OREM, Utah — Christine Hammond keeps the refrigerator stocked with water, the beds made and plenty of clean towels ready for guests arriving at her Orem short-term rental.
The house is more than an investment. Hammond built it, raised her children there and later converted it into a short-term rental. She no longer lives on the property but remains about 15 minutes away and says she can respond quickly when problems arise.
Now, she is waiting to learn whether Orem will continue allowing rentals like hers.
Orem officials are considering competing approaches to short-term rentals, including one that would limit them to owner-occupied properties. Such a restriction could prevent Hammond from continuing to rent the entire house to short-term guests.
“Turning it back into a long-term rental is not what I want to do,” Hammond said. “I’ll have to reconsider.”
As Orem debates who should be permitted to operate a short-term rental, Salt Lake City is already reconsidering portions of an ordinance that took effect July 1.
Salt Lake City’s new rules require operators to obtain a separate business license for each short-term rental, provide a local contact who can respond to concerns within two hours and make at least one off-street parking space available. The ordinance also establishes a two-night minimum stay, limits rentals to 200 nights per year and generally caps short-term rentals at 10% of the units in multifamily buildings.
During a Salt Lake City Council work session Tuesday, members questioned whether some of those restrictions are supported by evidence and whether the city can realistically enforce them.
Council member Sarah Young focused on the 200-night annual cap.
“The one that jumps out at me is the 200 days,” Young said. “How does that even translate into something that can be enforceable?”
City officials said enforcement could begin with complaints or records obtained during an investigation. Operators are also required to maintain records showing compliance with the ordinance.
Still, several council members questioned how the city would determine whether a home had exceeded the annual limit.
Members also asked how the city selected the two-night minimum and 200-night maximum and whether similar limits are commonly used in other Utah cities. Staff were unable to immediately provide the research behind the numbers and said they would return with comparisons from other communities.
The two-night minimum was intended to discourage people from renting homes for one-night parties, city officials said. The 200-night limit was intended to preserve homes primarily for residential use rather than allowing them to function as full-time lodging businesses.
Some council members questioned whether either provision would accomplish those goals.
Council member Victoria Petro said she supports restricting short-term rentals when they contribute to rising housing costs, but she also wants them available to homeowners who may need the income.
“I do want to keep it as a tool, especially for people who might find themselves on the verge of housing insecurity,” Petro said, citing single parents, older adults and people living on fixed incomes.
Petro also called for another look at the rule limiting short-term rentals to 10% of the units in multifamily properties. She questioned whether the same cap should apply to condominium buildings in which units are owned by different people rather than a single company.
Council members also raised the possibility of grandfathering some existing operators and reconsidering how the city conducts outreach before aggressively seeking new license applications.
One council member questioned whether promoting the licensing program immediately could undermine the city’s credibility when officials have already acknowledged that parts of the ordinance may need work.
The council ultimately agreed to leave the ordinance in effect while city staff studies possible amendments. Those changes could include revisions to the two-night minimum, 200-night annual cap and multifamily restrictions.
The licensing requirement, local-contact rule and the city’s broader effort to regulate short-term rentals were not abandoned.
Salt Lake City officials said they believe about 65 short-term rentals are currently operating in the city, although only a small number had received licenses at the time of Tuesday’s discussion. Council members also asked for more information about how short-term rentals affect the city’s overall housing supply.
For Hammond, the debates in Orem and Salt Lake City demonstrate how dramatically different regulations can affect individual property owners.
She said the rental helps cover the home’s mortgage and operating costs. She also employs cleaners, yard workers and contractors and said she monitors the exterior of the property through security cameras. Hammond said she is willing to accept licensing, safety inspections and reasonable occupancy limits.
She opposes arbitrary limits on how many nights a responsible operator can accept guests.
“I don’t see any need for regulating the number of days during the year that you’re in operation,” Hammond said. “That makes no sense.”
For now, Salt Lake City is moving forward with its ordinance while preparing to revise it. Orem has yet to decide whether non-owner-occupied rentals such as Hammond’s will be allowed under its eventual policy.
The two cities are at different stages of the same debate: how to protect housing and residential neighborhoods without eliminating short-term rentals operated by homeowners who say they are following the rules.
