Local News: Rates Up and Occupancy Down in Short Term Rentals Could Lead to Legislative Changes

As first reported in the Aspen Times in late July, short-term rentals in Colorado ski towns are seeing higher rates, lower occupancy and unsteady revenue heading into the fall season. Rental experts speculate that changes could be coming due to political variables and November’s election.

The Colorado Short-Term Rental Alliance, a nonprofit volunteer and advocacy organization known as COSTRA, hosted a state-of-the-industry webinar on July 23, bringing together vacation rental owners and experts to talk about the past — and potential future — of the short-term rental market.

COSTRA, which evolved from the Colorado Lodging and Resort Association in 2025, calls itself a unified voice for short-term rental hosts across the state, with existing chapters in Denver and Summit County. The organization’s mission relies on supporting policies that protect the rights of property owners and managers, ensuring the long-term sustainability of Colorado’s short-term rental industry.

Data shared by Daniel Leifeld, director of business development with Key Data and a town council member in New Castle, illustrates a clear divide forming between ski and non-ski markets, especially in the areas of rates, revenue and occupancy. Non-ski markets currently lead in occupancy, while resort communities are currently lagging behind last year’s pace. Ski markets have also maintained nearly double the average daily rate of non-ski markets, with pricing expected to go up.

Colorado’s short-term rental market in ski resort communities finished 2025 with a 25% paid occupancy rate, in line with 2024. In other words, out of 100 available rental nights, only a quarter of them were booked and paid for by guests.

In 2026, the short-term rental market is pacing slightly behind 2025, sitting at 18% compared to the 19% pace recorded this time last year. The largest gaps in pacing are in late summer and fall. Winter demand also remains limited, which Leifeld said is likely because visitors are waiting to see what the snowfall will look like this year before committing to a trip.

While the low snow year’s limited impact on booking pace for 2026 could be encouraging for rental owners, Leifeld said this year’s spike in average daily rates for ski rentals is cause for concern.

 

Average daily rates for short-term rentals across Colorado’s ski markets increased to $424 in 2025, up from $419 in 2024. Pacing for 2026 has already surpassed that, sitting at $454 compared to last summer’s $441 pacing.

As higher rates are offset by lower demand, short-term rentals are seeing lower revenue overall. Leifeld said the market is pacing roughly $4 behind where it was last summer in terms of revenue per available rental night, though winter bookings are expected to build closer to arrival. Meanwhile, length of stay has remained relatively stable throughout the year, with longer stays recorded for late fall and early winter as travelers begin booking their ski vacations.

Most of that revenue — roughly 43% — is coming from visitors who book 60 to 180 days in advance. For ski rentals, direct bookings account for the largest share of guest check-ins, around 43%, followed by Airbnb at 33%. Direct bookings also generate the highest average daily rates and booking windows, bringing in more revenue than other channels.

Denver residents remain the largest customer for short-term rentals in Colorado, making up roughly 3.2% of renters — or 4% when combined with visitors from Colorado Springs — followed by Dallas and Houston, at 2.5% and 2.3%, respectively.

InSummit County, which represents nearly 40% of all short-term rentals in Colorado, Consuelo Redhorse’s win in the House District 13 Democratic primary could mean stricter oversight on short-term rentals — which Redhorse listed as a legislative priority on her campaign website.

If Redhorse is elected in November, she will take over Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie’s seat, who is term-limited.

Federal News: FAQs on HUD’s May 2026 Guidance on Assistance Animals

What is an assistance animal under the Fair Housing Act?

The Fair Housing Act has protected people with disabilities from housing discrimination since 1988. This includes the obligation on the part of housing providers to provide “reasonable accommodations” – to change or waive a rule or policy to allow a disabled person to fully use and enjoy their home. For example, housing providers have generally been required to waive “no pet” rules to allow tenants with disabilities to have assistance animals.

For decades, and most recently in 2020, HUD defined “assistance animals” as any animal “that works, provides assistance or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability.” HUD’s definition included two types of assistance animals:

Service animals (animals that have specialized training, such as a dog that is trained to remind a person to take their medication or to detect the onset of a seizure); and

Emotional support animals (ESAs) (trained or untrained animals that provide emotional support, well-being, comfort, and companionship).

How did the May 2026 notice change the definition of an assistance animal under the Fair Housing Act?

HUD’s new guidance rescinds its 2020 statement and all previous guidance on assistance animals. HUD’s position now is that it will use the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of “service animal” to assess reasonable accommodation complaints under the Fair Housing Act. HUD will no longer consider complaints based on a housing provider’s refusal to make an accommodation for an emotional support animal.

Under the ADA, a service animal is a dog that is trained to do work or perform tasks directly related to a person’s disability. HUD’s new guidance means that it no longer considers the Fair Housing Act’s reasonable accommodation mandate to cover animals providing emotional support.

In light of HUD’s new guidance, what are my responsibilities as a housing provider in evaluating a reasonable-accommodation request for an emotional support animal under the Fair Housing Act?

Housing providers are still required to provide reasonable accommodations, including the waiver or modification of existing pet policies for disabled individuals with an assistance animal. While HUD will no longer accept tenant complaints relating to emotional support animals, private litigants and state and local agencies may still file such complaints in state and federal courts. The Fair Housing Act’s reasonable-accommodation provision has never included a training requirement like the ADA, and courts have regularly ruled that ESAs are included in the Fair Housing Act’s protections. Courts are not bound by HUD’s new enforcement posture.

In addition, most states (currently about 28) provide legal protection for ESAs, and the number of state and local laws that mandate ESA-based reasonable accommodations may increase as a reaction to HUD’s change in policy. Consult an attorney or your state fair housing agency before changing any policy or practice based on the May 2026 HUD guidance.

How does HUD’s new guidance impact state/local fair housing protections concerning ESAs?

HUD’s new guidance does not impact state/local fair housing protections concerning ESAs.

How does HUD’s new guidance impact requests for emotional support animals that I previously approved?

Previously approved ESA accommodations should be adhered to, unless changed circumstances justify revocation. A housing provider would have to take affirmative steps to revoke a prior approval, and this action might raise its own legal issues.

May I charge a pet fee or a pet deposit for a tenant with an emotional support animal?

The law on this question is currently unsettled. HUD’s old guidance generally prohibited fees for assistance animals, including ESAs. HUD’s new guidance, however, cites with approval a recent court decision from Louisiana that upheld a housing provider’s refusal to waive a pet fee where the disabled plaintiff had not shown she was financially unable to pay the fee. Whether charging those fees is legal in your situation depends on specific facts — such as what is the state law’s approach to ESAs, what is the disabled person’s need for this animal, and whether the fee itself would amount to a substantial barrier to this disabled person’s obtaining housing.

If my tenant provides a letter from a licensed therapist, does such a letter support their request for a reasonable accommodation?

Yes. A letter from a treating licensed mental health professional remains meaningful evidence of an individual’s disability and that person’s need for an accommodation. HUD’s new guidance means that HUD will no longer use that letter as a basis for pursuing tenants’ complaints involving untrained animals. As noted above, however, courts and state agencies may take a different position, which means that this type of documentation may be considered persuasive in private lawsuits and local agency proceedings against housing providers for refusing to provide accommodations.

Federal News: NAR Artificial Intelligence (AI) Update: What Washington Insiders Are Watching

The AI debate has shifted quickly over the past month. Policymakers are spending less time discussing how businesses can use AI and more time focusing on the catastrophic risks posed by increasingly powerful AI systems. Recent reports suggest advanced AI models can identify unknown, decades-old software vulnerabilities, automate sophisticated multipronged cyberattacks, and perform tasks that previously required advanced hacking, coding and cybersecurity skills. At the same time, competition from China and the rapid pace of AI development are raising new questions about oversight, safety testing, and national security. The three hearings below provide a snapshot of where the debate is heading and what it could mean for real estate professionals.

1. House Panel Examines Advanced AI Model Cyber Risks

What happened: A House Homeland Security hearing examined how advanced AI models are changing cybersecurity. Witnesses testified that AI systems can now rival—or in some cases exceed—human capabilities in identifying software vulnerabilities, automating novel cyberattacks, and exploiting previously unknown weaknesses in critical software and networks. Lawmakers expressed concern about what these capabilities could mean for critical infrastructure, including energy systems, healthcare providers, water systems, and financial institutions—and what the federal government can do to keep the nation safe.

Why it matters: Real estate professionals are already frequent targets of cybercrime and fraud. For instance, the 2023 Rapattoni cyberattack disrupted dozens of MLSs and highlighted the industry's exposure to cyber threats. Increasingly, bad actors may be able to use AI tools to launch attacks without possessing hacking skills themselves. Policymakers from both parties appear increasingly interested in ensuring that advanced AI systems undergo at least voluntary—and potentially mandatory—safety testing before they are widely deployed.

2. House Panel Advances U.S. AI Research and Standards

What happened: While Washington is focused on strengthening AI cybersecurity defenses, the House Science Committee recently advanced 10 bipartisan AI bills by overwhelming margins. The measures generally direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop voluntary standards rather than mandates and include H.R. 9363, the AI Security and Innovation Act, which incorporates many recommendations from the bipartisan House AI Task Force established last Congress.

Why it matters: Strengthening federal research and development remains one of the few areas of broad bipartisan agreement in AI policy. While Congress continues debating whether the federal government should preempt the growing patchwork of state AI laws, lawmakers may be able to attach less controversial AI science bills to larger must-pass legislation later this year. These measures could also influence how states and federal agencies approach future AI regulation, as many policymakers view NIST standards as a foundation for future policy.

What's next: Now that the House Science Committee has acted, the bills must still be considered by the full House and Senate before they can become law.

3. House Panel Wants to Help Small Businesses Use AI

What happened: Witnesses at a House Small Business Committee hearing repeatedly testified that AI is helping small businesses compete with larger companies. Several provided evidence that AI is making workers more productive rather than replacing them and that many businesses are actually expanding their workforces as they adopt AI. Witnesses also emphasized that many small businesses still lack the training and resources needed to use AI effectively.

Along with the noted benefits of AI for small businesses came some concerns. The patchwork of state AI laws was a common theme. Witnesses also expressed a strong preference for a risk-based national AI framework and the need to make AI affordable for small businesses. There was also a recognition that data privacy legislation must go hand in hand with AI regulation.

Why it matters: Most of the real estate industry is made up of small businesses and independent contractors. The hearing highlighted growing bipartisan support for providing small businesses with AI education, training and technical assistance so they can benefit from the technology rather than fall behind larger competitors.

What to Watch

Voluntary vs. mandatory AI testing. One of the biggest questions in Washington is whether the administration's current voluntary framework for vetting advanced AI systems will eventually become a mandatory testing regime. The debate increasingly includes open-weight AI models, which are not yet as powerful as the leading proprietary models but are generally less expensive for developers and deployers. Recent cybersecurity concerns and advances in frontier AI have intensified that discussion.

Federal vs. state AI regulation. Congress remains divided over the extent to which federal law should “preempt,” or replace, state AI laws. Congress has also not resolved whether states would retain authority to regulate “deployers” and end users of AI. One approach would establish federal rules for AI model development to address cybersecurity, safety and national security concerns while preserving state consumer protection and civil rights laws governing the deployment and use of AI.

Senate Commerce AI markup. The Senate Commerce Committee could consider AI legislation the week of Aug. 3, which could provide the clearest indication yet of which AI proposals have a realistic path forward this Congress.

NAR AI Engagement

Given the rapid pace of AI developments, NAR remains actively engaged in representing the real estate industry. NAR will continue monitoring these issues, educating policymakers about how AI is used in real estate, and advocating for policies that encourage innovation, support small businesses, protect consumers, strengthen cybersecurity, and avoid unnecessary burdens on real estate professionals and MLSs.