Five Questions

How a century of tourism, a county ordinance, and a search for answers led me into local politics.

I have a childhood memory of visiting the North Pole.

Not the one at the top of the world, but Santa’s Workshop, tucked into the mountains near the base of Pikes Peak.

My family was traveling home from North Dakota, where we’d been visiting my dad’s family. Somewhere along the way, we stopped at the North Pole. To a little girl, it was a magical place, and one of those memories that stays with you.

I certainly couldn’t have imagined that one day I would live in these mountains, welcome visitors into my own home, or find myself digging through county records trying to understand how our local government regulates tourism.

But here I am.

And the more I’ve learned about the history of this area, the more interesting the current debate over short-term rentals has become.

Tourism Isn’t New Here

Long before Airbnb, Vrbo, or even automobiles, people were traveling into the mountains around Pikes Peak.

The Ute people traveled through the pass for generations before settlers and miners began using the route. When the Colorado Midland Railway arrived in the late 1880s, it helped transform the region into a popular destination for visitors looking to escape the heat of the plains.

Hotels, mountain resorts, summer cottages, and cabins sprang up along Ute Pass.

Green Mountain Falls was developed as a summer resort in the late 1880s. According to the Ute Pass Historical Society, about 100 tent cabins were built along the hillsides, and hundreds of visitors rented them each summer. By 1889, two hotels had opened, including the Green Mountain Falls Hotel with 70 guest rooms.

Imagine arriving by train, stepping into the cool mountain air, and settling into a furnished tent cabin for a week.

Sounds remarkably familiar, doesn’t it?

Woodland Park had its own hotels, resorts, and accommodations for travelers. The railroad brought tourists, workers, merchants, and people headed toward the booming Cripple Creek mining district.

There were boarding houses, inns, and small lodging businesses. Some catered to vacationers, while others served people who simply needed an affordable place to stay.

And the tradition didn’t disappear when times got tough.

During the Depression years of the 1930s, John and Clara Vos operated the Red Roof Cabins in Woodland Park. Their little cottage camp stood near what would eventually become modern Highway 24.

Another local story caught my attention.

Photographer Laura Gilpin and her partner, Betsy Forster, operated the Friendfield Turkey Farm in Woodland Park during the 1930s. After closing their turkey business in 1939, they operated a guest house until 1942.

Think about that for a moment.

Two women living in the mountains, adapting to changing circumstances, using their property to earn a living.

There is something wonderfully familiar about that story.

As the railroad era gave way to automobiles, visitors arrived by car instead of train. Motor courts, roadside cabins, guest houses, and other small lodging businesses became part of the landscape.

Santa’s Workshop opened in 1956, adding another attraction to a region that had already been welcoming visitors for generations.

Decades later, my family was among those visitors.

Tourism isn’t some new intrusion into Teller County. It’s part of the history of this region and has helped sustain its economy for well over a century.

That doesn’t mean everything should remain as it was 100 years ago. Communities grow. Circumstances change. And not every modern vacation rental is comparable to an old-fashioned boarding house.

But I believe it’s important to remember where we’ve come from before deciding how we want to move forward.

Now I’m on the Other Side of the Welcome Mat

Today, I’m not the little girl visiting the North Pole.

I’m a homeowner in unincorporated Teller County, welcoming guests into my own home.

I rent two bedrooms upstairs while living downstairs. I prepare the rooms, clean between guests, maintain the property, answer questions, and try to make sure people have a comfortable, enjoyable stay.

I’ve met some wonderful people through hosting. Some are visiting family, attending local events, exploring the mountains, or simply looking for a quiet place to relax.

And when they stay here, they also visit our restaurants, shop in our stores, buy gas, and contribute to the local economy.

For me, hosting isn’t about building a vacation rental empire. It’s about making use of space I already have, generating some additional income, and keeping my home.

That’s why Teller County’s proposed short-term rental ordinance caught my attention.

I wasn’t opposed to reasonable regulations.

I understand why a county would want to address fire safety, parking, septic capacity, noise, and neighborhood concerns. Those things matter, especially in a mountain community where wildfires and limited emergency resources are genuine concerns.

But regulations should be based on facts. They should address documented problems, and they should be proportionate to the activities being regulated.

That seemed like a reasonable place to start.

So I started researching.

And that’s when things got interesting.

Wait a Minute. Which Numbers Are Correct?

Initially, I was simply trying to understand the proposed regulations and what they would mean for homeowners like me.

The ordinance included a $750 annual license fee, plus a $250 initial application fee.

For someone renting one or two rooms in the home where they live, that’s a significant expense.

But I wanted to look beyond my own situation.

What problems had the county documented? How many short-term rentals were actually operating in unincorporated Teller County? How many complaints or violations were associated with those properties?

I reviewed materials available through the county website and submitted requests under the Colorado Open Records Act, commonly known as CORA.

I wanted to see the information behind the recommendations.

One of the first things that caught my attention was the estimated number of short-term rentals.

In a July 16, 2025 consultant presentation, the estimate was approximately 2,000 active short-term rentals, described in connection with a figure of 12–14% of single-family homes.

Two weeks later, on July 30, a revised presentation gave a much wider range of 450 to 2,000 rentals.

Then, in a June 9, 2026 Community Development memorandum, county staff reported that information from four third-party monitoring companies suggested approximately 300 to 500 short-term rentals in unincorporated Teller County.

That’s quite a range.

Now, I understand that estimates can change. Different sources may use different methods, and an online listing doesn’t necessarily represent a unique property.

Some properties may be advertised on multiple platforms. Others may offer multiple rooms. And incorporated communities such as Woodland Park are not necessarily part of the same regulatory population.

But those differences are precisely why the methodology matters.

How many actual properties were involved? Were duplicate listings removed? Were the boundaries consistent? And how did changing estimates affect the conclusions being presented to residents?

I couldn’t find a clear reconciliation of those numbers in the materials I reviewed.

Another interesting detail appeared in the consultant’s final report.

Among its recommendations were confirming the number and density of short-term rentals and tracking matters such as emergency-service calls, water use, and violations.

I found myself wondering why some of that information wasn’t already available to establish the need and scale of the proposed regulatory program.

The survey process raised questions, too. The county gathered public input through meetings and a voluntary survey. That’s useful information about the views of people who participated, but a voluntary survey isn’t necessarily representative of everyone who lives in Teller County.

Again, I wasn’t suggesting that the concerns were imaginary or that the information was deliberately misleading.

I simply wanted to understand how the conclusions were reached.

If we’re going to regulate something, shouldn’t we first establish what the problem is, how often it occurs, and whether the proposed regulation actually addresses it?

Then There Was the $750 Fee

The June 9, 2026 staff memorandum contained another interesting piece of information.

The county was considering an annual short-term rental regulatory program estimated to cost approximately $300,000.

That included staffing and operating expenses.

The memorandum discussed a minimum of two full-time employees and calculating the license fee using an estimated 300 to 500 rentals.

At 400 licenses, a $750 annual fee would generate $300,000.

The arithmetic works.

But the question I had was whether the projected program costs were based on demonstrated workload and enforcement needs, and whether those costs would be the same for different types of rentals.

For example, consider the difference between a homeowner who rents a spare bedroom while living on the property and someone operating a large, unoccupied vacation home.

Both may be legitimate businesses, and both should meet applicable safety requirements.

But are their operating characteristics and the county’s likely oversight needs necessarily identical?

If I’m living downstairs while guests are upstairs, I’m available to address problems immediately. I have a personal interest in keeping the property quiet, safe, and well-maintained.

That doesn’t guarantee every owner-occupied rental operates responsibly. But it does create a different accountability structure.

Interestingly, the county had already considered different categories of operators.

The June memorandum recorded commissioners discussing resident priority and three possible tiers: owner-occupied properties, resident-owned properties that were not owner-occupied, and properties owned by nonresidents.

The adopted ordinance ultimately recognizes owner-occupied short-term rentals by exempting qualifying primary residences from the 10% license cap.

Yet the $750 annual fee remains the same.

That was the inconsistency I kept coming back to.

If the county recognizes a meaningful difference between these operations for licensing caps, why not examine whether their actual regulatory costs also differ?

I didn’t expect the county to eliminate fees altogether.

In fact, I submitted a proposal supporting the $250 initial application fee while recommending a separate $100 annual license fee for qualifying owner-occupied rentals.

I also supported retaining core health, safety, occupancy, parking, and enforcement requirements.

My proposal was fairly straightforward: recognize the difference, establish reasonable standards, and collect enough information to adjust fees based on actual experience.

Whether $100 is ultimately the appropriate annual fee should depend on the county’s real administrative costs. That’s the kind of analysis I wanted to see.

And Now, an Outside Vendor

The later Neumo order form added another piece to the picture: $13,000 for implementation and $61,600 for the first-year subscription. That is $74,600 together. The form also provides for a 7% compounded annual increase in subscription pricing after the first year.

It would be tempting to compare that number with the earlier $300,000 estimate and conclude the county can now run the whole program for less. But the documents do not establish that. The vendor’s price is one part of the picture; county staffing, retained responsibilities, inspections and other expenses still need to be accounted for.

My question is straightforward: what does the complete program now cost, which work will the vendor do, and which costs remain with the county? If the actual cost changes, I want the annual fee reviewed against that evidence. I have included the supplied Neumo record and staff budget memo so you can compare them yourself.

I Know There Is Another Side to This

I don’t want to leave the impression that I think every short-term rental is a wonderful addition to a neighborhood.

I’m sure some aren’t.

People who have experienced noisy guests, parking problems, careless outdoor fires, or repeated disturbances have legitimate reasons to be concerned.

The county also has responsibilities related to public safety, housing, infrastructure, and land use.

And there is another important part of the county’s position: officials have maintained that short-term rentals were not previously authorized under the existing land-use framework, and the new ordinance establishes a formal way to license them.

That’s relevant.

These are exactly the kinds of issues that deserve careful explanation.

My concern has never been that government should do nothing.

It’s that when government takes action affecting people’s property and livelihoods, residents should be able to understand the reasoning, evidence, and costs behind those decisions.

And that brings me to something I didn’t anticipate when I started this research.

How I Found Myself in Local Politics

By the beginning of September, I had spent more time researching this ordinance than I ever imagined.

I had reviewed county documents, studied consultant presentations, submitted public comments, and made public records requests.

All while trying to keep up with everything else in my life.

I was hosting guests, caring for an elderly dog who was very sick, and trying to get my home and property ready for winter.

Anyone who lives in the mountains knows preparing for winter isn’t exactly a small undertaking. There’s always one more thing that needs doing.

But the ordinance kept nagging at me.

Not simply because of the cost, but because I had begun thinking more seriously about how decisions are made in our county.

Who asks the questions? Who checks the numbers? Who represents the interests of homeowners, residents, and small businesses?

And when citizens ask for explanations, what kind of responses should they expect?

With a County Commissioner election approaching, it occurred to me I could ask the candidates directly.

You know that old saying, “All politics is local”?

I was beginning to understand exactly what that meant.

Local politics isn’t just something discussed at campaign events or printed on election signs.

It’s the decisions that affect whether you can rent a room in your home, what fees you pay, how your tax dollars are spent, and what happens in your neighborhood.

Suddenly, local government felt very personal.

Five Questions for Three Candidates

On September 9, I emailed the three candidates running for Teller County Commissioner, District 2: Republican Carl Andersen, Democrat Dennis Luttrell, and unaffiliated write-in candidate Don Moore.

I sent each of them the same five questions.

I wanted to know whether they supported Ordinance 23 as written, whether they believed owner-occupied rentals should be treated differently, whether the $750 fee was justified, what evidence should be required before adopting regulations, and how they would balance private-property rights with legitimate community concerns.

I deliberately asked the questions in writing.

I wasn’t looking for a party-line answer or a campaign slogan. I wanted to understand how each candidate approached the issues and have something I could read, compare, and refer back to.

Don Moore was the first to provide detailed written answers.

He responded that evening, addressing all five questions individually.

The following morning, while attending the Board of County Commissioners meeting in Cripple Creek, he followed up to make sure I’d received his response.

His answers focused heavily on the importance of documented evidence, enforcement of existing ordinances, and establishing the financial basis for new regulations.

Moore described his experience with regulatory development and enforcement at the U.S. Treasury. He questioned whether the county had provided enough information to demonstrate that short-term rentals were responsible for the problems being cited.

He also expressed support for little or no regulation of owner-occupied rentals.

Interestingly, he went further, saying he believed only owner-occupied short-term rentals owned by Teller County residents should be allowed.

That’s a more restrictive position than simply supporting lower fees for resident hosts, and it’s an important distinction for voters to understand.

Carl Andersen also responded to my email.

On September 10, he thanked me for reaching out and offered to discuss the questions by telephone.

I appreciated the offer, but I didn’t follow up.

Frankly, I just didn’t have the time. Between hosting, caring for my dog, and preparing for winter, scheduling another conversation wasn’t something I could manage.

Besides, I’d intentionally requested written answers so I could compare everyone’s positions fairly.

I don’t interpret Carl’s offer as an unwillingness to engage. I simply didn’t obtain written answers to my questions from him.

Dennis Luttrell responded on September 11.

He answered all five questions briefly, opposing the ordinance as written, supporting different treatment for owner-occupied rentals, and agreeing fees should reflect actual costs and regulations should be supported by evidence.

So, to be clear, all three candidates responded to my outreach. Two answered the questions in writing, and one offered a telephone conversation.

Their responses gave me something more useful than campaign advertisements.

They gave me an opportunity to examine how each candidate communicated about a specific issue affecting county residents.

What I Learned Was Bigger Than the Ordinance

I came away from this experience thinking about more than short-term rentals.

I thought about the importance of asking good questions.

I thought about how much work it can take for an ordinary resident to understand a proposed government action.

And I thought about how easy it would have been to simply complain about the ordinance and move on.

Instead, I found myself reading reports, comparing figures, examining public records, and contacting people who wanted to represent our community.

The candidates’ responses were part of that process.

I found the detail in Moore’s answers particularly useful because I could examine the reasoning behind his positions. I’ve also read some of his other public comments, and those have contributed to my developing impression of his approach to local government.

But one exchange doesn’t establish someone’s entire character or tell us everything about how that person would govern.

Responsiveness matters. So do experience, judgment, consistency, the ability to work with others, and a record of following through.

Those are things worth examining for every candidate.

My experience also reminded me that agreement isn’t the same as accountability.

A candidate can agree with my concerns about an ordinance and still have other positions I might question.

Likewise, someone who disagrees with me may have information or reasoning I haven’t considered.

That’s why asking questions and examining the answers matters.

And Where Does That Leave Us?

On September 10, the Teller County commissioners adopted Ordinance 23.

The ordinance is scheduled to take effect December 1, 2026.

The county now has a framework for licensing short-term rentals in unincorporated Teller County.

What remains to be seen is how the program will work in practice, what it will actually cost to administer, how many property owners will participate, and whether it will accomplish the objectives the county has identified.

Those are questions worth following.

I hope the county will publish clear information about license counts, expenses, complaints, inspections, enforcement actions, and the actual results of the program.

That would provide a meaningful way to evaluate whether the regulations are working and whether future adjustments are warranted.

Moving Forward

Passage does not end the conversation. The county FAQ says fees may be adjusted by a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. That gives residents a specific request to make: publish the full program budget and review fees against actual costs, including any differences between owner-occupied hosting and other operations.

I would also like regular public reporting of licenses, complaints, inspections, enforcement actions, revenue and expenses. Residents can ask for the underlying records, participate in public meetings, and submit a concrete proposal for amendments. Changing or repealing an ordinance requires formal county action; electing a candidate does not change it automatically.

For anyone considering a legal challenge, the next step is qualified Colorado legal advice about the adopted text, the facts of their situation, and any applicable deadlines. This story is my account of the evidence and questions, not a promise that a particular challenge will succeed.

For me, this whole experience began with a simple concern about how I could continue using my own home.

But it turned into something much bigger.

It reminded me our communities have long histories, that economic opportunities evolve, and public policy should be informed by both experience and evidence.

It also reminded me how important it is for residents to participate in local government, even when life is busy and there are a hundred other things demanding our attention.

I think back to that little girl visiting the Santa’s Workshop at the North Pole with her family.

She came to these mountains as a tourist, long before she understood anything about local economies, property rights, or county government.

Today, I live here. I maintain a home here. I welcome visitors here.

And I care deeply about what happens to this community.

I never expected a short-term rental ordinance to send me down this road.

But perhaps that’s how civic involvement begins for many of us.

Not with an interest in politics.

Just with something happening close to home, a few unanswered questions, and the decision to start looking for answers.

After all, isn’t that what local government should be about?

---

Read the Documents. Reach Your Own Conclusion.

The supporting documents and candidate-response page includes the county’s ordinance and FAQ, both July 2025 presentations, the complete supplied survey report, the June 2026 staff memo, the supplied Neumo record, my proposed amendment, and the candidates’ written replies with a comparison table. The original survey workbook is withheld because it contains respondent identifiers; the public report is available.

You may look at the same records and disagree with me. I want to hear how you arrived at your conclusion, which document or page informed it, and what evidence would change your mind. I owe you the same openness.

This article reflects my personal experiences, research, and observations. Where I question the county’s supporting data, I am describing information I could not establish from the records I reviewed, not asserting that additional records or explanations do not exist. Historical sources and notes on the scope and preparation of the document collection are included on the supporting page.

Keep a Research Companion

If you would like a concise timeline, a guide to the cost questions, and clickable source links, download the free three-page Research Companion. No purchase, account or email signup is required. If you have a question or a different conclusion based on the records, send me a note.