Short-term-rental Inventory

The rise of short-term rental (STR) properties exploded globally over the last decade. Listing platforms such as AirBnB, Booking.com, and VRBO became readily accessible to individuals to list their properties to generate additional income and provide services to out-of-town visitors. This has impacted housing supply and affordability. Academic research indicates a relationship with increasing STR supply leading to a decrease in affordability and housing options as supply is occupied by visitors rather than full-time residents.1

Policy Brief June 2022 Short-Term-Rental Inventory By: Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Fellow • Growth of STRs - In 2019, there were 14,782 STR’s listed in the state. The total number of listings increased to 18,743 in 2021, or an increase of 26.8% in two years. • Popularity of home rentals – Entire homes are the most popular type of rental. In 2019 there were 12,868 entire homes listed; this increased to 17,236 in 2021. During this time, private room listings declined from 1,914 in 2019 to 1,507 in 2021. • Uneven distribution of STRs – Growth of STRs is concentrated in five counties: Summit, Washington, Salt Lake, Rich, and Grand. These accounted for two-thirds of the growth seen between 2020 and 2021. County-Level Results The top five counties for STR listings in 2021 are Summit, Salt Lake, Washington, Grand, and Utah (see Table 1). Summit County holds the highest share of the state’s STR’s historically. In 2021, 32.2% of all listings were in the county (see Figure 2). Approximately 23.3% of Summit County’s total housing is listed as an STR, up from 21.0% in 2020. Salt Lake County accounts for 18.2% of the total listings in 2021. However, STRs account for Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I Figure 1: Number of STRs in Utah, 2019–2021 20,000 18,000 # of Short-Term Rentals The rise of short-term rental (STR) properties exploded globally over the last decade. Listing platforms such as AirBnB, Booking.com, and VRBO became readily accessible to individuals to list their properties to generate additional income and provide services to out-of-town visitors. This has impacted housing supply and affordability. Academic research indicates a relationship with increasing STR supply leading to a decrease in affordability and housing options as supply is occupied by visitors rather than full-time residents.1 This analysis is not intended to draw causality for housing prices, rather it is to provide state and local leaders an account of the size of the STR market and how it relates to the total housing supply. The number of STRs in Utah steadily increased over the last half of the 2010s as AirBnB, Booking.com, and VRBO platforms became popular.2 Key findings of this analysis include the following: 16,352 16,000 14,782 14,000 1,914 18,743 1,507 1,841 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 14,511 12,868 17,236 4,000 2,000 0 2021 2020 2019 Entire Home Private Room Note: Total omits shared-room listings. Source: Transparent only 0.8% of the county’s total units, a minor increase from the 2020 share of 0.7%. Washington County has the third-largest STR share in Utah in 2021, representing 14.9% of total 2021 listings. STRs make up 3.4% of Washington County’s housing stock, an increase from the 2020 share of 3.1%. Grand County holds 5.5% of the 2021 listings. Approximately 19.3% of Grand County’s housing is listed as an STR in 2021, an increase from the 2020 share of 16.5%. In 2021, Utah County ranks fifth, accounting for 4.7% of the state’s STR listings, but the county’s STRs represent only 0.4% of total housing in both 2020 and 2021. The top five counties for STRs’ share of the housing stock in 2021 are Summit, Grand, Rich, Kane, and Garfield (see Table 2). Close to 23.3% of Summit County housing is in STRs. The county’s listings increased by 12.2% from 2020 to 2021, adding 655 new STRs. Grand County’s STRs account for 19.3% of the 2021 housing stock. The county’s listings increased by 20.0% from 2020 to 2021, adding 171 homes or rooms. Rich County increased its share of STR listings by 48.9% from 2020 to 2021, adding 172 listings. In 2020 close to 11.4% of Rich’s housing was listed as an STR. That share increased to 16.5% in 2021. Close to 8.0% of Kane County’s housing stock is listed as an STR in 2021, an increase from the 6.5% share in 2020. Kane County’s listings increased 25.4% in the 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu Figure 2: Number of STRs and Their Share of Total Housing Units by County, 2020–2021 Number of STRs, 2020 174 Cache 352 Rich 731 Weber 304 Davis 19 Morgan 8 Dagget Box Elder 22 Tooele 30 STRs as a Share of Total Housing Units, 2020 Wasatch 527 Duchesne 8 Utah 817 Juab 14 Tooele 0.1% Uintah 40 Sanpete 74 Emery 34 Sevier 45 Piute 19 Millard 0.0% Grand 855 Beaver 0.9% Number of STRs, 2021 Tooele 31 Juab 10 Duchesne 15 Sanpete 76 Emery 49 Sevier 64 Beaver 33 Tooele 0.1% Uintah 54 Piute 20 Washington 2,803 San Juan 2.8% Kane 6.5% 0.4% Cache 16.5% Rich 0.8% Weber 0.3% Davis 0.4% Morgan 0.7% Dagget Salt Lake 0.8% Summit 23.3% Wasatch 3.9% Juab 0.3% Millard 0.2% Grand 1,026 Duchesne 0.2% Beaver 1.1% Sanpete 0.7% Emery 1.2% Piute 2.3% Kane 493 Washington 3.5% Grand 19.3% Wayne 4.1% Garfield 6.2% Iron 3.3% San Juan 172 Uintah 0.4% Carbon 0.4% Sevier 0.7% Wayne 70 Garfield 219 Iron 740 Grand 16.5% Wayne 3.8% Utah 0.4% Carbon 42 Millard 9 Piute 2.2% Box Elder 0.1% Summit 6,042 Utah 878 Emery 0.8% STRs as a Share of Total Housing Units, 2021 201 Cache 524 Rich 819 Weber 316 Davis 14 Morgan 9 Dagget Wasatch 580 Sanpete 0.7% Garfield 5.3% Washington 3.1% Salt Lake 3,420 Uintah 0.3% Carbon 0.4% Iron 2.9% San Juan 152 Box Elder 22 Duchesne 0.1% Sevier 0.5% Kane 393 Washington 2,285 Wasatch 3.6% Juab 0.4% Wayne 64 Garfield 187 Iron 622 Summit 21.0% Salt Lake 0.7% Utah 0.4% Carbon 42 Millard 2 Beaver 25 Box Elder 0.1% Summit 5,387 Salt Lake 3,123 0.4% Cache 11.4% Rich 0.8% Weber 0.3% Davis 0.5% Morgan 0.7% Dagget San Juan 3.1% Kane 8.0% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of Transparent, 2020 Decennial Census, and Utah Population Estimates Committee 2021 data June 2022 I gardner.utah.edu 2 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Table 1: Counties Ranked by Total Number of STRs, 2021 Entire Home Rank County Private Room Total (Entire + Private) STR Share of Housing Units 2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021 2020 2021 1 Summit 4,908 5,228 5,962 208 160 81 5,116 5,388 6,043 21.0% 23.3% 2 Salt Lake 2,052 2,371 2,817 798 753 603 2,850 3,124 3,420 0.7% 0.8% 3 Washington 1,716 2,118 2,647 173 167 156 1,889 2,285 2,803 3.1% 3.5% 4 Grand 754 832 1,007 27 23 19 781 855 1,026 16.5% 19.3% 5 Utah 501 580 678 227 237 201 728 817 879 0.4% 0.4% 6 Weber 573 653 747 68 78 72 641 731 819 0.8% 0.8% 7 Iron 518 571 699 55 51 42 573 622 741 2.9% 3.3% 8 Wasatch 436 490 557 40 37 24 476 527 581 3.6% 3.9% 9 Rich 275 341 496 1 11 28 276 352 524 11.4% 16.5% 10 Kane 324 353 461 44 40 32 368 393 493 6.5% 8.0% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of Transparent, 2020 Decennial Census, and Utah Population Estimates Committee 2021 data Table 2: Counties Ranked by STRs as a Share of Total Housing, 2020 Entire Home Rank 1 County Summit Private Room Total (Entire + Private) STR Share of Housing Units 2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021 2020 2021 4,908 5,228 5,962 208 160 81 5,116 5,388 6,043 21.0% 23.3% 2 Grand 754 832 1,007 27 23 19 781 855 1,026 16.5% 19.3% 3 Rich 275 341 496 1 11 28 276 352 524 11.4% 16.5% 4 Kane 324 353 461 44 40 32 368 393 493 6.5% 8.0% 5 Garfield 141 173 204 11 14 15 152 187 219 5.3% 6.2% 6 Wayne 52 60 69 4 4 1 56 64 70 3.8% 4.1% 7 Wasatch 8 Washington 436 490 557 40 37 24 476 527 581 3.6% 3.9% 1,716 2,118 2,647 173 167 156 1,889 2,285 2,803 3.1% 3.5% 9 Iron 518 571 699 55 51 42 573 622 741 2.9% 3.3% 10 San Juan 145 144 166 9 8 6 154 152 172 2.8% 3.1% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of Transparent, 2020 Decennial Census, and Utah Population Estimates Committee 2021 data listed as STRs in 2020. Close to 42.9% of Park City’s housing is listed as an STR. Approximately 39.7% of Brian Head’s housing is in STRs; 35.2% of Snyderville’s housing is as well. About 25.7% of Garden City and Glendale’s housing is listed as an STR. one year, adding 100 new listings. Garfield County ranks fifth in the number of STRs as a share of total housing. In 2021, 6.2% of Garfield’s housing was listed as an STR, an increase from 5.3% in 2020. The county’s listings increased by 17.1% between 2020 and 2021, adding 32 new STRs. Conclusion Statewide, in 2021 STRs account for approximately 1.6% of total housing units, a slight increase from the 1.4% in 2020. While this is a relatively low figure, the distribution of STRs is uneven. Between 2019 and 2021, the number of STRs increased by 3,961. However, listings for private rooms fell by 407 while entire home listings jumped by 4,368. This growth is concentrated in five counties, which account for 73.3% of the new listings. Summit added 927, Washington 914, Salt Lake 570, Rich 248, and Grand 245. The COVID-19 pandemic likely added to the surge in listings as patrons were more likely to occupy an independent building rather than a hotel. This analysis accounts for just short-term rentals. The second-home market is not included in this analysis and likely further impacts housing supply, especially in tourist destinations. City-Level Results The top five cities for STR listings are Park City, Snydeville, Salt Lake City, St. George, and Unincorporated Grand County. Table 3 ranks cities by total STR listings. Park City ranks the highest with 3,922 listings, increasing by 12.6% from 2020 to 2021. Snyderville ranks second with 1,764 listings. The township added 253 new listings in one year, a growth rate of 16.7%. Salt Lake City’s 1,358 listings rank third. The city’s STRs increased 7.5% in 2021 from the previous year. St. George has 976 STRs in 2021, the fourth highest. The city’s listings increased by 14.0% between 2020 and 2021. The unincorporated area of Grand County ranked fifth with 669 listings in 2021, an increase of 23.4% from 2020 Table 4 ranks cities by the STR share of total housing units. Thompson Springs ranked the highest with 47.8% of housing June 2022 I gardner.utah.edu 3 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Table 3: City/Area Ranked by Total Number of STRs, 2021 Entire Home Rank City/Area County Private Room Total (Entire + Private) 2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021 2019 2020 2021 2020 STRs Share of Total HUs 1 Park City Summit 3,187 3,410 3,889 70 73 33 3,257 3,483 3,922 42.9% 2 Snyderville Summit 1,416 1,471 1,736 89 40 28 1,505 1,511 1,764 35.2% 3 Salt Lake City Salt Lake 870 990 1,149 330 273 209 1,200 1,263 1,358 1.4% 4 St. George Washington 660 823 954 29 33 22 689 856 976 2.1% 5 Grand Uninc. Grand 486 527 657 20 15 12 506 542 669 24.0% 6 Washington Washington 329 433 556 25 18 15 353 450 571 3.9% 7 Brian Head Iron 337 374 489 2 2 2 339 375 491 39.7% 8 Garden City Rich 228 279 409 1 11 28 229 290 436 25.7% 4.2% 9 Hurricane Washington 270 297 393 44 37 40 314 334 432 10 Wasatch Uninc. Wasatch 280 309 360 20 19 10 300 328 370 7.1% 11 Wolf Creek Weber 288 295 341 2 3 4 290 298 345 23.1% 12 Moab Grand 259 296 337 7 5 7 266 301 344 11.5% 13 Cottonwood Heights Salt Lake 207 224 249 47 46 30 254 270 279 2.0% 14 Santa Clara Washington 147 191 274 4 3 4 151 194 278 7.4% 15 Sandy Salt Lake 131 180 215 73 65 56 204 245 270 0.7% Source: Transparent, 2020 Decennial Census, Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Table 4: City/Area Ranked by STRs as a Share of Total Housing, 2020 Entire Home Rank City/Area County 1 Thompson Springs Grand 2 Park City Summit 3 Brian Head Iron 4 Snyderville Summit 5 Garden City Rich 6 Glendale 7 Alta 8 Grand Uninc. 2019 2020 Private Room 2021 2019 2020 Total (Entire + Private) 2021 2019 2020 2021 2020 STRs Share of Total HUs 8 8 9 0 3 0 8 11 9 47.8% 3,187 3,410 3,889 70 73 33 3,257 3,483 3,922 42.9% 337 374 489 2 2 2 339 375 491 39.7% 1,416 1,471 1,736 89 40 28 1,505 1,511 1,764 35.2% 228 279 409 1 11 28 229 290 436 25.7% Kane 32 34 34 4 4 5 36 38 39 25.7% Salt Lake 52 51 56 0 0 0 52 51 56 24.9% Grand 486 527 657 20 15 12 506 542 669 24.0% 9 Wolf Creek Weber 288 295 341 2 3 4 290 298 345 23.1% 10 Spanish Valley San Juan 47 47 50 2 2 1 49 49 51 22.7% 11 Brighton Salt Lake 154 148 153 2 0 0 156 148 153 20.8% 12 Hatch Garfield 8 15 16 0 4 3 8 19 19 19.8% 13 Springdale Washington 42 58 71 7 8 7 49 66 78 19.4% 14 Orderville Kane 30 37 40 0 1 0 30 38 40 14.6% 15 Moab Grand 259 296 337 7 5 7 266 301 344 11.5% Source: Transparent, 2020 Decennial Census, Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Endnotes 1. Hans R.A. Koster, Jos van Ommeren, Nicolas Volkhausen, Short-term rentals and the housing market: Quasi-experimental evidence from Airbnb in Los Angeles, Journal of Urban Economics, Volume 124, 2021 2. The data used to account for the number of STRs in Utah consists of online listings from 2019 to 2021 from the data provider Transparent. There are two hierarchies of listings: housing type and subtype. The housing type includes listings for entire homes, a private room, or a shared bedroom. For this analysis, shared bedrooms were omitted. There are 13 subtypes for STR listings. The following eight were included: apartment, bungalow, chalet, dorm, guest house, house, townhome, and villa. The following five were excluded: bed & breakfast, boat, glamping, other, and RV. Because of the fluctuation in the number of listings each month, listings from January and July were averaged to represent the annual figure. The subtypes were selected to reflect the potential housing units occupied by STRs. Another metric presented in this document shows STR listings as a share of the total housing stock. Data is presented at the county and local levels. At the county level, total housing stock figures are from the 2020 decennial census and the Utah Population Estimates Committee. At the city level, the data presented are only for 2020 from the decennial census. Data from the American Community Survey is available for prior years. However, for most counties and municipalities, it is only presented as five-year averages and contains margins of error. Estimates for 2021 are not yet available at the city level. June 2022 I gardner.utah.edu 4 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM Partners in the Community The following individuals and entities help support the research mission of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Legacy Partners The Gardner Company Intermountain Healthcare Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation KSL and Deseret News Larry H. & Gail Miller Family Foundation Mountain America Credit Union Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake County University of Utah Health Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity WCF Insurance Zions Bank Executive Partners Mark and Karen Bouchard The Boyer Company Clyde Companies Salt Lake Chamber Sustaining Partners Dominion Energy Staker Parson Materials and Construction Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Advisory Board Conveners Michael O. Leavitt Mitt Romney Board Scott Anderson, Co-Chair Gail Miller, Co-Chair Doug Anderson Deborah Bayle Cynthia A. Berg Roger Boyer Wilford Clyde Sophia M. DiCaro Cameron Diehl Lisa Eccles Spencer P. Eccles Christian Gardner Kem C. Gardner Kimberly Gardner Natalie Gochnour Brandy Grace Rachel Hayes Clark Ivory Mike S. Leavitt Derek Miller Ann Millner Ex Officio (invited) Governor Spencer Cox Speaker Brad Wilson Senate President Stuart Adams Representative Brian King Senator Karen Mayne Mayor Jenny Wilson Mayor Erin Mendenhall Sterling Nielsen Jason Perry Ray Pickup Gary B. Porter Taylor Randall Jill Remington Love Brad Rencher Josh Romney Charles W. Sorenson James Lee Sorenson Vicki Varela Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Staff and Advisors Leadership Team Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director Jennifer Robinson, Associate Director Mallory Bateman, Director of Demographic Research Phil Dean, Chief Economist and Public Finance Senior Research Fellow Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager Dianne Meppen, Director of Survey Research Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Staff Eric Albers, Research Associate Max Becker, Research Associate Samantha Ball, Senior Research Associate Andrea Thomas Brandley, Research Associate Kara Ann Byrne, Senior Research Associate Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Fellow Enas Farag, Research Assistant Emily Harris, Senior Demographer Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician Mike Hollingshaus, Senior Demographer Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism Analyst Nate Lloyd, Deputy Director of Economics and Public Policy Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I Levi Pace, Senior Research Economist Natalie Roney, Economist Shannon Simonsen, Research Coordinator Paul Springer, Senior Graphic Designer Laura Summers, Senior Health Care Analyst Faculty Advisors Matt Burbank, College of Social and Behavioral Science Elena Patel, David Eccles School of Business Nathan Seegert, David Eccles School of Business Senior Advisors Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Silvia Castro, Suazo Business Center Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business Wes Curtis, Community-at-Large Theresa Foxley, EDCUtah Dan Griffiths, Tanner LLC Emma Houston, University of Utah Beth Jarosz, Population Reference Bureau Darin Mellott, CBRE Pamela S. Perlich, University of Utah Chris Redgrave, Community-at-Large Wesley Smith, Western Governors University Juliette Tennert, Utah System of Higher Education 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu (HC) ShortTermRent PB Jun2022