I'm glad we're sort of passed a lot of that.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

You know, no, but I sure wanted to waiting.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna start.

Uh I'm in uh is this on, Simon?

Yes, yeah.

If you don't mind, could I just for the record, could I recapture what we sort of where why we're here?

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure.

Real real quick real quick.

Um so what we did was we met for the first time, we organized as a a committee, and we there are six members of the committee.

They are sitting here.

Amy Gardner.

Uh-huh.

We have myself, Rick McIntyre, and we have uh Amy Gardner, Sherry Hollandbach, uh Dave Newfeld.

Where's Dave?

Yep, Dave's there.

Uh Amy Gardner, yep.

And then Natalie Hafen, of course.

Natalie's right here.

Hi, Natalie.

And Vanessa and Guy Bink.

Gee, Gee Bink, G Bink.

And uh we are the committee, we were appointed by various uh city council people to serve on this committee, and that's why we're here.

Um I neglected and I should not have, uh, mentioning that uh Jesselin Levitt is our staff person that's gonna be working with us.

I'm assuming doing the minutes and uh doing administrative things for us.

Marco's doing it.

Oh, Marco is okay.

When Marco, and what's your last name, Marco?

Aguilar.

Aguilar, Marco Aguilar is with us too.

So that brings us here.

We were earlier meeting in a different room, and uh we're told that there were a number of people that wanted to be able to take this in uh remotely, and so we've moved from the meeting room we were in into here, and I've done my best to catch you up on what's happened, which isn't a whole lot, but um Simon is in the middle of a presentation, and maybe you can uh maybe you need to start over.

You want to start over?

Oh boy.

Okay, so Simon's gonna start over with his presentation at this point, and he's the first uh item of business that we're taking on right now.

So Simon, time is yours.

My name is Rick MacIntyre, Sherry Hollenbeck, Dave Newfeld, Amy Gardner, yep, Natalie Hafen, and Vanessa Gibink.

Did I do it right?

Yes, and then of course Jessel is over here and uh Marcos geez.

I better write that down there.

Marco is right there.

Okay, and then Simon is gonna okay.

Uh did you have green?

Yeah, Doug.

I could not hear the public voice.

So the public okay.

I'm gonna start over anyway.

I would like to say a few words if I may.

We are gonna have that public comment time.

Did you we did have public comment time available to you?

We're starting completely over.

I I understand.

So if we're gonna start over, I think it's an excellent idea.

Simon, if you don't mind here, we'll we'll start over.

And one of the first item of business is to have public comment about uh the topic.

And so if you have public comment to make, please step forward, state your name for us, please.

And I do you got three minutes.

Doug Reeds, I'm with uh premier properties and mesquite vacation rentals.

And to say I'm a little miffed right now that we didn't get the opportunity to serve on the board is an understatement.

About a hundred of them.

And more importantly, we actually helped create the original policy when offered with that with the city.

This whole thing became an issue.

Oftentimes mesquite these policies that are created for Las Vegas hamper our town and our business.

I will tell you this.

I worked with Eureka for several years.

They need the rooms.

Very limited amount.

There are some things in this bill that really can hamper town here.

And let me go, let me go back.

I skipped one.

The other big thing for the short-term rentals are people that want to experience mesquite before they decide to move here.

Staying in a casino for a month or two to see what the lifestyle is about mesquite isn't is not fun.

I did it.

Where do they stay?

So where this bill in particular, from what I can tell, a lot of it is just what we do now with professional management.

But when you're talking about folks that bought, let's say in Cambria, Hayden Estates, or wherever it's permitted within an HOA, they have the ability to do short-term rents.

And a lot of them want to buy a house.

As well as they can stay here while they're building the house.

Real quick, I'm going to end with this.

Three things in this bill that are gonna really hurt town is the folks that bought in these areas.

And I've got I'm in I'm in Hayden Estates, and I've got one on each side of me, and it's it's fine.

But 660 feet.

So my neighbor has a right to do it within the CC and Rs, but you have to be 660 feet away for the next one.

The other part is 2500 feet from the hotel casinos, which Hocker, 40% of Hockerage is in short-term rentals.

40%, those are all investors that bought in there.

And this bill says 10%, only 10%.

What does that do to those folks?

And within the 2500 feet.

But if there's a way that we can adjust this for mesquite, because this was written again for Las Vegas.

That's all I have to say.

Very good.

Thank you, Doug.

Is there anybody else uh would like to approach and comment public comment time?

We will have other opportunities uh during the the meeting when we are talking about these issues.

So uh you'll have more opportunities later.

Thank you, Doug, for your comments.

Okay, um so I uh uh one of the items of business that Natalie mentioned to me was that we very quickly organized as a committee and uh was not I was nominated to serve just as the committee uh chair, and so I'm serving as the committee chair.

Um I think that's it.

I think we can get back into the presentation at this point.

Simon, if you'd like to continue your presentation, thank you.

Thank you.

So we heard about Doc's uh presentation.

Um we understand, but uh law is the law.

So I I may gonna uh talk to you about uh one solution later, but uh I'm gonna move on to my presentation.

So um amending city charter or uh uh doesn't do anything.

We we cannot be independent from the state.

So uh the city is a political subdivision of the state.

And uh if we are going against us, uh state, then state may not gonna uh issue us uh uh tax share.

And Nebel Law adopted the Land's rule, which is NRS 268.001 and bracket four, that says if there is any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power, that doubt must be resolved against the governing body of the incorporate incorporated city and the power is denied.

So we cannot create our own authority here.

If a local government fails to follow the state interest, the pre uh primary consequence is that its actions or ordinances become null and void.

So now we are getting back into the AB 363 um and in 2021 the Nevada legislature enacted AB 363 and requested city or county that is qualified to meet the state regulation to adopt this code sections.

Now the definition of the uh short term rental is uh rental of uh 27 uh consecutive two days or the less I don't know what's going on is uh Frank here okay can you give yeah I'll just uh uh I'll just talk about it so basically uh city is the political subdivision of the state uh if city is uh changing our uh charter uh first it'll be the void and R but the even if city change the charter and then create a new ordinance and then that goes against the state then state can sanction us so that's the basic uh the idea here uh then uh AB 363 uh the mandates city to adopt uh uh the ordinances uh with the uh a lot of uh mandatory uh the the requirements that include uh we heard about 660 feet uh from the uh neighboring residential vacation rental properties and uh uh two 2500 uh feet uh from the uh resort hotel so uh people have concerns of condominiums or uh those apartments being uh the inside of those uh uh areas um we can actually uh the rezone it that rezoning is uh the uh our authority given by the state so um and our commercial uh the land use actually allows uh the apartment and condominiums on it so we can rezone the specific locations uh into the commercial or non-residential property and have it uh run the same uh businesses right now however one thing for clear we cannot go against uh uh AB 363 so um the by all means we need to review a B3 uh 363 and then uh go from there uh we we may make it more uh stringent uh code sections that is allowed that is given by the state if you look at the 363 that's uh clearly says we can have more uh strictive regulations but not any less so one one other thing is if we uh make uh less restrictive uh ordinances then it uh we're gonna have to protect it uh you guys gonna have to practice uh protect it uh before it became none void uh after uh state noticing it if we regulate and and by the way our population need to be over 2500 uh 2500 first uh but uh after 25000 population if we uh our regulation is uh spacing those uh vacation rental into the 100 feet not not the 660 feet 660 feet is uh uh one eighth uh uh miles which is walking distance uh in theory uh so uh if we uh the just somehow adopt uh um the uh 100 feet distances then uh we gotta have to defend that uh uh standard uh but we cannot because there is no existing theory that uh defends 100 feet so there we go um i'm almost finishing it and then it starts back again so i i don't know if i should so uh i'm gonna keep talking then if we adopt the state regulation um by all means uh state need to defend it uh it's not our uh the uh rule

So there we go.

Um I'm almost finishing it and then it starts back again.

So I I don't know if I should so um I'm gonna keep talking then.

If we adopt the state regulation, um by all means uh state need to defend it.

Uh it's not our uh the uh rule to defend it.

If we make more uh stringent uh regulations, then state will support support, however, we need to defend it.

Uh so uh there are some caveat to it.

So uh people mentioned about uh Clark County being sued by people, uh city and county can get sued by anybody, and that happens uh every time.

Um and uh the problem right now is that because they're uh the standards are more strictive, they gotta have to uh defend it.

Uh if it is the same, then state will intervene.

So there are some differences there.

Um just make sure it's plugged in.

It's uh this is uh dying.

So don't go too far.

Yeah, our IT um reviewed it, and uh there uh his conclusion is my laptop computer is dying, so uh we need to keep this uh plug or is it keep in and do not touch it?

You're doing pretty good, Mr.

Chan.

Simon, just briefly, while you're typing there, you use the word if uh if we do adopt the state standard.

It sounds to me like what you're saying is that because we are a county of over 700,000 at a city of over 25,000, that we are required to do so.

Yeah, so the word if is a is bothersome to me.

Are you saying that we are required to adopt the state law?

Not yet officially, because uh officially we are not over 25,000 yet.

Assuming we are when we get there, because we're close, right?

If we are, then we have no other options.

Then we you're saying there is no other option that the state law requires a city of our size when we re achieve a 25,000 population to adopt this law, which incorporates the 660 feet uh Mr.

ETH is talking about and the other distances and all of those things.

Um you're saying that we can adopt more stringent rules, but we would have to defend those in the case of the civil action uh against us.

Uh if we don't adopt anything more stringent, I hear you saying that uh that the state would defend that.

Is that what you're saying?

Correct.

Right.

So we cannot necessarily make the 660 feet less, but we could make it, or I'm sorry, we cannot make it more, but we could make it or no.

Yeah, it's a reverse.

So it's so uh we we can make it more stringent, which is it requires 660 feet.

We can require 1,000 feet per se.

Uh but I don't think that's a good number.

But we cannot bring it closer because that would defeat some of the comments that have already been made.

It would make it worse, right?

Yeah, we can make it 1,200 to 20, something like that.

It is actually uh double of the walking distance.

Yeah, um, so uh we we can do it, but uh in that case we gotta have to defend it with the uh state's support.

If we somehow decide no 660 feet is uh too far, so we gotta go for 300 feet, then state will not support it, they will say, hey, um you get sued by the way your uh coordinates is uh not and void, we'll not will not support.

Okay, understood.

And you're and you just real quick and I'll wrap up.

We'll get every we're gonna get everybody.

Um just one last question for me, thanks.

Is uh uh well here.

Okay, I'll tell you what, why don't we go ahead and let's let's go ahead and uh who who We've all been waiting.

You're all ready to go.

All right, who would who well Simon are you done are you no you need more or do you wanna can you take comments now?

Do you want to take questions now?

Like Yeah, I I can take questions.

Take questions on the fly here.

Yeah.

Who's first?

I just want to make a statement.

I think what Simon is saying if legally, if we adopt and go ahead with this with the state, what the state has, if somebody came in and sued us that the state would legally defend it, that would be on their funds and they'd be defending it.

If we make any changes to it and and um and it's stricter, they will they won't, I mean they'll be there to help us and help defend.

If we go less lenient, then we're on our own, as far as attorneys and money and so forth.

Simon, are there any provisions for um a city like to Mesquite to go to the state and request that while we adopt these uh the bill as as what we do in the city, is there any way that we could show them our map and say this is our need for like the kitty kitty hawk and the springs that fall within you know those 2600 feet or whatever.

Is there any provision for us to go to the street?

Sounds like uh it is the easy path.

No, I'm not asking if it's easy.

I'm asking if there is a provision within the state law for us to go plead our case of what our physical geography is compared to Vegas.

No, we we gotta have to amend the state law.

So who uh okay?

Go ahead.

Okay.

Everybody can hear me.

So I do have one question you mentioned uh you touched on about rezoning.

Can you expand on that and where that would apply and what that would look like?

Yeah, obviously uh for the single family home and uh one thing uh that is illegal is a spot zoning.

So if somebody wanna rezone the single family home uh property uh that is in the middle of the single family home that is not doable.

Uh that is uh uh let's say it's corner of the single family zone, and uh some somebody wanna have a short-term residential rental, so we want to rezone that is also not doable.

Uh and uh but uh if it is a multifamily zone that has been used for condominiums and apartments and there are uh the association wanting to have uh short-term residential uh allowed, then uh we can support that to be changed to the non-residential, uh which especially the commercial.

Uh in that case, what is uh allowed is commercial zone allows uh those multifamily uh development within it.

So um uh by doing so it the property becomes a non-residential.

As you looked into it, this law uh only applicable to the residential area.

So this number two, uh this act does not apply to a residential unit located within a building that is located on land, not zoned exclusively for residential use.

So uh in that case, we can actually uh move away from the state regulations.

That is the only way I I can think of.

Uh otherwise, if it is all residential, then everything is applicable.

Okay.

So there is a one way uh we can have a discussion and update our uh the zoning map and make it work, uh, but it'll be mostly about uh the certain uh zoning that uh like a condominiums or apartments that was uh actually implied initially for the businesses.

The differences there is residential use is not for commercial, no businesses, but uh uh if we are talking about uh some uh multifamily condominiums aimed for uh commercial uh businesses, uh we can uh go away from uh this regular regulation uh by going through the rezoning.

So um the we need to talk more and then I need to see the map and locations and how that'll work uh for everyone.

Uh but that there is uh another step from today's work.

Okay, today's work is about the code sections, not about rezoning.

So uh Sherry, did you have a question?

I do have a question.

Um so just to ask the question is what happens if we don't follow the state law?

What are the consequences?

If we don't follow the state law, uh the worst case we we will get sanctioned.

The c city will not function as a city.

That they it uh the uh the uh code section, state uh federal law sections that I showed you before uh is uh I ILS code.

So which means they they said uh the local government is uh uh the political subdivision of a state.

So uh if we are not willing to be a part of the state, then state has no reason to give us any uh tax shares.

Understood.

Understood.

And then my final question on this, and then I'll go away from the zoning.

I like that she brought it up is if I understood it correctly, is just in a hypothetical situation.

If a multifamily property gets rezoned from residential to commercial, then this wouldn't apply.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, then my next question is could a residential property get rezoned into a commercial zoning.

Okay, uh there are a couple of things uh you can we uh you can think of.

Um first that is probably impossible because let's say you have a 30-unit subdivision, and you're gonna have to get a consent from all entire 30 people.

Understood.

Uh so I don't think that'll work.

Yeah.

And uh spot zoning is uh illegal.

Uh so spot zoning means uh one property.

Yeah, one property rezoning out of many.

So thank you.

Dave.

So I'm just trying to understand everything after your presentation.

We cannot, it it would be ill-advised to do anything less than what AB363 says that we should do as a city, correct?

That's correct.

And it would be ill-advised to do anything more because if then it then the so why are we here?

Um and that's that's an honest question.

Like if we can't, if if as a committee, we can't make any changes to the state code.

What's the point of this committee?

And I'm I'm happy to serve on it.

Um I you know, I want to be here, I want to be involved, but if I can't make change.

Well, you guys need to be creative somehow.

And uh I have no authority whatsoever to call you here.

I'm just the supporting and giving you some advice uh that we cannot do.

Um so the the mayor and the and the city council uh enacted a moratorium for 90 days because we had a problem.

And what we're we're here for is to solve that problem if we can, if we can.

And I hear what you're saying is that the problem is solved.

It it and I want, yeah, I would I'd like to follow up on that a little bit too, uh, Simon, if I can.

Yeah, too.

Oh, yeah, come on in.

So what he's talking about is one issue of the issue, right?

So there's the noise complaints, the regulation, and so all this is allowed now, right?

And we still have a problem.

So even under this law, we could still have a problem.

So we need to figure out all those other issues that the residents were complaining, they weren't complaining about the state law.

They were complaining about what's going on now.

So whether the Airbnb is 650 feet from the other one or not, somebody's gonna complain about it.

So we need to figure out what we're gonna do and say we've went through all these steps to address your complaint, and that doesn't mean it's gonna be perfect, but we made the effort to and so that's just one issue of yeah, like so our hands are tied.

So what like yeah, it's only tied on this, but it there's other things, you know, as far as how we're gonna regulate and how we're gonna enforce and those kind of things.

It's kind of like the NRS.

You know, there's NRS, and you know, they pass these legislative laws, and then you have to go within the state has to do the you know the NAC codes, you know, that we have to see, okay, how are we gonna apply these and what within legal boundaries?

Actually, mayor's comment uh is correct.

Um I I wasn't so into it, I forgot about other things than the distance issues.

So uh we we we gotta have to deal with the other stuff.

Uh so let's let's uh talk about other issues.

Uh there are some regulations that they say is uh they there cannot be more than 10% of the short short-term residential rental uh in a multi multifamily dwelling.

Um by the way, I I will send out this uh the presentation to you, so don't worry about taking pictures.

Um the establish the maximum number of authorizations of person may hold, not exceed five authorizations, and also uh maximum occupancy uh shall not be more than 16 persons per residential unit.

So those are the other uh requirements.

Then this is the uh state's authority they gave us.

So uh the ordinance must uh define party, yeah.

So uh they have to define parties and weddings, events, other large gatherings shall be uh prohibited.

Uh this is a residential area, so uh sometimes we see those noises, so it must be prohibited.

And then uh the state gave us uh the authority to regulate the noise trash security and uh and all those stuff, and then uh the and then we can have uh civil uh penalties uh stipulated.

So those uh the other issues uh and uh uh that that we can uh control more.

Uh so uh the we are not just moving away from the state regulation.

We we can actually refine and uh make it better.

Uh but uh not less all of it uh as it is, or maybe a little bit stricter.

Uh it's up to you guys, uh by the way.

Uh so uh there are other uh things that we need to actually have a discussion about.

Uh so um that that's where you are.

It is the start of the meeting.

And uh I hope you uh get into the um betterment.

Uh but uh you need to uh uh fully read this uh AB 363 and then uh find what we have as a power uh given by the state and uh uh make it better.

Um so the the uh we all got a copy of the of the law and and I read through it and made several notes about it.

We do have some flexibility as an example, uh just one example, there are many, but uh the amount of fining associated with violations is is optional for us, right?

We can establish our own finding.

Is that can you can you comment about that?

Is that uh something that you do in a different ordinance with the city that establishes uh fines, or is that built into this particular uh you know, action that we're gonna recommend?

This is the specific to this uh cases.

Um it says uh, yeah, for example, uh this is this is the by the way, uh, about uh the managing short-term residential rental uh without uh licenses.

In that case, uh the um fine can be uh should be, must be less than uh the uh it should should not be, must not be uh less than 1,000 dollars or more than $10,000.

So it's gotta be in between.

That that is uh also given, but uh uh for uh those who has a licenses that says may not exceed $1,000 for single violation or a nightly rental value.

So you know that some people collect like uh $2,000, $30,000 or night, and then uh the fine in this case uh can be that value.

So it says whichever is greater.

Um so in addition to any other penalty provided by law, so we can add something up to it uh onto it.

Uh so uh there are some things uh that the committee can have a discussion and uh make it better.

So for just for the sake of uh I don't know, like homework.

We've all read this, I think.

I think everybody took it up.

Uh I would I went through and I found all of the things that are optional.

That's just what I did.

And I and I looked at those to see what I would like, what I would think would be a good input to the city to adopt as an example.

If we think the problems exist because uh as an example, the fining or the fine or the punishment associated with a violation is not enough to really cause a change in anything.

Uh if if you violate the rules and you're subject to a fine and it's 200, but you made $3,000 that day, then uh okay, fine, pay the fine, and you move on to the next one.

So I think that the fining structure probably ought to be something that's meaningful and hurts.

Uh if it in my opinion, if it doesn't, then it's ineffective.

And so taking on these optional things in the law and and giving things that have some bite in them would help to bring about and then and then secondarily, um, I I kind of view this, Simon, as uh as an enforcement issue as much as anything.

I I think if we're forced into a situation where we are uh required to adopt the state law, and it sounds like we are, okay.

Uh it if we do, one, I think that in for the enforcement action is what's gonna be to me the most important part.

We need to uh hold people accountable to that law, and if we do, then the great operations that exist now will continue to exist, and the ones that are making them look bad will have to step up or lose their right to do so.

And I I feel like that's one of the things we should pursue.

Uh real quick, yeah, uh if uh we're the the state law is in conflict clearly with our current ordinance, chapter 13 vacation home rentals.

Clearly we are at there's lots of conflicts in the two.

If and when we adopt the state law, what happens to the existing ordinance now?

That's chapter 13.

We're gonna have to adopt the state law and which it could be the through the amendment from the current law in that case.

Uh we gotta have to find out uh what we need to actually change.

Um, or we can just simply adopt the state law in the case without basically abandoning previous law, so uh we need to figure out what to do from then on.

Uh that include, for example, uh like a rezoning uh cases, so that uh um the ongoing businesses, not uh the work uh within the residential area, but uh uh business is uh from the start, there was uh businesses intended to make money from and the start.

In that case, um the we should support it, and then we need to find a way through.

So let me be more pointed.

If we adopt the state law, does the existing chapter 13 city ordinance go away?

Yeah, yes, yes.

So if it goes away, then how do we uh uh in in what tool do we use as a city to put the optional things such as the finding standards and all that?

Where does how do we have to uh create another ordinance to uh companion to the state law?

That's what I'm saying.

So if we are modifying and or amending existing code sections, we we're gonna amend it so we will see what is clearly changing.

If you are adopting state law, then we gotta have to add those code enforcement sections and penalty sections.

For example, this is state law uh doesn't have uh if it is a first-time uh violations of what it is the penalty, the second time, what is it?

Uh and third and fourth, the city has those uh steps.

So uh we uh when we adopt the state law, we shouldn't actually forget about amending that state law to include those uh sections that we can actually do the code enforcement.

So we we just uh so when we take on the state law, let's assume we we adopt the state law.

Do we literally just simply take the language from the state law and rewrite it as an ordinance?

Most of the jurisdiction do that because they don't wanna uh unintentionally move away from the state law.

I understand.

But the language the the language is what's important and it the it doesn't we don't just say okay, we're just gonna adopt the state law and we're done.

We actually take the language from the state law and adopt that language into uh an ordinance that the city council would have to consider.

Is that correct?

Yeah, so we we would uh adopt it as it is, uh language from the state law, and then we add uh, for example, code enforcement sections to it, and uh and then we adopt it.

Right.

So the code enforcement sections are as an example, something that I think this committee could have a lot, a lot to say about you know how we go about that and what we're saying.

Okay, I I'll shut up.

Who uh let's see, go Anessa.

Okay, I have a question.

Um rezoning's been brought up a few times, and I asked one question, but I have another concern with rezoning.

When you rezone something to commercial, it changes your the way you can get a loan, right?

So these families that live in these condominiums, how will they apply for a loan when they have to get a commercial loan now?

They have to come up with more money down.

I am concerned about that.

I don't I mean I understand a new development, but I don't think you can rezone something commercial and take away the fact that it's a resident.

So how do we law lines or commercial though is still a residential multi-value?

That that is correct.

Zoning will be changed for the land area.

However, that the building itself will be residential.

So it so there shouldn't be any problem there.

I'm done.

Yeah.

Chapter 13 has a lot of elements in it that already agree that already fall within would agree with the assembly bill 363.

Um adhering to.

So it seems to me like if we you know, you have this bill, you have the wording that has to be, and we can tweak and and add whatever we want, but the problem is enforcing where's the money gonna come from, who's going to do it.

Um you have to be looking at the listings themselves.

Are they current?

Are they up to date?

Are they legal?

And then there's the other side of that.

Are the people, the facilities person who's managing, are they holding their guests accountable for the actions?

And to me, this is the easy part, figuring out what needs to be done to help neighbors feel safe, comfortable in their community.

The hard part in my mind is who's gonna do it, where are we gonna get the money and the process that needs to be established in order to make those two um those two um levels of accountability actually make it work rather than just having it on paper?

Okay, uh, I agree with you that that uh this is the easy part, and let's do the easy part first and then go from there.

Uh the other thing, um I don't know because uh some some of uh those uh has been actually done by the STEM members here.

We've been monitoring those advertisements and we've been uh contacting them to uh revise their uh notifications and and all those.

So um we've been doing it, and uh I do not know what would be the impact of the code of sections that has not been amended and adopted yet.

So we need to work on this code of section first, and then uh let me figure it out.

Okay, yeah.

I just like to say just uh prior to this meeting of going over this last week, you know, if that's what I've been looking at is you know, especially the small cities, how to enforce this, and because of the you know, we don't have the manpower and a lot of the other abilities to do so, so that you know, just coming up with the ideas of stuff, and I think that's what we need to discuss later on, you know, that we there is the possibilities and there are these answers for these.

And the um, like I said, a lot of people don't know with rentals, whether it's you know, vacation rentals or regular rentals, you know, you have to have somebody here to facilitate, not away, but there all the answers are here.

We just need to go over them.

Yeah, uh, most of the cases uh when uh people um they're falling into it is uh think too much.

Uh so uh we can have a discussion and you can get into the some of the uh some of the code sections that would be desirable uh for the community, and then uh with the uh final research uh that we can actually talk about it and finalize it, fine-tune it.

But before that, if we begin worrying about what if this one is this and this one is that, uh then we will not be able to do anything.

So what action do you expect us to take on what you've just done right now?

Yeah, I I showed you the uh state regulations right now.

Uh so now you need to digest the what is the current code and what has been the problem and what can be fixed by the state code, what cannot be fixed by the state code, and then probably you need to find a way uh to cure those and add those languages into it and provide the fine-tuned uh code uh for us.

Then uh I will take a look at it and I review it uh and then we we can go from there.

Other comments?

Yeah.

So um I just wanted to mention that there are software that and maybe everybody's looked at this too, but there's software out there that will communicate with all the platforms, Airbnb, VRBO, every short-term rental platform to the city, letting them know who's booked, they'll verify that there.

So I think something like that is going to be definitely the direction it's going we're probably gonna lean in on technology.

I don't know the cost, um, but I think the cost would be cheaper than having somebody manually manpower.

Yeah, yeah, but we'll figure it out.

Uh we'll take a look at it and we'll see if those are feasible for us.

Simon, uh at uh currently, do we have our inspections involved in when applications come in for uh for short-term rentals?

Yes, we uh we actually started uh recently.

Uh so um the in the past we didn't actually do the inspection, but uh uh that this time uh it goes through the conditional use permit, which means that they get the conditions, and when they get the conditions, we need to go there and inspect the uh property uh if they met the conditions, and then we issue the uh permit.

Do we charge fees for that?

Yeah, yeah.

And are they standard fees that are in a fee schedule somewhere?

Uh is a standard fees.

Um and uh uh that's not a lot.

It's a standard inspection fees.

It's not a lot.

Yeah, to my knowledge.

We charge 42 dollars to for the fire department, all these does the fire department go out and inspect?

They do.

Uh building uh building inspector goes out, and fire department goes out.

So here again, here's something that we might think about, you know, right?

When we're doing these kinds of things, we should make sure we at least minimally recover our our our costs.

But $42 can't possibly do that.

Does it?

I appreciate it.

I can't imagine.

Okay.

Is there any other questions?

Anyone got anything else?

I got I have I don't want to, I've got something uh uh a separate little topic here.

Uh I want to understand the state law.

The well, this is this exists um also in our current ordinance for an HOA.

Uh essentially an HOA in their CCNRs when they're adopted, if they have a rule that says uh short-term rentals are allowed, then that's required of the city before the city will entertain uh an option uh uh approval of a of an application.

Is that correct?

It has been, but uh like I mentioned that uh if uh city doesn't follow the state law that that regulation is not and void.

So yeah, previous uh the like uh um like it through the contract PUD and HOA's document and um the they are the part of the city too.

Now uh city is uh political subdivision of the state.

So uh the uh HOA also need to follow the state regulations.

Um I will double check with the state about that interpretation.

Um I understand that your uh frustration on HOA issues.

Uh that's the state law and federal law also uh uh talks about uh HOA uh regulation being uh apart from the uh local governments.

Uh so I do not know about the relationship between the uh HOA and the state.

Uh so I just uh talked about uh in nature uh my idea, but uh uh let me double check with the state and their interpretations uh what they uh thinking about uh HOA's determination.

So let me let me again try to focus this a little bit.

I uh in my HOA that I uh serve on the board, but I I'm a obviously live there, 68 people.

Uh when the C C and Rs are first adopted, the development company that uh NRC and any development company would come in and they file those CCNRs uh before one home is built.

And in those CCNRs, they establish that short-term rentals are allowed.

And then fast forward five years, and there's 68 homes, and there's one short-term rental that's causing everybody in the neighborhood fits.

And if you ask everybody in the neighborhood what they would prefer, the answer, and I'm using my own only my example, this could be different in other areas for sure.

But in our example, the answer is that overwhelmingly that they would prefer not to have short-term rentals in our particular HOA.

So the problem exists in this.

And if we choose to amend the C C N Rs, it's a very complicated process.

And it is removing something that exists, which is much harder than adding it on.

And so my my point in saying this is that does the city, and and I and I'm and I'm asking everybody to just think about this a little bit.

I I'm not wanting to take any action here, but does the city have the authority to have a developer file CCNRs that default to not allowing short-term rentals so that an HOA later on the homeowners can choose to add it on if they want, which is easy, versus trying to remove it, which is very hard and involves grandfathering, it involves a whole bunch of stuff.

Right.

Oh okay.

So we cannot imbarve in uh private matter at all.

So we cannot tell uh the HOA to what to do uh from the start.

So we wouldn't make a recommendation first.

And uh the problem started when the developer drafted something up, and then uh they when they uh sold a lot and buyer actually signed on the CCNR.

It's a contract, so uh is it it's supposed to be fixed from the start, but uh most of the people just ignore it.

Well, it can't what's what's happening though, but from when when the start is the start, it's there's not one single homeowner involved.

None of the none of the people that are gonna end up living there are involved in the decision about what's in the CCNRs.

They just exist and you buy your home knowing what they are.

Right.

Again, city requires uh HOA if HOA is formulated to provide the CCNR to us.

However, city doesn't embark in formulation of the CCNR.

So to be very okay, so as an example, you the city does not have the power or the authority to to when a when a developer comes in with a set of plans and starts the process to work it work through the city to get approvals for everything.

The city has no power to say your CCNRs that you file have to start out by saying, let me finish this.

They have to start out by saying that we are that it must default to not allowing them versus allowing them.

We don't have the ability to do that.

No, that's the CCNR.

You are talking about V only reviews the development uh design standards and PUD application and those details.

Uh when uh the HOA is formulated.

We request the CCNR to be provided so that we can read and we can analyze it so that we can assist when we are making a decision, we don't actually step onto the private matter.

That's the reason we are asking CCNR to be filed, but we cannot make any private entity.

So it's entirely regulation.

It's entirely up to the developer to establish the rules going in, and everybody just pretty much lives with it unless they unless they amend their C C N Rs.

And then HOA.

Yeah, we in an H I'm I'm talking entirely about an HOA, correct.

Okay, so that's right then.

Right.

And the the developer has to follow with the ombudsman with the state, and they have to follow the state rules, and that's probably about the the rules that they're following that for the C C N Rs and the restrictions and all the other that's what they go by as a state right now.

And I have to do that.

There are certain regulations that uh private entity need to follow beyond uh public local government, but uh local government has uh no uh authority over C C N R so it's just up to the developer to choose whether or not the language they put in there is uh allowing it or not allowing it.

If it is the developer at that time without the HOA, then what we get is uh C C N R at the time.

Right.

But the when developer fool uh formulate the HOA and HOA debutes the C C N I hopefully, and then HOA adopts it and make the new residents sign on it, that's the their CCNR.

So they may amend it at the uh the from the start and then make it work.

Uh, but if they didn't amend it, then means it works there, and uh, we have no problem.

Okay.

Okay, I'm that's into my questions, uh Natalie.

So, and just going on uh without the HOAs with single family residents and um that are in non-HOAs, and some that were built way before short-term rentals were even thought of or rarely used.

These people that purchased homes in these communities with the zoning that there was none of this now, just because these have come along, we don't people like such as I don't have my rights anymore that they can be VRBOs just be because when I bought it wasn't allowed, and so now it can be changed because and I don't have any say so.

Well, unfortunately it happens that way.

First commerce gets and um later if regulation changes, then it doesn't apply.

So but uh we gotta have to go with uh state regulation.

Okay, any other questions for Simon?

anybody um okay, Simon, what else do you want to do?

Um we have an agenda on what is the next uh we if we're gonna finish this.

Are we are you done with this particular agenda item right here?

Yes, I you've made all the presentations that you wanted to make.

Yes, okay.

Then I do need to allow some for some public comment time here now that everybody's had a chance to hear it.

The other public comment time was about another agenda item.

So is there anybody thank you, Simon?

Is there anybody would like to uh Doug?

You you heard some of the things I just talked about right there, and I think that your uh involvement is significant in that regard.

Do you have I'd love to hear what you have to think about that?

Yes, I I think you know, when you look at it's impossible to go against what the state 363 says.

I think that needs to be looked into, whether it's uh there's been talk about change of the city charter, and I don't know if that's been looked into.

I know attorneys, my partner's an attorney.

There is a way potentially that that could happen.

I believe we have a state lobbyist, is it Warren Hardy that may also look into that?

This 363 as it's states right now is gonna adversely affect quite a few people that have short-term rentals here in town.

And I would advise the committee, if you can get the city to seriously look at that, because we can live basically the way it exists right now, it we're going by 363 with some minor changes.

But if we can those three things are gonna directly hit a lot of people, and we can live with everything else, as far as from what I could tell.

And as far as the management goes, I like to add a couple things.

You know, in our agreements, whether it's VRBO or or whatnot, we've got contracts with people that if they violate whether they they impact the property, uh, we can hold their deposit, and and we've done that.

And and the factor is you've got to have your own policing.

You've got to have somebody with a 24-hour phone.

So when these neighbors call in, and you've got to have somebody that responds to it, and they're gonna be telling you folks, you're gonna lose your deposit, you're never gonna be able to come back to the VRBO again, period.

And there is consequences behind that to self-police this.

Ultimately, you also have to vet these folks.

And I know there was one particular deal where I think it was the whole SUU football team had a party, end of the year party, and nobody vetted them, and there was a problem.

So I think these things do have to be professionally managed all the way through.

And we certainly at Premier would love to sit down with you guys and show what we do and any other professional manager that does it as well, the course that we take, and I think that would help what you guys are trying to do, which is fine-tune the process, and we're we're wide open for that.

But I would really would love for the city to look closer, realizing that we're not Las Vegas, we're Mesquite, Nevada.

We have to do things here in town differently to survive.

It's always been that fact.

And if we can somehow bend this a little bit to make it work for us, we much appreciate it.

Thank you, Doug.

And I just want to comment a little bit on that, you know, that you know, vacation rentals are great, and people make money off of them.

And we are a small town.

I think we have to realize we're a small town because people like to come here to live and enjoy their quiet and you know their neighbors next to them in the neighborhood.

Um there's no way to stop these rentals, but I think we as a city, you know, part of this amending things or adding on to it, we can put a cap on the on the that city, you know, is how many permits can the city give out for the year and so forth.

So I think that we need to look at that because if not, we're gonna turn this into a whole VRBO where we live because of our location, it's great.

You know, we we benefit from you know, NASCAR people come this way and that way.

And yeah, if people want to, I agree with Doug and some things, but people want to come here and um check out what it's like to live in Mesquite.

I don't think the short-term rental is gonna do that.

I think they need a six-month or longer to really see what how the city is, because you come to a city for two or three nights or a week, and that's you just see the fun parts, you know, that you need to live here six months and lose this summer and see if you want to be here.

But I I'm looking toward you know that we need to we we we have to have them, but it needs to be a cap on them too.

Can I um are we gonna have possible access to like asking attorneys type questions and stuff like that as we go along?

Um, because I'm with Doug there on there's got to be a way possibly around some of these things.

Like, what if somebody wanted to come in and build a short-term rental resort?

Um, like down at Sound San Hollow, there's a perfect example of that.

It's a whole community that is designed to be short-term rentals.

They would not meet the 10% maximum on uh on that.

So if somebody wanted to come in and build a whole community like that, it's a resort community, it's designed for people to own the own the property.

Um, then all of a sudden we start falling into non-residential is allowed.

So they can have that built on the non-residential property.

But wouldn't that be the same as like a condo complex that has uh is a it's still a resident, right?

Um there are uh case the the things that I changed it um the during the my tenure uh previously two years, is uh I made the zoning uh stackable.

So um residential allows residential commercial allows commercial and residential, industrial allows commercial residential industrial, for example.

So what it's gonna do is previously the on the uh the condominiums and all those apartments can be could be built on the residential only.

Now they can be built in the non-residential property.

So if somebody wants to build a short-term residential rental resort, by the way, that that's not, I don't think that's the residential designation.

So uh they can uh have it built on the commercial uh land, and then if they built it in on a uh non-residential land, uh that is uh immune to this ordinance.

So if but I don't my understanding of this is we couldn't change the zoning.

This I see we as like I'm a part of the city.

The city couldn't change the zoning on the Hawkridge condominium complex to a commercial property and get a kind of have it fall out from underneath the AB uh 363.

There's still residential properties, even though the property is zoned commercial, the 363 still applies to a residential property, no matter what the zoning is.

No, the uh what I said was uh we can take a look at it and uh may change uh allow changing the zoning of the condominiums or apartments that is uh previously multifamily zone.

What I'm uh what I said was uh if we wanna uh try to amend one fragmented fragmented part of the single family zone that cannot be allowed.

And I get that, but as I've been researching this and looking at it, my understanding of 363 is it applies to a residential property, whether it's on commercial zoning or not.

I didn't see a very no, you say it's a non-residential uh property.

So it maybe I'm seeing it wrong.

I just like again, I'm trying to see how we can not get around the 10%, but make sure we're also protecting those communities that are gonna be way over 10% um without just saying they're grandfathered in and then losing along the way.

Here, number two, uh this act do not apply to a residential unit located within a building that is located on land, not zoned exclusively for residential use.

Is this NRS or what is what are we reading?

Uh this is uh um that uh uh six uh 363, ABC uh 363.

Okay.

Well it wait a minute.

Is this just exempting casinos?

And I mean Oh, yeah, yeah.

Yes, it's just like drawing a distinction between a casino and a residential neighborhood, right?

Yeah, yeah.

It says residential units located within a building uh that is located on land, not zoned exclusively for residential use.

So if it is not a residential zone, if it is commercial zone or industrial zone, that can be exempted.

So we're trying to find ways of getting around the state law, it sounds like but I go ahead.

No, I'm not not necessarily trying to get around it, but I am trying to like I that map that you showed in your presentation was like very revealing.

I'm glad that that was there because I did not realize how uh adopting 363 is going to impact like two of our best short-term rental communities, um, Hawkridge and the Springs.

Um like they it's significant, and I think it's it's something that's taking into consideration.

If it is a residential uh zone, residential zone is not for business.

Uh, but uh there are uh places like a hotel, uh for example, they have been they were built uh for businesses, and there are condom condominiums and apartments for the big built for the businesses, not just single family residential.

In that case, we should be able to designate it differently and then uh make it uh actually away from this uh requirements.

Uh so um our goal is to make the residential as a residential and then support residential uh living environment.

Uh it is not to regulate businesses, but caveat is that the business is in the residential area is discouraged.

So Simon, is it fair to say that our purpose today was to be educated?

Yes.

All right.

And and and have a good little discussion here and ask questions, and we've done that to to some degree.

And uh our next step, if I were to ask you, what would you what would you suggest the next step for this committee would be now that we're sort of uh understanding things and where we where we are?

Well uh uh honestly today um I thought that I was gonna just make a presentation and let you understand what it is, but somehow it became uh uh the question and answer saying funny how things that and then computer did not help.

So um so I I understand uh the situation here, and uh I I think it is natural uh now I'm thinking uh about it because uh not many people even up there has been thinking uh talking uh thinking about uh short-term residential rental so far.

And uh even if they did, uh you you guys did, probably from the different uh perspective with uh in a different perspective, not this specific point as a government.

So um I think that uh this one well the uh next time um you have uh ABC uh 363, and then you have a current code.

Uh so please read it and uh memorize uh things and then find a way to uh make it better.

Right.

So so it sounds like you know, despite uh the comments from Doug and others that have uh uh approach here, we we're gonna end up with adopting this state law at some point in time.

And I think it might be useful, our time might be well used to try to fine-tune that state law to the best of our ability to find to fill in the gaps having to do with what options we have and and fill those in.

An example, I as I used earlier, the finding how much how much do we want to find people for violating these rules, how much that and that's just one of probably 10 in there that we have options for.

So I would suggest that we all uh spend a little time and make some make some recommendations next time we meet, because we're gonna meet in one week, on what we think those things ought to be.

Maybe we can come to some consensus on that and then get get that some rough drafting going on here.

Uh Simon, my assumption is that we're obviously just making a recommendation to our city council to consider for some type of adoption.

Is is that uh is that an ordinance that we're gonna be recommending?

Yes.

And and is and assuming we accept the state law, then we're really wanting to fine-tune the state law to to the best we can to make it fit our circumstances, and that's what we're gonna end up recommending to the city council to consider.

That'll be reviewed by myself and then the city attorney.

So our next meeting can be that, and uh to try to try to come up with some rough language uh to fill in some of the gaps.

How's that sound just looking at this uh the the section 14 uh point five number two?

Uh we just have had a discussion about it, and we found uh some options to it, right?

Right.

So there can be more in that uh uh 363.

So take a look at it, carefully review it, and then bring in your ideas, and then uh have a discussion with you guys guys, uh, and then um show us some fine-tuned code of sections.

Vanessa, yeah.

So I have one question.

Um after this is implemented, what if there's no way somebody can apply for an STR because we're already at the capacity based off of the spacing and everything like that.

Is I think it's something we might need the attorney to um provide us some guidance on because I know they're Clark County is dealing with the situation where basically our if you apply you pretty much can't get a license.

So it like leads you to a dead end.

So I think we need to consider what that looks like.

And although we fall under Clark County and they'll represent the city of Mesquite, if we go down that path, it's a concern of mine, I guess.

We can we can actually help you on that.

So if you have a discussion and then uh send us an interim or initial uh the code sections that might need some support on that, uh like uh the 660 feet, the radius map or 2500 is uh fit uh map.

Um those kind of thing I can produce it really easy, and uh I will bring it and show it to you so that you can make a reference to.

So don't worry about those stuff.

Um just to I strongly like recommend that that you read it through and uh make it yourself and then find a way uh that works better.

Um can we go back to um Dave's question about are we going to have access to somebody that specializes in this area of law?

Because sitting here thinking about the springs south of 2nd Street, it according to your diagram, that that community is split in half, and then all of Kitty Hawk is you know was within that uh beige colored, it is going to create a hardship um for our um travel industry um if we get down to 10 percent um over the years um between 2018 and now um before NRC was built, um, we were seeing in our in our um software that there was anywhere between 70 and 80 percent occupancy, and on weekends like this, busy weekends, we Jesse and I would have people calling us at two in the morning, you know, we're coming through, we need a place to stay.

And we'd been at 100% occupancy for weeks.

So I'm just concerned that number one splitting the springs in half is gonna be a real issue.

And the occupancy that we're requiring to keep bringing in the tourism, it's gonna take a hit.

So I guess my question is legally, is there any leap loopholes if this law is going to negatively compact or you know um, we will let it have that discussion about rezoning.

If we rezone it, that doesn't apply to that property.

So 10% doesn't apply.

Okay.

So please read it through and uh um digest it for yourself and and then have a discussion and bring in uh better uh answers uh for yourself.

And then uh I will ask City Otony if uh he can share here his time uh to us, but uh I hope that will be the last time.

I mean, and not doing what what you adjusted throwing at.

Um that doesn't actually help.

yourself and and then have a discussion and bring in uh better uh answers uh uh for yourself and then uh i will ask a city attony if uh he can share here his his time uh to us but uh i hope that will be the last time i mean and not during what what you are just said throwing at um that doesn't actually help uh the so right now i see that uh the many of you have uh kind of lack of knowledge because you haven't met uh so uh please do it and then uh make it yourself and then bring it and then have a discussion and if there is a really really kind of outstanding questions then that I can uh to bring it to the uh city attony and uh make it clear and I just want to just see if you can clarify this for me so previously we're talking before you came in here if we had um asked about those that already have you know the permits and and so forth and you said that those would be grandfathered in um so these you know like um Hawk Ridge and those would could they not be grandfathered in also is it I mean their whole building I understood that so yeah everything will be grandfathered but the grandfathering means when that uh ownership changes then that that'll lose the license but the if the owner owners wants to keep that uh uh entire uh building uh as uh subject for the short term residential rental then uh solution would be the rezoning it uh by rezoning it that is out of this uh state regulation so in that case you can keep apply for the right licenses and we will approve it so would that be the same for because these are the multifamily buildings so the single family that are in these areas that say are not supposed to be so once they sell then they will no longer be but keep keep this in mind if it is a multifamily home and that each unit has been sold to the each individual and then among the 10 uh town homes if uh um the two uh property owner doesn't want to uh go with you guys and and not you guys uh short term residential rental many uh management part then you cannot come up uh actually come up with a solid application then we cannot approve the rezoning so the you uh it's it's uh actually half up to the landowners and then half up to how we utilize those regulations uh properly right but i was just saying so if there's single families in some of these areas too that are pink you know then once those are sold then those won't be grandfathered they'll be have to go by the zoning with with this ABR I yeah it's such a good point and and I and I had the same question about the grandfathering I think it might have missed could you have the two the the two graphics that you had that have the uh the uh homes you know home uh currently licensed homes and the yeah so can you go to the other one the one before this this one uh no it had all the with both the with the pink and the green there you uh is that it looks different why is it okay you have another one that's it I don't have any okay we'll go back so so what at a point in time uh if if we uh adopt the state law and it goes into effect through a city ordinance with that the city council would adopt at the at that time there would be some period of time or whatever that that would become effective is that right and everything that is in existing now prior to it becoming effective would be grandfathered in under the the current law rules that's that fair that that's right and then if a home is sold whatever over time that'll go go down but the people that have short term so I would explain you gotta have tech by the way you you or me uh gotta have to write that grandfathering Prabhin there.

Fine which it sounds like that's something we would all want to do is that right so you know it sounds like that would be a popular thing to at least if nothing else grandfather those in and then I hope there's not a run on homes to turn them into short term rentals here all of a sudden but uh maybe yeah we might okay um so real quick to do's um make sure we read through the rules look for the things that we have options on and maybe we can come back with some recommendations on that in particular so we can be specific about things and get up uh maybe get uh Simon to start writing some things for us or whatever and Simon up for the next meeting I I'm I'm you out are you done I I'm not gonna write anything you guys gonna write things well uh so okay well Becca who would be writing this you know we can I I can talk so that's a lot of stuff to be wasted well yeah yeah okay uh you know I uh so is there who who could give us a little presentation on the current state of enforcement for for these is there who who would be best to do that in the city what staff member that you Simon I can do that if you like well I I'm I'm interested to know what has been going on that maybe hasn't been as effective as we'd like and then what we should do that could improve on that who's who who can tell us about that Simon Yeah I I I will next time I'll make a presentational presentation about the current regulation

What staff member?

That you, Simon?

I can do that if you like.

Well, I I'm I'm interested to know what has been going on that maybe hasn't been as effective as we'd like, and then what we should do that could improve on that.

Who's who who can tell us about that?

Simon?

Uh yeah, I I will next time I'll make a presentation presentation about the current regulation and uh code enforcement procedures and penalties and all those.

Um that's not a problem.

But we if if we could do that on our next agenda, I would I I would like to see that before.

Yeah, just uh what I want to say you guys talk to each other and uh come up with some research rather than okay, keep answering and questioning.

Okay.

Hey, Simon, real quick.

We already have next week's agenda posted, so we could put that presentation for code and enforcement on for two weeks from now.

Oh, okay.

Uh what's our what's our posting period?

Two weeks?

One week.

One week.

Okay, fine.

So that's fine.

We can do that.

So can we get a copy of the current current laws?

All right, current.

Oh, they're right there.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, so um Simon, thank you so much for thanking me your presentation and all you're doing.

We appreciate that.

Um we are gonna meet at least three more times.

We're sort of scheduled every uh Thursday at two o'clock.

So to continue this conversation.

Sorry to interrupt you real quick, but um we do have an agenda that we're following right now.

So before we move on, we'll need to make a motion to uh accept Simon's presentation.

So all we're doing is accepting the presentation.

Right.

Okay.

And then the chair would entertain a motion to accept the presentation that Simon made to us.

So somebody's just okay.

Moved and second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, what was the next thing you said?

So for the next item, the discussion action regarding the short-term rentals.

If I can make a recommendation now that's um you guys up in this day, sorry, committee.

This would be the only time that three or three or more of you are allowed to speak and talk to each other.

Okay, sure.

Um so I would recommend using that item to discuss the nate game plan for the next couple meetings.

As um again, this would be the only time you all of you will be able to um talk to each other for the public.

You're talking about item four?

Oh, 3.3?

What?

Uh 3.3 discussion and action regarding uh STRs.

Have we discussed the current?

I have a whole different agenda here.

Can I borrow that?

Holy cow.

Okay, so now Marco, say that that could be done here as well.

What is it?

You're looking for now?

Tell me again.

We need to discuss and action regarding short-term rentals.

What our agendas are gonna be out, so because we can't discuss them in between.

Right, okay.

So what uh so this is our opportunity to discuss that now.

Discussion and action regarding short-term rentals.

Okay, well, haven't we been doing that?

But we need to discuss what like what we're gonna have on some of the other agendas to discuss because I and Vanessa just can't get together and say we need to put this on this on, we have to discuss it again.

Okay, good.

So let's just go down the row here and uh Dave, do you do you have any agenda items you'd like to put on?

Um, yeah, I as I look at this and and thank you, Mayor, for kind of clarifying.

I I was listening to the presentation at first and felt kind of like we we really didn't have a a big purpose in doing this, so thank you for kind of pointing out that there are some things that we're gonna have to clarify here.

Um is there is there a way that we can kind of um tackle a couple of these each meeting, like uh, you know, how authorizations are issued, fees, cost recovery, enforcement structure and penalty ladder, like if we can if we can come to our meeting with like three topics versus this is just a little overwhelming to be like this whole thing today, and like what are we gonna figure out and all that?

If we can put like those three things on the agenda to where we can like know these are the three things that we're gonna try and hammer out our next meeting.

Um I think that would that would help keep us focused and uh give us a little direction and whatever time frame we need to kind of hammer out the uh five, six, seven things that we actually can um impact for a city.

Um I'd like to maybe see that we we just tackle topics.

So what are your topics?

Name them.

So like the first one here, I was just saying, like how authorization is issued, like just have a to have the and I know it's already there, but it's something that within that within that 363, it's something that we can.

So and it may be as simple as we like what the city's already doing, leave it alone, but you had mentioned you know the fee structure, you know, maybe we can increase it.

So if we had a topic, how how is it authorized and issued with the fee structure?

Um, and that being one of the topic fees and cost recovery, um, another one being like violations and enforcement, like what's our penalty ladder?

Um, because I I do I think you had mentioned like it's not really that strict in the sense it doesn't really hurt until you get to the point where they're just taking your license away.

If it could hurt a little bit more before your license is taken, it might it might help not get to the license removal stage.

So those would be three off the top of my head or kind of off my screen here.

Okay, yes.

By all means, no, you're all you're you're you're always welcome to comment.

I'm kind of going against the um so from hearing the discussions that the city council had about all this.

I think what Dave's saying is a big thing is how are we gonna enforce?

And and the next question, and Simon will be able to answer this when you talk about is how are we gonna pay for enforcement?

And so are we going to charge the uh operator every time code enforcement gets called out in the middle of the night, or are they gonna have to pay his salary, his time and a half, you know, whatever that minimum is.

How are we so that's gonna be a big question?

I've I can't speak for the city council, but just from hearing what they've said is how are we gonna going to pay for that enforcement?

Because the cops will go there and they'll say, okay, stop being loud, and that's kind of you know, but it's they're not breaking the law, but they're breaking the rules, right?

So it needs to be somebody with code enforcement that's more enforcing this.

And Simon likes to work 24 hours a day, but he can't work 24 hours a day every day.

And our code enforcement right now is part-time.

So how are we going to and then on a broader scale?

You guys need to decide.

Do we want a lot more Airbnbs?

Do we want no more Airbnbs?

Do we want a little bit?

And so when this new law comes into effect, it's almost from looking at the map, it's almost gonna basically wipe out Airbnbs altogether as far as future.

It'll be whatever's grandfathered in, and there won't be a lot of room to very little room to grow.

So I so that's the question.

We talk about loopholes to kind of get around the law.

I think first question we need to ask is do we want to get around the law?

If we do, what how are we gonna take that?

Are HOAs grandfathered in?

That's a question we need need to ask.

So if those HYEs are grandfathered in, that solves a big part of that problem.

If they're not, you know, so I think those are the two things I would really like to see answered is how is enforcement gonna be done and paid for, and how many more Airbnbs.

I think that's kind of the things that the council is gonna be asking.

So I would kind of at least not the only things you should talk about, but I I think that's kind of one couple of the major things that we should be talking about.

And I think you're right on.

So yeah.

You writing all this down there, Marcus?

Is somebody writing all this down?

Okay.

Okay, Vanessa.

Yeah, I agree with um Dave and what he mentioned.

I think those are all important, and thank you, Mayor.

Though that gives us some clearer direction on which way um we should be headed.

I think one of the things also we need to keep in mind is why we're here.

Um, if we attended council meetings and we saw the people that came up and talked and expressed their concerns.

Is it safety related?

How like do we have the resources we need as a city to manage the Airbnbs we have?

The noise complaints.

So when we do talk about if we do groundfather people in, we need to ensure that enforcement.

We're talking about what enforcement are we doing at these Airbnbs to ensure that it isn't too loud or who responds and how neighbors complain.

So all of those things I think are going to be really important to discuss going forward.

And I understand there are um it's going to impact short-term rentals and investors in the community.

But I also want to encourage you to get out and get to know the neighborhood a little bit more or listen to past city councils.

Um and listen to what the concerns were for the neighbors next to some of those STRs.

It's not the STRs that are doing what's right.

I think we do have a lot of those.

And if we could just go off of doing the right thing and who's going to be the a good person, it would be a lot easier.

So everything we have to do really needs to connect back to the like safety or something that public health, anything like that.

But yeah, so I agree with Dave.

I think enforcement is going to be one of the big ones we need to focus on.

Jerry.

Because right now there's two main topics.

And if there's not, please let me know if I'm missing something.

But topic number one that's big is the actual what happens whenever this gets implemented, the 600 foot rule, the 2500 foot rule.

That's topic one, and whether, just like you had mentioned, whether we uh there's any holes around that or not.

The other one that seems really simple, or this one seems more simple to me is we have the existing rentals, and just like she had talked about is it's really basic.

It's listen to what the cons are, you know, solve the cons.

Because hypothetically, everyone that is against Airbnbs, which I've definitely seen some um difficult Airbnbs before.

If we were to, if if they were to be perfect Airbnbs and they're clean, no noise, no issues, like would they really be an issue if everything was followed?

So we listen to what the cons are, just like she said, listen, and then find out what the pros are, what's working really well, and just enhance that.

Um so the main two things I think that solves those is the approval process, which has been mentioned a million times.

So we just need to figure out step by step by step what to do for the approval process, um, very clear checklist that says if they do A, B, and C, it's pass.

If they don't, it's fail.

It's that it's that simple, but very clear.

Um, and then a transparent enforcement system to where people complaining know to do A B and C and there will be an official complaint filed, right?

And if there's two complaints or three complaints within the 12 month period, then the bad actor in that situation is eliminated.

It's that simple.

Um, but also a transparent um enforcement system to where the people that are on the owner side of the short-term rentals, they have a time period um to correct the incident, you know, and what is that time period?

So just figuring out what the enforcement system is, like A B and C.

And so we just figure that out by listening to a systems that's successfully working and hasn't working, and collaborate with everybody and just vote and say whether we want to we we rule in check mark one, two, and three.

We disapprove A, B and C.

So I don't, I'm inspired because it seems really simple.

So what I would like to know before we end this is if I missed anything here, and if our homework between now and next week, what I would like it to be, if I can recommend, is for all of us to go and do our homework and just focus really on what needs to happen for the approval process, and what has to happen for transparent enforcement um just that and then come back here and I don't know if it's too premature to vote on it, but I really think it could be that simple.

I think it's like some of the cons that you really can't fix is when investors come in and purchase these homes that they're um they're able to overbid the people that live here and people wanting to move here, they're overbidding and have more money to purchase these homes.

So therefore, eventually, if you don't put a cap or something on it, you running out the the teachers, the the casino workers, the people that can the affordability for them.

So that's something that isn't really easy to fix is as far as you know the there's so many different little other cons and stuff too.

It's not real simple, but you know, we would have to come to something quick.

We can't make it difficult though.

But correct me if I'm wrong, if they do, and I'm not saying I'm pro adopting the state law or against adopting state law, but if they did adopt the state law, that wouldn't be an issue because you know, one couldn't be within 600 feet of each other, right?

So there'd be plenty of opportunities for everybody else to buy.

Is that correct?

It just really depends.

It increases because everybody wants to change zoning and so forth too.

So I just you know, yeah, I think it there's there's more discussion to it.

So that's what we need to study.

And when we when we're gonna do it.

Yeah, correct.

Thank you.

Did you get your agenda items?

Um, yeah, my agenda items are the um, I would like the agenda items to be focused on the approval process and the transparent enforcement system.

Okay, good.

Natalie.

I just super clear that we cannot add anything to next week's agenda besides this.

But this could these could all be very well discussed during during your presentation of discussing these items.

We have that agendized.

We can do that, we cannot add anything else next week.

Okay.

Items um yeah my agenda items are the um I would like the agenda items to be focused on the approval process and the transparent enforcement system okay good Natalie I just oh sorry yeah go ahead clear that we cannot add anything to next week's agenda besides this but this could these could all be very well discussed during during your presentation of discussing these items we have that agenda is we can do that we cannot add anything else next week okay can you put the agenda for next week out we did I miss it emailed it to us oh I didn't see it okay we'll email it all to you as well again on Tuesday can I can I just mention that okay yep Amy if we could all get very familiar with chapter 13 yep that's a lot of already written code that works some of it needs to be tweaked and um it's it's all in there okay we have one more public comment time anybody oh here we go there was state your name and I'm Cindy Strong I live at 970 Santa Fe Drive I moved here 20 years ago when short-term rentals were not a thing I do not live in an HOA and since I've moved here all of a sudden I'm surrounded by them I have six within a thousand feet of my house I'm not against them I just think that that's a bit excessive that takes away from families moving into our area and we live in a very nice community where everybody takes care of their yards but the STR yards are not taken care of they're messy they park on our sidewalks they park in any which direction they want and I just don't think that a non-HOA area should be eliminated or just up for grabs for any STR that wants to open up in our neighborhood I lived through a nightmare of 931 Monaco Circle four years and then they finally it's finally calmed down they have a pool in their backyard and it just travels right down into my bedroom and when I called the police they said well have you to ask them to stop and so I said yes and then I'd lift up my phone and say they can't hear me so I think and I have another idea for enforcement I think that the STRs should pay the salary of an officer and they should pay a salary for a code enforcement because it's the STRs that are causing the problem not the taxpayers and I think that that fee should be added into their license fee it should be an enforcement fee that solves the problem thank you.

Thank you Cindy I just I'm Corbin Manhast I live at uh 145 Quell Run which first name again Corbin C O R B I NW anyway okay that's that's a new one on me go ahead speak in public go ahead please I I kind of want to reiterate what the last uh person said and it seems like everybody gets up to speak today has all been on the commercial side of this and I'm just talking as a resident I've got three within 600 feet on my street already there's a house for sale every time house comes up for sale you're like is that gonna wind up being one now so I am concerned about the proliferation of them uh Rick you kind of hit on something I'm concerned about is what's gonna happen when this moratorium ends and before three uh 363 comes into effect there's gonna be that window and I can see people parachuting in here to scoop up homes in our our you know neighborhoods so I I really don't like to speak for others but I will say for myself I I really not concerned about the condominiums or those kind of things but the you know the smaller neighborhoods and and so many so close and the density of them it's it's something I hope you all think about and address and I I don't blame the people who do this for a living in here defending themselves but you know they've got a completely different interest than I do.

I've owned my home for like 25 years and now like I said I've got three on the street a house up for sale I've got my eye on wondering what's gonna happen there.

So anyway I appreciate your time thank you very much you did a great job there appreciate it hi Clark Strong I live at 970 Santa Fe Drive I first of all I appreciate all of you taking your time to put some rules down that will work better for the community at least in my opinion my wife just spoke we have five of these within a thousand feet it's it's not there's six like I'm losing track of counting them if they're managed right great if I don't have to hear the neighbors at partying great if I don't have to call the police great but that hasn't been the case and I'm losing my sleep and the short term rentals are making their money at my expense I've been here over 20 years.

But I didn't have that luxury.

They weren't around 20 years ago.

So I would, if you all of you haven't seen the last city council meetings and seen all the people come up against these short-term rentals.

Please look at the last two or three city council meetings.

You'll see this beautiful face there.

But I do appreciate all the concern and the time you're putting in.

And we all have our opinions, and we all want to make money, and we all want to live happy and in peace, so we can come together with your help.

So thank you.

Thank you, Clark.

David Givink.

My mom is the 89-year-old that lives on Quail Run that came up and spoke a few times.

And you know, it was about three weeks ago.

She called me and she said, Oh, they're back.

And I said, Who's back?

She goes, the ones with the big four-door truck in the trailer on both sides.

And I said, Oh my gosh, are they really?

And you know what?

It's hard.

She can't get out of her driveway.

So she goes, What do I do?

I said, I don't know.

Just I let her blow it off.

We blew it off.

I talked her out of it.

But it'd be nice to know who can we call.

You know, what's gonna happen to this?

It's the same thing.

They had two four-door trucks with our toy haulers and one across the street.

And she couldn't get out of the driveway because she can't see.

So I'm hoping that maybe some of this stuff can get handled.

So thank you guys.

Thank you, David.

Sir.

Hi, I'm Ken Kapas, um, Klona, BC.

Uh, own my house here 30 years, same house.

Um, I appreciate three or four points to make really quick.

First of all, I want to compliment um Mr.

Kim and also Jesselyn.

They've been involved ahead of this issue, proactive.

Also, this committee, I'm totally impressed.

It was worth driving a thousand miles to come to this meeting.

So I could take it outside of the meeting, but we've gone through the same thing in British Columbia and then also Kelowna.

It's a resort town that I live in.

It's 150,000 people, has an international airport, five or six gorgeous lakes, and about 12 sandy beaches.

And we've had issues for I don't know, 11 years with uh short-term rentals, and it all comes down to greed, and all comes down to the money.

And a few issues weren't addressed until just now, which I'm really happy.

So maybe I can skip over those, but also some of the questions that Sherry and Kim and Natalie had.

Um I can maybe uh answer really quick as well.

So I'm passing on the notes that I have, but there's a database from Bill 35, which the British Columbia legislature passed on May 1, 2024, that dealt with a lot of these things, and some things you're dealing with better than them, and some they're you maybe you can learn from what they did there.

But to answer, I think it was Sherry's question.

Even though you think it was coming down from the state or in our case the province, they did start making exemptions and because nothing is permanent.

So and there are also workarounds and exemptions, and I've given uh Mr.

Kim some information on that.

So um that's one thing.

Trying to think what else is important on this.

A lot of it has to do with also just discuss now about the neighborhood uh vacancy for people like families and hotel workers and everything.

The big issue here was there was like point one vacancy rate, no place for anyone to live, nowhere for the students to live.

Meanwhile, there were developers building 20 and 40 story uh condos on the and selling to offshore buyers specifically to say, oh, you can get 5,000 a month for your short-term rentals.

So with that, it was between 1.6 billion, not true um not million, but billion dollars tied up into that.

There were speculators coming in and buying and buying, and there was no vacancy.

So they did put into the law.

This is one of the specific things, specific input, a 3% vacancy.

So there would be no short-term rentals allowed until the vacancy rate rate came up to 3% for three years.

So it's just getting to that now, so that's why they're starting to come up with an exemption.

But that's just one of the little things that can be done.

I'm sure you guys are smarter than us, so you can come up with better ones, whatever, sure.

But it seems like it is a lot about greed, and they're everybody here is involved with real estate, and I know I've been coming to council meetings for 20 years as well.

And when you have a real property that you've bought, there's the two values that you get the interim property, whether it's for a long-term or normal rental, maybe a thousand a month or something, and nowadays a short-term rental where they claim 5,000 a month, but maybe it's 3,000 a month, your interim profit.

But be careful what you wish for if you're a homeowner that's buying on speculation your second or third home, because if you deteriorate the net neighborhood and denigrate it enough when you go to sell the house that you think you're gonna sell for half a million because of your short-term greed and gain, where you put the extra 200,000 in your pocket, you're not gonna be able to sell your house for a million uh million dollars in 2027.

Okay, I think I've said enough.

Well, no, you thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate your comments.

We appreciate your comments.

Well said.

Okay, anyone else?

Public comment?

Yes, sir.

Doug.

Your name's Doug Reeth.

Yes, it is.

I need to move to Canada.

Actually, I should have stayed and watched the hockey game.

Done.

Uh we're here to help.

Yes.

Really, that that's it.

We we want to be here to make this an easier process.

Whatever we can do, we can learn, that would be great, and we're to help you guys.

I do have a clarification though.

Is the moratorium currently for 90 days for all short-term rental applications, or is it for the non HOA that does not have a designated whether you can or cannot it's just for the areas that are non-HOA.

So it's not a blanket moratorium.

Correct.

If there are CC and Rs that expressly permit it, we are still issuing licenses.

Thank you.

If I'm correct, that moratorium can be extended if necessary for another 90 days.

Do I have that right?

I thought it was 180 days.

Oh, I believe it's good until June.

Oh, what's that?

It's good until June.

But then can it be extended?

So council can extend it at that time.

If you if the council chose to extend it, if we needed more time or whatever, but okay.

Just I thanks for the clarification there.

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, Colleen Gleadon.

Um, I just want to know how many short-term rental applications or not applications, licenses, do you have?

Um, currently I have right around 200.

Totally, we're talking about 200 places.

Correct and the code enforcement and wanting to get our own and hire somebody.

The amount of other places that they go to for long-term rentals that have issues for homeowners to have issues.

The code enforcement doesn't seem like it's like needed to have their own special salary paid for them for 200 units.

I just think it needs to be more regulated, maybe with who to call.

If it's a property management company, who is it to call if you have a problem?

Um, maybe those things need to be worked out, maybe refined a bit.

But out of the 15 years we've been doing these, it seems like there's just a few issues here and there.

And if we can just iron those people out, I think everything will run smoothly like it has been for our company.

And Christina Korn is our property manager, and she'd be happy to do a presentation on exactly how she goes about from application, all the fees that are paid, what she does, what she does to uh resolve problems, what all these things are that we try our hardest as a property management company to accomplish following the rules and making things happy for everyone.

We don't want to have upset neighbors, we don't want to have that.

So we we do our best, and I would really like you guys to hear from her to hear about how the process goes, even to my educate you guys on how that is.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

No, you I appreciate that, Colleen.

Um, I think one of the things too is um, especially with the single family homes, and we've lived in them forever.

In my opinion, I didn't move into a hotel, I didn't move into condominium.

I know who my neighbors are.

I know who I'm who's up and who's who what cars should be in the neighborhood.

I know what time the lights come on, what goes off.

I don't have, I don't want two or three people around, even anybody next to me that you know every other two or three days there's a different family there.

Who are these people?

You know, I I want to know who my neighbor, yeah.

I have respect for them.

Are they day sleepers?

I not they're the you know, have somebody pulling up like in one of the places behind us on Camilla Circle there, you know, they're on loading all their four-wheelers and stuff like that.

It's nice to know who your neighbors are.

If I want to live in a hotel, I would.

And that's I think that's one of the things with especially the single family homes.

I'm probably the townhouse and condos, too.

You came here to live in a peaceful, quiet community.

And so that's kind of where I look at is like how you know I now I'm losing my rights because I don't have C C and Rs.

And right now, and you you know, when you're listing a home and you put up, you know, you're not in an HOA, people love that because the HOA expenses are so high.

But now it's gonna be like, okay, you know, you're gonna be, you know, even though there's so many, that's why I think there should be a cap or how many, you know, should be it.

It's just a long thing, but that's not that we hate VRBOs, it's just sometimes you want to don't you want to know who you're next door to or who's coming and going by you.

Okay.

Um I would like to just say thank you for the decorum.

I it's you know, we have a problem, and we have people here who are offering really good ideas and solutions, and they're doing it in such a respectful way.

I can't tell you how much we appreciate that.

Um, with that, is there anything uh else?

What do you have something?

So with this item, if we want to go ahead and someone would like to make a motion for the items that were discussed to put on the agenda for February 26th, um, I would recommend someone make a motion to that effect.

I think yes, go ahead.

I would also like if we could just suggest the possibility of deciding if this is something we might want to implement sooner rather than with the AB 363, just adding that to the agenda of our recommendation to the council that rather than waiting until we until the end of the year, we would recommend getting started on that now.

I hope that makes sense, but I would like to add that to the agenda.

Okay.

Okay, is there a motion to uh we'll see what did we do?

I'll make a motion to include items on the third meeting.

Okay, is that right?

Um specifically the application to discuss the application process um and then enforcement and fines that go along with that.

Okay, there's a second to that.

Okay, move in a second to do all that.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, are there any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, with that, uh, we have our four item number four.

We're on, correct?

Uh committee comments and report.

Anything else, you guys?

Okay, hearing none and seeing none.

Yes.

Um, I just want to make a comment in this as well.

And I know I'm gonna be careful, maybe not to totally reveal what my position is, but I know we're we get a lot, a lot of complaints about the homeowners that move to have a nice quiet neighborhood and their rights and all of that.

And I appreciate that.

I'm a homeowner and I want a nice quiet neighborhood, so I'm not against that at all.

But I I think we cannot forget about the rights of those the people that do have the right to buy property and do with it.

Um, and just to be careful that we don't start trying to over-regulate um and find that balance.

So I I'm you know, I know when when Karen called me and asked me, she specifically said, I believe that you will be very biased in this, and I and I'm gonna really try and do that, but I think we we cannot forget about the people that do have the right to buy a home and use it in accordance with the rules that are that are there.

Um, and so just make sure that we are willing to hear both sides of the story.

Very good.

Okay.

All right.

With that, we have one final uh public comment period.

Anyone, any other public comment?

Uh thank you again, all of you for being here, and that brings us to the end of our agenda.

And unless there's an objection, we're adjourned.

Okay, meeting adjourned.

All right.

Yeah.

Too bad we didn't have to start over.

Oh, I know.

Goodness.

Yeah, we had four-five minutes.

I was just I'm just getting patients.

We want to speak too with something like that.

Okay, you everybody got everything?

You got everything else?

Yeah, there's some of those things that we can make a bit hard because we're saying you can uh see if you want to do that.

Okay, moving on.

We should have an agenda.

Right, exactly.

Sure, we'll see her.