By Steve Hubrecht
As the District of Invermere continues to wind its way to implementing short-term rental (STR) regulations later this year, its efforts continue to generate plenty of discussion among local residents.
During last week’s Invermere council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 20, councillors received a letter from local resident Pat Bavin on the topic of STRs. Bavin had spoken about STRs at a previous council meeting on January 23 and sent the letter to highlight some areas of continued concern stemming from that meeting.
Bavin noted that several STR owners and operators presented arguments in favour of large STR properties (with at least five or six bedrooms) as key contributors to the local economy.
“I have concerns about the validity of the data used in this presentation,” wrote Bavin, suggesting that more research, perhaps even a District of Invermere-led study, could be helpful to determine average occupancy, average nightly rates, and — consequently — gross revenue for those who own STRs in Invermere. He also questioned what percentage of STR owners live in Invermere or other parts of the Columbia Valley and consequently reinvest the revenue they earn into the local economy, and what percentage of STR owners live outside the valley (and are less likely to reinvest the revenue they earn in the local economy).
“Many short-term renters pack their food and necessities from outside the community and the economic activity associated with those STR stays would be difficult to track,” wrote Bavin.
He urged councillors to weigh the economic benefits of housing long-term residents and workers as compared with housing short-term visitors in residential neighbourhoods.
“As a resort municipality, our visitors have many excellent options for accommodation in the District of Invermere and area, however, the long-term community members that serve our visitors do not,” wrote Bavin.
He also raised concerns about how the district will enforce its proposed STR regulations, writing that only a bylaw officer or RCMP officer will have the skills needed to deal with problematic STR guests who create noise or make other disturbances, and that given how busy Invermere’s summer tourist season is, neither the bylaw officer nor the police may have time to deal with those issues.
“It will require an on-call, 24/7 service between May long weekend and Thanksgiving with likely three to four bylaw officers required to manage all shifts into the night,” suggested Bavin.
“What is council’s plan to ensure proper enforcement of this new regulation so that the requisite fines, documentation of complaints and processes set out by the bylaw are adhered to by members of the community?”
He also touched on community well-being, outlining that “as a long-time Invermere resident, it has been concerning to witness members of my peer group losing their long-term rental accommodations to STRs and then having to face inflated rental rates that are, in many cases, beyond what their fixed or limited incomes can sustain. Additionally, on the other end of the age continuum, young to middle aged families and individuals are struggling to secure housing . . . the economic challenges our youth, families and elderly are facing are likely to increase and they need support in order for them to support our service-based economy.”
Bavin said that overall he is supportive of the district proposal for regulating STRs, but that serious tweaks are needed.
He referenced the 2022 Vital Signs report (a community check-up report led by the Columbia Valley Community Foundation), noting that “when Vital Signs asked residents ‘why would you leave the Columbia Valley?’ 41 per cent selected ‘cost of living’.” Bavin added he believes “regulation of STRs will help mitigate the trend of ever-increasing rental rates, help to address a lack of long-term housing supply, and bring stability for full-time and even seasonal residents and workers. Many of those most impacted by housing costs and supply issues are young individuals and families who serve our tourism economy.”
Council members acknowledged the letter during the February 20 meeting, but did not further discuss any of Bavin’s points.