About outside links: Links marked with the external-link icon (↗) take you to a website outside VeeLane.com and open in a new tab.
Return to the full story: Five Questions
These are the documents and dated candidate replies behind Five Questions. Read the records, examine my reasoning, and decide for yourself. My conclusions are my own; the documents may lead you somewhere different.
Start with the county’s adopted rules
Official county STR information and updates · Adopted Ordinance No. 23 (PDF) · County FAQ, revised September 14, 2026 (PDF). The adopted ordinance controls if a summary conflicts with it.
Research documents
The full supplied survey report and Neumo meeting record are included in consecutive parts to fit this site’s upload limit. The survey report and county presentation are compressed web copies. The presentation decks retain their wording and slide layouts, with reduced image quality; the July 16 deck is split into three consecutive parts. These are access copies, not untouched original files.
| Document | Open or download | What to look for |
|---|---|---|
| July 16, 2025 consultant presentation | Slides 1–5 · Slides 6–10 · Slides 11–15 | PowerPoint web copies; slide 4 contains the 2,000 estimate. |
| July 30, 2025 revised presentation | All slides | PowerPoint web copy; compare the changed estimate and definitions. |
| October 2025 survey and outreach report | PDF pages 1–104 · PDF pages 105–151 | Complete 151-page supplied report; PDF page positions may differ from printed page numbers. |
| June 9, 2026 staff memorandum | Read the memorandum | Staff’s estimates, policy options, staffing and projected program budget. |
| County STR presentation | Read the presentation | Supplied presentation, compressed for web access. |
| Neumo / county meeting record | Pages 1–10 · Pages 11–17 · Pages 18–26 · Pages 27–27 | Complete 27-page supplied record. Order-form pricing appears on page 2; quoted August 13, 2026. |
| My proposed amendment | Read my September 2026 proposal | My request for an owner-occupied tier, not the adopted ordinance. |
Understanding the costs and the collection
The June staff memo describes a roughly $300,000 annual program estimate. The Neumo order form lists $13,000 for implementation and $61,600 for the first-year subscription: $74,600 together, with a 7% compounded annual increase to subscription pricing after year one. A vendor order form is not a complete county program budget. It does not establish that the full program now costs $74,600 or that fees must automatically fall; staffing, retained county duties and other costs need a reconciled public accounting.
The supplied survey workbook contains respondent identifiers and free-text responses. I have not published that original workbook unchanged. The public report above provides the survey analysis and outreach record. This collection contains the documents available to me for this article; it is not a claim to contain every county record, every CORA response or the complete September 24 agenda packet.
Candidate comparison
This table summarizes the September 9–11 email exchange only. It is not a complete candidate guide or an endorsement list. All three replied; two supplied written policy answers.
| Issue | Don Moore | Dennis Luttrell | Carl Andersen |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ordinance as proposed | Opposed; prioritize enforcing existing rules and gathering evidence. | Opposed; said need was not adequately established. | Offered a phone call; no written policy answer obtained. |
| Owner-occupied rentals | Little or no regulation; would allow only resident-owned, owner-occupied STRs. | Supported different treatment. | No written policy answer obtained. |
| $750 fee | Wanted a detailed income-and-expense analysis before forming a reasoned opinion. | Actual-cost justification; opposed using high fees to discourage rentals. | No written policy answer obtained. |
| Evidence and rights | Documented problems and consistent enforcement across properties. | Evidence demonstrating need; believed existing balance sufficient. | No written policy answer obtained. |
The questions and the replies
I sent the same five questions on September 9, 2026. Don Moore replied September 9, Carl Andersen September 10, and Dennis Luttrell September 11. These are dated responses to a proposed ordinance, not a claim about each candidate’s entire platform or present position.
Editorial note: The replies below preserve the original wording and spelling; line wrapping and paragraph spacing are normalized. Repeated quoted email threads, email addresses and phone numbers are omitted. Don Moore’s greeting, residential reference, closing and signature are omitted; all five numbered answers are included. His numerical examples about trash and burning violations are hypothetical, not verified county statistics.
The five questions
1. Do you support the proposed STR ordinance as it is currently written? If not, what would you change?
2. Do you think owner-occupied STRs, where the homeowner lives on the property and rents one or two rooms, should be regulated differently from whole-house or investor-operated STRs? Why or why not?
3. What are your thoughts on the proposed $750 annual registration fee? Do you think STR fees should mainly reflect the county’s actual cost of administering the program, or do you think fees can also appropriately be used to limit or discourage STR activity?
4. Before adding new regulations, what kind of evidence do you think the county should be expected to show? For example, should the county be able to identify documented problems and explain how the proposed regulations address those problems?
5. How do you balance private-property rights with the county’s responsibility to address legitimate concerns such as parking, septic capacity, fire safety, noise, and impacts on neighboring properties?
Don Moore — September 9, 2026
1. Do you support the proposed STR ordinance as it is currently written? If not, what would you change? RESPONSE: No. I have stated this stance on numerous occasions. In my career I developed, implemented, and enforced federal regulations for the US Treasury. Before discussing new regulations, there was always a well researched and documented analysis of the issue the proposed regulation was meant to address. This included evidentiary support of verifiable and quantifiable facts/data. Without this information the proposed regulation was a non-starter. It is my understanding that proposed ordinance #23 is based upon conjecture and does not have the supporting data to show that these issues are only associated with STR properties. In drafting new regulations, the “big three” areas are 1) Development, 2) Implementation, and 3) Enforcement. I do not see the support for the development of ordiance #23 as the evidentiary data/facts is lacking. Currently the Board of County Commissioners has stated in their presentations that STRs are prohibited in Teller County, yet they also stated in their 2025 presentation that there are approximately 2,000 STRs in Teller County. So if STRs are currently prohibited, why are there 2,000? Because of this situation I believe implementing a more complex ordinance than a complete prohibition will be difficult. Finally, Teller County already has approved ordinances on the books that address many of the “alleged issues” associated with STRs. Ordinance #14 deals with Animal Control; Ordinance #17 deals with open burning and fire bans; Ordiance #19 outlines that use of Off Highway Vehicles; Ordiance #20 deals with the Camping Requirement; Ordinance #21 outlines the issies associated with Trash and Rubbish. These ordinances should be implemented and enforced, not just on STRs, but on all properties. Yet, these ordinances are rarely enforced, and when they are it appears to be on a select ad hoc basis, which is a slippery slope. Based on these deficiencies I would first attempt to implement and enforce the existing ordinances before putting another complex ordinance on the books. In doing so, I would gather specific data on whether the enforcement action was against an STR or non-STR property. This would then allow Teller County to gather empirical evidence to support if the issues are specific to STRs or not. Taking additional time and doing it right is an excellent first step in establishing good municipal governance.
2. Do you think owner-occupied STRs, where the homeowner lives on the property and rents one or two rooms, should be regulated differently from whole-house or investor-operated STRs? Why or why not? RESPONSE: It is no secret, I have stated for years that owner-occupied STRs should have little to no regulation. In fact, I have stated that only owner-occupied STRs should be allowed in Teller County. And to take it one step further, the owner-occupied property must be owned by a Teller County resident. In 2020, 2021 and early 2025 I brought up the idea of a Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO) to the Board of County Commissioners. This SRO would require STR owners to be members, and the SRO would report to the Board of County Commissioners on various agreed-upon criteria. I was dismissed out of hand, and they informed me that STRs were not an issue.
3. What are your thoughts on the proposed $750 annual registration fee? Do you think STR fees should mainly reflect the county’s actual cost of administering the program, or do you think fees can also appropriately be used to limit or discourage STR activity? RESPONSE: This is a great question. I am an individual who favors low taxes, low fees, and small government; therefore I need to see a pro forma income and expense statement detailing how this fee will be utilized before I can form a reasoned opinion. In my career at the US Treasury, each proposed regulation entered into the Federal Register for public comment required a section outlining the financial impact of the regulation, I do not see this type of analysis in proposed ordinance #23. As I outlined above, perhaps we should commence implementing and enforcing our already approved ordinances and assess the fee or fine associated with the specific ordinance. We can then determine if excess revenue is available for other proposed regulations. Assessing a $750 fee without supporting analysis and a pro forma financial report seems a little reckless.
4. Before adding new regulations, what kind of evidence do you think the county should be expected to show? For example, should the county be able to identify documented problems and explain how the proposed regulations address those problems? RESPONSE: Again, another well thought out question – I am right there with you. If trash is a problem, then I would like to know how many Ordiance #21 violations have been cited, and what percentage of them are the result of STRs. For example, let’s say that for the calendar year of 2025, there were 500 Ordinance #21 violations, of those 50 came from STRs, or 10%. Does 10% represent enough of a concern to warrant a separate STR ordinance? I don’t know. For the same time period, 125 Open Burn violations were cited, with 10 coming from STRs, or 8% – is this a high enough percentage to spend time, effort, and energy developing an STR ordinance when an Open Burn Ban ordinance already exists. Currently, we have none of this data so it is difficult to support the need for an ordinance targeting a specific category of properties. Should we limit the number of dogs in Teller County because of increased concern about barking? Absolutely, there must be a well-documented problem supported by resident testimonials, quantifiable data tied to a trend analysis, and open and transparent discussion with motions and votes before proceeding with new regulations or ordinances. Before considering any regulation, the problem it solves, the activity it discourages, or the result it desires, must be clearly stated and understood. It must also be supported by the scientific method and evidence.
5. How do you balance private-property rights with the county’s responsibility to address legitimate concerns such as parking, septic capacity, fire safety, noise, and impacts on neighboring properties? RESPONSE: I will stay on the STR topic. It is my belief that the “concern” being generated specific to STRs is coming from a few and it is easy to vilify and blame STRs for everything wrong with life in the mountains of Teller County. As I have stated over, and over, and over – we already have ordinances that address many of these “alleged” issues associated with STRs, how about we implement and enforce them. Building codes address septic capacity and other building related issues. Many residents who do not have an STR on their property are already in noncompliance with existing regulations, why target only STRs? Let’s enforce existing regulations correctly for all properties in Teller County or none at all.
Carl Andersen — September 10, 2026
Hi Vanessa Thank you for reaching out. Were you at the BOCC Meeting today? I would like to discuss your questions, would you be open to a phone call?
Carl Andersen
I did not arrange the offered call, so I have no written answers from this exchange to attribute to him.
Dennis Luttrell — September 11, 2026
Hi Vanessa
1) No I don’t. I do not believe that the case has been adequately been made for the need. Further, there are other regulations in place to address the matter and existing staff to remedy the situation. I spoke against it at the hearing yesterday.
2). Yes
3). Yes, the fees should be justified by the actual cost. No to using the high fees to discourage property owners from renting their property.
4). Yes, they need to present the data demonstrating the need.
5). I believe in the sanctity of property rights. We have the balance needed already.
Historical sources
Ute Pass Historical Society: local history · Steve Plutt: “Seek and Ye Shall Find” (John and Clara Vos) · Steve Plutt: Friendfield Turkey Farm · Santa’s Workshop: its history. Historical lodging is context, not proof that every modern use has the same legal status or community impact.
Help me check the record
You may reach a different conclusion from the same documents. I welcome corrections supported by a document, a page number, and an explanation of how you read it. The most useful conversation starts with evidence and leaves room to change our minds.
Download the free Research Companion PDF with a concise timeline, cost questions and clickable source links. No purchase, account or email signup is required. Send Vee a question, correction or different perspective.