Mono County
• Placer County
• Santa Cruz County
• Sonoma County
The analysis also considers seven out-of-state jurisdictions, including:
• Crested Butte, Colorado
• Durango, Colorado
• Steamboat Springs, Colorado
• Moab, Utah
• Park City, Utah
• Washington County, Utah
• Bar Harbor, Maine
This section provides a summary of the approaches that these jurisdictions have taken to addressing several key regulatory issues related to STRs. The discussion is organized by main theme, including a review of jurisdictions that implement:
• Various definitions of short-term or vacation rentals; • Caps on the number of STRs that may be permitted;
• Geographic carve-outs and STR density limitations;
• Exemptions for owner occupied housing and hosted rentals; • Variations in the local application processes and procedures; • Initial and ongoing inspection requirements;
• Nuisance mitigation programs and enforcement penalties; • Policies limiting fractional ownership;
• Ties to complementary policies and programs.
42 Existing Mammoth Lakes Regulations
STRs are primarily regulated under Chapter 5.40 of the Town of Mammoth Lakes Code of Ordinances. The chapter is primarily intended to mitigate nuisance issues, such as traffic, noise, and trash, as well as ensure that adequate health and safety precautions are taken.
The chapter refers to the Title 17 – Zoning Code which regulates the zoning districts in which transient uses, including short-term renting, are permitted, as well as Sections 5.04 and 3.12, which regulate issuance of Business Tax Certificates and Transient Occupancy Tax Certificates.
The following is a brief description of key themes within the existing regulatory framework.
Definition of a Short-Term Rental or Vacation Rental
Under Section 5.40.030, the Town of Mammoth Lakes provides the following definitions:
“Transient Rental”
Means a residential structure, which is occupied, or intended or designed for occupancy for a period of thirty consecutive days or less in exchange for a fee or other consideration.
“Transient Occupancy Facility”
This definition includes all places or structures intended or designed for occupancy by transients, including hotel, hotel-motel, lodge, inn, apartment, condominium, triplex or duplex, single-family residence, mobile home, etc., but excludes most forms of group quarters accommodations, such as hospitals and convalescent homes. “Operator”
The operator of a property includes the legal owner of the transient occupancy facility, but also includes any person with a legal right to receive or collect money, as for rent for the occupancy of the transient occupancy facility by transients, including any person acting on the authority of the owner by reason of lease, mortgage, contract, license, or similar legal right to receive or collect rent. “Residential Property”
Means any single- or multiple-family dwelling units, duplexes, guesthouses, caretaker units, or other dwelling unit or structure located on one or more contiguous lots of record in any of the zoning districts in Title 17 which allow residential uses, but explicitly does not include condominium properties that specifically designed to function as hotels (i.e., condotels) with centralized management.
Caps on the Number of STRs That May Be Permitted
The Town of Mammoth Lakes does not restrict the number of STRs that may be established beyond restrictions on which zoning districts allow transient use, as discussed below.
43 Geographic Carve-Outs and STR Density Limitations
Measure Z, passed in 2008, amended the Town of Mammoth Lakes General Plan to prohibit transient use of single-family homes in the Residential Single-Family (RSF), Rural Residential (RR), and Residential Multi-Family-1 (RMF-1) zoning districts and imposed a voter approval requirement for changes to those provisions. Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code also prohibits transient use of residential property in the Affordable Housing Overlay (AH) and Mobile Home Park (AHP) zones, but does allow transient use within other more tourism-oriented zones.
Table 9: Transient Use Allowances by Zoning District
Zoning District (Title 17) Transient Use
Allowed
Transient Use
Prohibited
RR Rural Residential X
RSF Residential Single Family X
RMF-1 Residential Multi-Family-1 X
AH Affordable Housing Overlay X
MHP Mobile Home Park X
RMF-2 Residential Multi-Family-2 X
D Downtown X
OMR Old Mammoth Road X
MLR Mixed Lodging/Residential X
R Resort X
SP Specific Plan X
A Airport X
Exemptions for Owner Occupied Housing and Hosted Rentals The Town of Mammoth Lakes Municipal Code does not currently distinguish between hosted or un-hosted vacation rentals or STRs.
Application Processes and Procedures
To establish new transient use within the Town of Mammoth Lakes, a two-page business tax certificate application and another two-page transient occupancy tax certificate application must be completed. Both applications, as well as other pertinent documents, such as the transient rental inspection checklist and a list of approved transient rental inspectors, are available on the Town’s website at https://www. townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/182/BusinessTax-and-Registration. Applications can be mailed or submitted in-person.
Initial and Ongoing Inspection Requirements
The Municipal Code (5.40.060) requires that all new business tax or transient occupancy tax certificates within residential structures must be inspected prior to the start of business for compliance with all operating standards and public safety requirements. The operator bears the cost of the inspection, plus any administrative charges. The code limits reinspection to no more than once every three years.
44 Recertification or Renewal Requirements
The Municipal Code limits reinspection of transient occupancy facilities to no more than once every three years. Unless an infraction occurs which results in revocation of applicable tax certificates, there is no clear renewal requirement.
Nuisance Mitigation Provisions and Enforcement Penalties As noted earlier, the expressed intent of Chapter 5.40 of the Municipal Code is to prevent and mitigate adverse neighborhood impacts, including common nuisance issues like traffic, noise, and trash, among other issues. The chapter includes a variety of signage and noticing requirements, including both interior and exterior noticing intended to inform the tenants and the community regarding the operating parameters for the transient rental, like permitted occupancy, parking arrangements, trash disposal procedures, evacuation plans, and emergency contact information. The code requires that each operator must have a local contact person who is required to be available at all times by telephone during the rental to respond to issues as they arise. All advertisements must also include reference to the rentals Transient Occupancy Tax Certificate number.
The Town maintains a TOT hotline and an anonymous TOT complaint email address where community members can submit complaints. While the Town directs concerned persons to the online County parcel map for information on whether a particular parcel or property is zoned for transient use, the interface does not readily identify the location of permitted STRs and may be difficult to use for the average resident.
Non-compliance with registration and operation requirements may result in revocation of the business tax certificate authorizing the use for a period of 12 months. Operating any transient occupancy facility without a valid business tax certificate or in violation of zoning requirements is subject to a fine of $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for all subsequent violations within three years. The operator may also be liable for other taxes, penalties, interest, and enforcement charges as outlined under Chapter 3.12 of the Municipal Code pertaining to remittance of TOT and other business taxes. If the tax collector determines that remittances were not made due to fraud, the Town may levy a penalty of 25 percent in addition to other penalties.
Policies Related to Fractional Ownership Models
Section 17.52.120 of the Municipal Code pertains to fractional and timeshare developments.
The existing code primarily regulations the design, permitting, and financing of new fractional and timeshare developments, but also requires that the conversion of and existing long-term rental property or condominium property be subject to the Town’s condominium conversion requirements (Section 17.52.110). These requirements, however, do not appear to apply to single-family residential properties that are converted to fractional ownership.
45 Ties to Complementary Policies and Programs
The Town of Mammoth Lakes does not currently tie administration of the transient use regulations to the implementation of other housing and related programs.
STR Regulations in Peer Communities
The following section provides a brief thematic summary of STR regulations in other peer communities.
Definition of a short-term rental or vacation rental
STRs are typically defined to include residential real estate that is used to house transient individuals or households on short-term basis with a maximum duration of 30 and 90 days.11 Many jurisdictions define STRs to include only single-family homes and duplexes, though some communities also include condominiums and other multifamily housing types, like apartments.
A number of jurisdictions, including the Town of Truckee and Placer County, explicitly prohibit the short-term renting of multifamily housing, intending to protect naturally occurring affordable housing from conversion to vacation home and tourist accommodations use.
Caps on the Number of STRs That May Be Permitted
Among the 17 peer jurisdictions, 12 have enacted limitations or “caps” on the number of STRs that may be legally established, either throughout the jurisdiction or in one or more subareas within the jurisdiction. The City of Santa Cruz and the Town of Truckee have relatively straightforward caps, totaling 250 STRs in Santa Cruz (approximately one percent of the City’s housing stock) and 1,255 STRs in Truckee (approximately seven percent of the Town’s housing stock). Bar Harbor, Maine, sets the cap at nine percent of the housing stock, with the total adjusted over time in accordance with changes in the overall housing inventory. The cap in Bar Harbor does not apply to owner-occupied units.
Many other jurisdictions have caps that differ by subarea, or only apply to specific areas of the jurisdiction. For example, El Dorado County has a cap of 900 non-hosted STRs within the Tahoe Basin portion of the unincorporated county (approximately ten percent of the housing stock in this area). Morro Bay has a cap of 175 full-home, non-hosted STRs (three percent of the City’s housing stock), which applies to residential zones only. Santa Cruz County has three designated areas, each with specific caps for both non-hosted and hosted STRs. Hosted and non-hosted STRs are also allowed outside of the designated areas, with a cap of 250 hosted STRs (0.4 percent of the housing stock in the unincorporated county) throughout the unincorporated county. Sonoma County has capped STRs at five percent of the single-family home inventory within specific areas with high concentrations of STRs. Steamboat Springs, 11 California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 7280, authorizes cities and counties to levy a tax on the “privilege” of occupying a room, or rooms, in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging establishment for less than 30 days, excluding the right of an owner of a time-share or membership camping contract to occupy their respective unit or space.
46 Colorado, has three zones, including one with no STR caps, one with six subzones that each have individual caps, and one where STRs are not permitted. Hosted and temporary STRs in Steamboat Springs are exempt from caps and allowed in the zone where STRs are prohibited.
Many jurisdictions exempt hosted or owner-occupied STRs from the cap(s), or apply a different cap to hosted or owner-occupied STRs. These policies are often combined with variations in the cap(s) by subarea, as in Bar Harbor, El Dorado County, Morro Bay, Santa Cruz, and Steamboat Boat Springs, as described above, as well as in other peer jurisdictions.
Geographic Carve-Outs and STR Density Limitations
Among the 17 peer jurisdictions reviewed for this research, 13 currently have some form of geographic restrictions on where STRs may be established, and/or limitations on how close an STR can be to another similar use. In many jurisdictions, STRs are allowed only in specific zoning districts or geographic subareas. Other jurisdictions restrict certain types of STRs (e.g., non-hosted or owner-occupied) in specific zoning districts or subareas. For example, South Lake Tahoe does not allow whole-home STRs in residential areas, while Crested Butte allows unlimited licenses (i.e., licenses that allow rentals more than 90 days per year and/or rentals in homes not occupied by primary owners or long-term renters) in select zones only. As discussed above, many jurisdictions also differentiate between subareas or zones in terms of the caps that apply to the number of STR units that are allowed to operate at any given time.
Five of the peer jurisdictions have specific limits on the geographic spacing or concentration between units in any particular area. El Dorado County requires a 500-foot distance between STRs, though hosted STRs (i.e., rentals where a primary owner resides at the property during the rental period) are exempt. Morro Bay requires a 175-foot distance between full home, non-hosted STRs in residential zones. In commercial zones, Morro Bay allows no more than one eighth of units in a multifamily property to be STRs. In Santa Cruz County, STRs cannot total more than 20 percent of residential parcels on a block, while in Crested Butte a maximum of two STRs per block are allowed. In Durango, there are two subareas in which the second STR on a block requires Planning Commission approval and must be the owner’s primary residence, which are not requirements for the first STR on a block. In these areas, a third STR would not be allowed on the same block.
In addition, seven of the peer jurisdictions have regulations that limit the number of STRs per property or per owner, with most allowing only one STR per parcel. These regulations are often combined with other geographic or density limitations, such as those described above.
Exemptions for Owner Occupied Housing and Hosted Rentals Twelve of the 17 peer jurisdictions differentiate between hosted or owner-occupied STRs and other STRs in terms of STRs regulations. While the definitions vary slightly by jurisdiction, hosted STRs are generally those in which the property owner or a representative is present on the property during the period that the units is rented. Owner-occupied STRs are generally
47 those that are the owner’s primary residence, though the owner may or may not be required to be present on the property while it is being short-term rented.
Some peer jurisdictions only allow hosted or owner-occupied STRs, with all other types of STR being prohibited. The City of Santa Cruz does not permit any new non-hosted STRs, while Washington County, Utah, allows STRs at a property owner’s primary residence only.
Many jurisdictions allow hosted or owner-occupied STRs in areas where other STRs are not allowed, exempt hosted or owner-occupied STRs from caps, or both. Hosted or owneroccupied STRs are exempt from STR caps in El Dorado County, Morro Bay, Placer County, Sonoma County, Crested Butte, Steamboat Springs, and Bar Harbor. Some of the jurisdictions with concentration limitations on STRs, including El Dorado County and Morro Bay, provide an exemption for hosted or owner-occupied STRs. South Lake Tahoe provides more limited exemptions for owner-occupied STRs, exempting homes from prohibitions in residential areas only if the owner is the permanent resident of the property and uses their property as an STR no more than 30 days per year. In Crested Butte, primary owners or long-term renters are exempt from caps and geographic restrictions if they rent their homes as STRs for no more than 90 days per year. Crested Butte is the only peer jurisdiction that provides the same exemptions to long-term renters as are available to full-time owner occupants.
On June 20, 2023, the California Court of Appeal for the Third District issued a decision in the case of a South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group versus the City of South Lake Tahoe which upheld the City’s authority to regulate and restrict the operation of STRs in residential zones, but questioned the constitutionality of imposing lesser restrictions on owner occupied STRs under what is known as the “dormant commerce clause” of the United States Constitution.
The dormant commerce clause prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-state actors in interstate commerce. The argument is that allowing STRs only in units that are otherwise occupied full-time by the owners infringes on the rights of property owners that live out of state. While the appellate court sent the case back to the lower court for further review on the dormant commerce clause issue, this research recommends that the Town of Mammoth Lakes avoid differential requirements based on owner occupancy and instead consider differentiating regulation based on full-time occupancy (either by the owner or an authorized full-time renter) or whether a rental is hosted or non-hosted.12 Nonetheless, BAE cannot attest to whether either of these approaches would meet applicable legal standards.
Local Application Processes and Procedures
Most of the peer jurisdictions approve applications and issue permits or licenses for STRs through an administrative process, though some require public notice or a public hearing.
Jurisdictions in which permits or licenses are approved administratively include El Dorado 12 Please note that this does not constitute legal advice and that BAE Urban Economics is not qualified to provide direction on the legality of differentiating between hosted and non-hosted STRs as a matter of public policy.
48 County, Mariposa County, Morro Bay, Placer County, South Lake Tahoe, Truckee, Steamboat Springs, Moab, Park City, and Washington County.
In Truckee, there is a one-year waiting period after a house is sold before the owner is eligible to sign up for the STR waiting list. The purpose of the waiting period is to create uncertainty for second home buyers regarding their ability to generate rental income in a way that aligns with the requirements of 1031 exchange transactions.13
Crested Butte and Durango approve permits or licenses administratively but require noticing to all property owners within a certain radius (100 to 300 feet) and take public comment prior to permit issuance, while Bar Harbor approves permits administratively and subsequently issues notices to property owners within 50 feet. In Santa Cruz (City), units with four or fewer bedrooms are approved administratively, while units with five or more bedrooms require a public hearing. Santa Cruz County allows for administrative approvals for STRs with three or fewer bedrooms, with a requirement to provide notices to property owners within 300 feet and the possibility of a public hearing if an appeal is filed. STRs with four or more bedrooms in Santa Cruz County require a public hearing. Similarly, Sonoma County allows for administrative approvals for units with five or fewer bedrooms and requires a use permit for larger units. Mono County requires a public hearing and noticing to all property owners within 500 feet prior to issuance of any STR permit.
As most in the Town of Mammoth Lakes are already aware, Mono County uses a two-step discretionary approvals process for STRs in the unincorporated area. New STR applications first require approval of a Conditional Use Permit following completion of a mandatory hearing with the County Planning Commission. If approved, the Conditional Use Permit allowing the STR use subsequently runs with the land through the addition to the Transient Rental Overlay District (TROD). The property owner, or their agent, is then required to apply for a Short-Term Rental Activity Permit, which requires a hearing before the Board of Supervisors. The Activity Permit does not run with the land and can, therefore, be revoked as a result of an enforcement action and automatically expires when the property changes ownership.
Initial and Ongoing Inspection Requirements
Twelve of the 17 peer jurisdictions have inspection requirements for STRs. In jurisdictions with ongoing inspection requirements, inspections are generally required prior to issuance of the STR permit or license. Some jurisdictions also require recurring inspections either annually or every three or four years. Some jurisdictions rely on a self-inspection process, either as the only inspection requirement or on an annual basis between less frequent inspections by departmental staff. Inspections generally focus on health and safety, often with an emphasis on fire safety and defensible space.
13 According to the Internal Revenue Code, a Section 1031 exchange is a swap of one real estate investment property for another that allows capital gains taxes to be deferred.
49 Recertification or Renewal Requirements
Twelve of the 17 peer jurisdictions require periodic recertification or renewal of permits or licenses. Eleven of the jurisdictions require annual renewal, while permits in Santa Cruz County remain effective for five years. In four of the jurisdictions with renewal requirements, the STR must be active (i.e., actively remitting TOT) to be eligible for renewal. The City of Santa Cruz does not require annual renewal, but STR permits lapse if not used (i.e., not-actively remitting TOT) for two years. The jurisdictions in which an STR must remain active to be eligible to continue to be permitted are all jurisdictions with caps on the total number of STRs, which ensures that limited STR permits are allocated to units that actively contribute to the inventory of overnight tourist or visitor accommodations.
Nuisance Mitigation Provisions and Enforcement Penalties Thirteen of the 17 peer jurisdictions have a requirement for a local contact person who can be reached by phone and/or other means 24 hours per day during all times when an STR is rented. These jurisdictions typically have specific requirements regarding the time-frame within which the local contact person must be able to respond when contacted, with many requiring that the local contact person is able to be present at the property and initiate corrective action within 30 to 60 minutes. The property owner is generally required to provide the local contact person’s information to the jurisdiction as well as on a sign posted on the exterior of the property that is visible from the street. Sonoma County and Durango post information for the local property manager on the local jurisdiction’s website. El Dorado County requires that the local contact person complete a training course and exam, while Sonoma County requires that the local contact person just passes a certification exam. Some jurisdictions – including El Dorado County, Mono County, Placer County, Sonoma County, Truckee, and Crested Butte – also operate a phone hotline and/or email address that is dedicated for the public to be able to report complaints about STRs.
Possible penalties for non-compliance with STR regulations typically consist of fines and suspension or revocation of the STR permit, with the possibility of misdemeanor charges in some cases. Several jurisdictions have lower fines for an initial violation, followed by higher fines for subsequent violations and revocation after three to four violations within a given time period. Many jurisdictions have a waiting period of a year or more before a property owner can apply for a new STR permit following a revocation. In jurisdictions with waiting lists for STR permits, the property owner is typically unable to sign up for the waiting list until the waiting period following a revocation has ended.
Policies Related to Fractional Ownership Models
In addition to policies related to STRs, two of the peer jurisdictions had policies related to fractional home ownership. These fractional ownership models typically consist of the purchase of a property by a limited liability corporation (LLC), with ownership split between two to eight buyers that then use the property as a shared vacation home. These types of ownership models are often facilitated by third-party companies, like Pacaso, that help with
50 the sale of shares, manage the property, provide furnishings, assist with scheduling, and/or manage cleaning. Jurisdictions that have adopted or considered regulations on fractional ownership homes have cited some of the same concerns related to these properties as with STRs, including impacts on residential neighborhoods and the removal of homes from the housing stock that might otherwise be available to full-time occupancy.
In April 2023, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved changes to the County Code to define fractional ownership properties as time shares, thereby limiting these homes to areas of the County that are zoned for lodging and tourism. Park City similarly limited fractional ownership to zones that allow timeshares and private residence clubs starting in 2022. However, a Utah State law passed in March 2023 has since prohibited local jurisdictions from treating properties held under fractional ownership differently from other properties. Prior to the passage of the State law, Moab was considering similar regulations.
Ties to Complementary Policies and Programs
The STR policies enacted by peer communities are generally stand-alone ordinances that direct the approval and administration of STRs within the community. The Town of Truckee, however, recently coupled the STR permit ordinance and administrative process with another local housing program. The Short-Term Rental Workforce Housing Token Program (STR Token Program) was established in early 2023 to incentivize the creation of workforce housing by offering in-kind payment for Deed Restrictions in the form of STR “Tokens” which are redeemable for Transient Occupancy Registration Certificates.
Participants in the STR Token Program are required to deed-restrict housing units for a mandatory term of 15 years in exchange for tokens. The units must be occupied full-time by households where at least 50 percent of the adult tenants are employed a minimum of 20 hours per week within the boundaries of the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District. Annual gross incomes for occupant households cannot exceed 150 percent of the countywide area median income (AMI). The minimum lease term is 12 months for rental units.
Participants are selected through a request for proposals process and ranked.14 Participants can offer a certain number of housing units and specify the number of tokens they would like in return. Program participants can redeem a Token for a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate to use on their own or can sell, trade, or transfer the Token to another recipient who becomes the Token Holder. The Token Holder can cancel the Certificate associated with a short-term rental property and can apply to re-use that Token for a different eligible property. 14 The program is currently in the pilot phase and is accepting rolling submissions until June 2024. For more information visit: https://www.townoftruckee.com/government/housing/ short-term-rental-workforce-housingtoken-program
51 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the research summarized above, BAE offers the following recommendations for consideration by the Mammoth Lakes STR Advisory Committee and Town Council.
Administrative and Process Updates
To reduce the cost of administering the STR program, streamline the applications process, and improve data collection, BAE recommends that the Town consider enacting the following:
1) Update the Definition of an STR
Update the definitions for an STR and other related uses to better reflect the functional differences between different forms of transient visitor accommodations. For example, the Town should consider updating the definition of an STR to differentiate between hosted and un-hosted STRs, and STRs in condotel projects, as well as the short-term rental of individual rooms within a larger full-time occupied housing unit. 2) Maintain Records to Allow Ongoing Analysis
The Town of Mammoth Lakes already collects a variety of data points using the business tax certificate and transient occupancy tax certificate applications processes.
The Town may consider updating the data collection and management workflow to provide data that can be used for ongoing monitoring and analysis, such as:
a. Property Characteristics
Collect additional information on the number of residential units present on the property, as well as the number of bedrooms and beds being used for visitor accommodations. Use the inspection process and comparison to the County parcel database to periodically confirm the accuracy of this data. This may allow better comparison with the hotel inventory and ongoing management of the broader tourist and visitor accommodations inventory. b. Availability
Collect information on the number of days per month that the property was made available for occupancy by visitors. This would allow the Town to rely on a comprehensive database versus using web-scraped data from AirDNA. c. Occupancy
Collect information on the number of days per month that the property was booked for occupancy by visitors. This should identify, at a minimum, the number of days the unit is occupied, but may also include the number of persons reported to be in the visiting party, which may provide useful information on tourist visitation. This would allow the Town to rely on a comprehensive database versus on web-scraped data from AirDNA to assess statistics like occupancy rates, ADR, and RevPAR.
52 d. TOT Remittance
Continue to collect information on TOT remittances in a format that allows authorized Town staff to identify whether a property and/or unit was actively engaged in visitor accommodations activity (i.e., submitting TOT and for what amount) during a given month. Note, however, that any public distribution of this data must be done in a format that protects against the disclosure of proprietary information.
3) Update Code Language on Vested Interests
The Town should update the Code of Ordinances to address the relationship between STR permits and the conveyance of vested interests and entitlements. The Town may want to consider language similar to that used in the El Dorado County Code of Ordinances, which was upheld in recent court proceedings and is provided below:
“Vacation home rental permits shall not be construed as providing property rights or vested interests and entitlements in continued operation of a vacation home rental.
Vacation home rental permits are revocable licenses which expire annually. Vacation home rental permits shall not run with the land.”15
4) Require STR Platforms to Submit Data
As a matter of policy, the Town of Mammoth Lakes should adopt code language that requires STR platforms to regularly disclose information to the Town regarding each home sharing and/or vacation rental listing within community, the names of the persons responsible for each listing, and any associated attribute data necessary for the Town to assess compliance with applicable local regulations. While it is unclear whether the major platforms will comply with these requirements, having the requirements incorporated in the Municipal Code will provide a tool that may help to further the Town’s interests over the long-term.
5) Update TOT Property Search Tool
The current TOT Property Search Tool leverages the County’s parcel lookup interface to provide information on a property’s zoning. Consider updating the TOT Property Search Tool to improve the user experience and make it easier to find relevant information.
For example, the Town might pursue grant funding to create a new standalone interface that provides information on permitted STRs, such as owner and emergency contact information, allowable occupancy, parking procedures, etc., in addition to information on areas where short-term renting is allowed versus prohibited. 15 This recommendation does not constitute legal advice provided on behalf of BAE Urban Economic, Inc. The code language is provided only as an example. Any modifications or additions to the Town of Mammoth Lakes Code of Ordinances should be thoroughly reviewed by legal Counsel prior to adoption.