Sydney Cromwell
Extended stay hotels
The special issues committee discusses limits on extended stays at hotels on March 4, 2019.
Homewood City Council’s special issues committee intends to draft an ordinance capping how long people can stay at hotels within city limits, but the details of that ordinance are still unclear.
A first discussion of the issue on Monday, March 4, covered a variety of topics related to hotels but did not lead to a proposed stay limit. The committee ultimately decided to carry over the discussion, and their meeting adjourned almost at 9 p.m.
Ward 3 Councilor Patrick McClusky said the issue of limiting hotel stays came up previously, around the time the council voted not to renew a business license for America’s Best Inn & Suites, 260 Oxmoor Road, due to persistent crime issues.
The state of Alabama defines a “transient” hotel visit as one that lasts no more than 180 days. After that point, lodging tax is no longer charged as the person is considered to be residing there. In addition to lost tax revenue, city attorney Mike Kendrick said hotels are not set up for long-term residency because they adhere to different building codes than apartment complexes.
“For me, this is a situation of being consistent with the current law,” Ward 4 Councilor Alex Wyatt said.
McClusky said matching state regulation is part of the reason the city wants to create an ordinance, though the special issues committee has not settled on whether the limit will be 180 days. However, he also said this is part of an effort to “clean up” the area around Oxmoor Road, where many hotels are located.
Ward 2 Councilor Andrew Wolverton said his concern about extended stays at hotels partially stems from the recent discovery that a sex offender was living in a West Homewood hotel without properly notifying the community. The police got involved and the offender left, but Wolverton said he felt hotels weren’t doing enough to prevent issues like this, where a sex offender could find a loophole in meeting requirements for their living situation.
McClusky said police calls to hotels are an ongoing problem, though those calls were “not necessarily” about long-term residents.
Another reason for concern over hotel stays past six months, Wolverton said, is that he has talked with hotel patrons who said they are long-term visitors in order to get their children into the school system. Ravi Patel, whose family owns Travel Inn at 275 Oxmoor Road, said he knew of three families at his hotel who were in the Homewood school system, though two of them had previously been Homewood residents.
Homewood City Schools spokesperson Merrick Wilson said the school system requires utility bills as proof of residency for student registration. In cases of students at extended stay hotels, however, Wilson said administrators visit the hotel to verify the student is living there before registration.
"If a student is living in the Homewood school zone, we are required by law to provide them with an education," she said via email.
Patel was the only Homewood hotelier present for the discussion on Monday, though he was joined by his attorney and representatives of the firm that is considering buying the Travel Inn, who identified themselves as employees of WeldenField real estate development.
He said between a quarter and a third of his hotel residents stay at Travel Inn longer than 180 days, including some employees who live on-site. Many are short-term contract workers, employees on construction projects like the Interstate 59/20 bridge replacement and super-commuters who don’t travel back home every day, he said.
“It’s unfathomable to us how that would affect our business,” Patel said of the stay limit.
Patel’s main point during the committee discussion was trying to prove the value of extended stay hotels for the city, and he said the proposed ordinance had come at a bad time for his family, as it was jeopardizing the potential sale of Travel Inn.
There was disagreement over the particulars of that sale, as Patel said WeldenField intended to do $3.5 million of renovation on the property, but Kendrick and Council President Bruce Limbaugh both said they had talked to Director of Development Charles Welden and he had no such plans.
The representatives of WeldenField at the committee meeting said the plans did include renovations on that scale, contingent on the outcome of the committee’s discussion.
Committee members had previously met with Patel about the issue of limiting stays and had asked him to provide a number that he thought would be an acceptable limit. He said he would have a hard time providing that number without knowing the council’s reason for considering the ordinance.
“I don’t know what’s precipitating this,” Patel said.
After committee members shared some of their concerns and continued pressing for a definite number, Patel said a one-year limit was his preference, though he also asked for exemptions in certain cases.
The special issues committee will continue its discussion of hotel stays at its next meeting.
The other contentious issue on March 4 was the public works committee’s discussion of relocating a streetlight at the corner of Ventura Avenue and U.S. 31.
The streetlight has not been in operation for more than a year, as Building, Engineering and Zoning Department employee Greg Cobb said the city believed it was an ALDOT light until recently. The owner of the property where the light is located, Chris Tucker, asked for it to be removed in order to build a driveway for the home he is constructing.
Neighbors came to oppose the removal of the light because of safety for vehicles and pedestrians. They said they want the light, which is a tall COBRA light rather than one of Homewood’s smaller acorn lights, to illuminate the entire intersection.
Several options were ruled out for relocating the light. Tucker did not want to move the light into ALDOT right-of-way, as it would cost him far more than moving into Homewood right-of-way. Neighbors did not want the light moved further east on Ventura Avenue because it would not light the intersection as well and the neighboring property owner didn’t want the light in front of her house, though she did support keeping the light on the street.
After a lot of back and forth over the fate of the light, Tucker agreed to move the pole from the city’s right-of-way into his own property so it could stay close to the intersection.
The public works committee was in favor of this plan and voted to send it to council for approval. The city also asked Tucker to consider putting an LED light in the pole.
The issue will be put to a vote at the March 11 council meeting.
