Purpose of GV law limiting hotel stays remains murky

BY FREDA MIKLIN GOVERNMENTAL REPORTER

Last month Sue Sanders, who is homeless, was forced to move out of a motel in Greenwood Village because she had stayed there for 29 consecutive days, the limit allowed under a city ordinance passed in 2014. The fine for a hotel or motel owner who violates the law is $500 per day.

GV residents and others have asked questions about the law. The Villager reached out to the 8-member 2014 GV city council who voted unanimously for the new rule. Without exception, every member of the 2014 city council told us that they voted to pass the law for health and safety reasons after being told by the GV police department and the city attorney that there were dangerous conditions in the motels in which people lived that were not designated as extended-stay establishments, primarily fire hazards, resulting from people having all their belongings in their rooms and cooking without kitchens. City council members were not unsympathetic to the people affected. We even heard about two city council members who at one point offered to personally help pay costs for families who had to move elsewhere. It didn’t happen in the end.

The Villager listened to all the testimony that was presented during the two public hearings on the proposed law, held on June 16 and July 7, 2014. We also asked the city for all data and documents that were provided to the city council to assist in its deliberations.

Kevin Milan, then the fire marshal at South Metro Fire Rescue (SMFR) was asked by the GV city council to provide call data from five motels that were identified by the city as housing permanent residents. He testified there were a total of two fire calls for service in the past five years from those five motels and one of the two calls was for a dumpster fire. The motel owner testified that the dumpster fire was started by an overnight guest, not a long-term resident. Milan said that SMFR received an average of 71 calls per year from all the hotels in Greenwood Village combined compared to an average of 87 calls per year from the five locations that the city council had asked him to report data on separately. Regardless of where they come from, only 2 percent of all calls SMFR receives are for fires. 66 percent of calls are for emergency medical services, 11 percent are for alarms, and the remaining 21 percent fall into multiple other categories.

A staff memo presented to the city council by its city attorney that Greenwood Village provided to The Villager stated that in Colorado “anyone renting a room from someone else for 30 days or more acquires rights as a tenant,” resulting in the loss of sales tax, lodging tax, and property tax to the city.” It also noted that hotels and motels do not contain the necessary appliances or space required for a permanent residence and that hotels are zoned for commercial, not residential use.

Contained in the memo was a chart showing the number of police department calls for service during the previous 29 months at the non-extended-stay GV hotels with known residential use compared to those from designated extended-stay hotels and standard apartment complexes in the city. The numbers were significantly higher in the non-extended-stay motels with known residential use. However, there was nothing in the memo, nor was any information presented by John Jackson, current GV city manager who was its police chief in 2014, about the nature of the calls or whether anyone was cited, charged with, arrested for, or convicted of any crimes arising from those calls. Testifying on June 16, 2014, Jackson said, “The four hotels that have long-term residents have about 1,200 more calls for service,” accurately comparing it to the number of calls from designated extended-stay properties. Jackson then said about a large number of calls, “What comprises them I really don’t know.”

The current hotel manager of one of the properties that had long-term residents told The Villager in a recent interview that although she appreciates the excellent job they do, police officers have come to the hotel without being called many times. She said, “We want to have a good relationship with the police and we don’t want crime on the property.” About the 29-day rule, she said, “The situation that these people are in, they are just look ing for a place to lay their head. Rooms have microwaves and (small) refrigerators with laundry facilities on site. It’s not Greenwood Village’s decision about how people live or whether they have a dishwasher.”

During the two hearings on June 16 and July 7, ten people in addition to Milan and city staff testified before the city council. Three were then-current motel residents and two were managers. Three were longtime GV residents who had no connection to any of the hotels, Brent Neiser, Louise Boris, and Allan Stone.

Neiser, current chair of the Consumer Advisory Board of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and longtime chair of GV’s parks, trails, and recreation commission focused his testimony on the impact of the proposed law to the future economic development in GV. He said that “companies, non-profits, and even government agencies, locating, relocating, expanding, or choosing to stay in our city… often look through the lens of social responsibility.” Neiser went on to say that those entities might find this ordinance to be “a sticking point or an objection to…a choice to locate, expand, or stay.” He asked the city council “to defeat this proposal.”

Boris, a resident of western GV, also spoke in opposition to the ordinance. She said, “We are fortunate to be living in Greenwood Village, but the folks who find themselves in these motels are the less fortunate of us” who “have been struggling to make it day by day.” She noted that “these are our citizens as well” and that GV should “see if there are ways we can make it safer for them to live there so that their kids can grow up….with respect and dignity.”

Stone, former chair of GV’s board of adjustments and appeals, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance, saying, “Quality of life is one of the reasons I continue to live in the city. I look to the city council and city staff to maintain that quality of life... I believe that there are several extended stay facilities in the metropolitan area so I don’t think there’s a need for any more in the immediate area.”

It has been over five years since the GV law prohibiting guests in its non-extended-stay hotels from staying more than 29 days in a 60-day consecutive period went into effect. It has come under criticism from several factions. :e have been able to find no similar laws in other cities in Colorado. :e asked *9 city officials if they had any data that showed whether the 2014 law had accomplished its stated objective of improving the health and safety of GV residents or the community at large. They said they had not collected or compiled any information about that thus had no reports on the subject, leaving unanswered the question of whether this law has accomplished its stated purpose and the intended objectives of the elected officials who passed it almost si[ years ago.

Fmiklin.villager@gmail.com