Okay, welcome everyone.

This is uh February 26, 2026 at 2 p.m.

Uh, we are meeting here in City Hall at Tenny's Mesquite Boulevard on the second floor.

It's a short term, this is the short-term residential uh committee rental committee meeting.

And so we'll start by uh acknowledging that all of our members are present uh today and we have a quorum to conduct business, and this is an opportunity for public comment on anything that's not on the agenda.

Does anybody have any public comment on non-agenda items?

Okay, very good.

Seeing none, uh I'll entertain a motion for our uh I'll entertain them.

Is there any public comment regarding the consent agenda?

We are the consent agenda consists of the the agenda for today as well as the uh minutes for February 2012 and February 19th committee meeting meeting minutes.

Any public comment on that?

Okay.

Uh is there any discussion?

Okay, I'll entertain a motion to adopt the consent agenda.

I'll make a motion.

Okay, moved and seconded to adopt the consent agenda.

I'll in favor say aye.

Aye.

There are any opposed?

Thank you.

Are we voted?

Are we using the uh yes we are very good?

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, our administrative items, we're gonna take uh 3.2 out of order uh so we can make good use of our city attorney's time.

Adam is here, and if you don't mind, Adam, if if maybe I could do just a brief setup to this.

I I submitted uh an item to consider regarding uh establishment of our population, and Simon uh Simon's here, and Simon did a beautiful job of responding to that and giving two two viewpoints on that.

And we're now asking Adam to kind of weigh in on this and give us the facts and tell us what might give us some advice regarding that.

So, Adam.

So I get to be the referee or so.

Is that how well it's not, you know?

I love the actually I I've enjoyed, I enjoy the debate.

I enjoy the discussion and debate.

I've always been very respectful of Simon, and he has I think been respectful of me as well.

And so we appreciate it.

I don't know what Simon did you present the two different potential options.

I don't like disagreeing with Simon.

No, but I think there's a clear answer on this.

Um, but let me let me just kind of explain.

And so um, you know, under the law that's that's at issue for our committee, right?

There's this population requirement that once we get to 25,000, then we got to adopt certain rules.

And so the question is is who when do we get to one 25,000?

Who gets to decide that?

And um there's the two viewpoints is we've got the the decennial census that the federal government creates, you know, that does the official 2020 census, and next one will be 2030.

And then we also have the state demographer who yearly goes through and we have updates to the um to the population.

So there actually was a case where this issue came in front of the Nevada Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court uh it's uh it's not identical, but it's a very, very similar issue in the case.

There was a there was a dispute, and the dispute turned on whether or not a statute applied.

And the statute applied if you got to a certain population, right?

Very similar to what we were looking at.

And so what the Supreme Court did when they look at it, and this is it's uh called the yellow cab of Reno versus Second Judicial District Court.

It's a Supreme Court opinion.

What they said was they pointed to another statute, NRS 0.050.

And that is one of the I've almost never am in statutes that low, 0.050, but it's at the very start of the statutes and it talks about population.

And the the base rule in that statute says if another statute says how we're gonna calculate population, then you gotta calculate it according to how that statute says.

Um census numbers.

Okay.

So looking at uh AB 363, there's no direct um stipulation on how population is calculated according to that statute.

And so according to NRS 0.050 and the corresponding Supreme Court opinion, we revert back to the decennial census.

So I think it's very clear in the law that for this issue for when when do we adopt that?

When do we are officially 25,000?

It will be in 2030 when we do the decennial census if we make 25,000.

I think everybody anticipates we're gonna be, well, we're gonna be there.

Unless something really crazy happens, right?

We'll probably be there.

But um, and I think it's a pretty darn clear answer in the law.

The the statute does say if the context requires different within the statutory language, then it could potentially be something different.

But looking at AB 363, I don't think the context requires anything different.

I think it's very clear that it's the decennial um uh census that'll take place in 2030.

So does that kind of does that answer that question?

Um what does that mean to us?

So what that means to you as a committee is that the rules that are imposed by AB 363 aren't required until 2030.

Wow, okay.

Okay.

That means you could still make recommendations and do things similar, right?

But it's not a matter of, hey, we're already here, we just got to do this anyway.

No, there I think there's there's flexibility until then, and then we got to live by it after that, assuming that we meet the population designations.

Okay, and that being said, and maybe this is a I think this relates to it as well, but um there's litigation currently pending in federal court in Las Vegas right now, stemming from uh short-term rentals down in Las Vegas.

And um, when uh when you sue somebody, you can go in and try to get something called a preliminary injunction.

And what that is is basically, hey, we've started the lawsuit, but we need to do something right now, or we're gonna be really harmed if it's not done quickly, because lawsuits take a long time, right, to get resolved.

And and if you can go to the court and say, look, it's pretty darn likely that we're gonna win, and we're gonna suffer harm immediately right now, if we don't do something now instead of waiting until the end, then you can get to the judge to sign again what's called a preliminary injunction.

It's just preliminary.

But the judge can say, okay, yeah, it kind of looks like you're gonna win, and it looks like there's gonna be harm suffered, so I'm gonna impose some rules right now.

We can fight about it later, we can resolve it later, but I'm imposing these now.

And so that's what's happened in this case down in Las Vegas where Airbnb and a bunch of individual property owners and the um greater Las Vegas Association of Short-Term Rentals.

I don't know if that's the official name, but there's an uh association that's um part of that as well, where they've gone in and they've they've won and they got that preliminary injunction preliminarily um overturning some of the regulations that Clark County has imposed on short-term rentals down there.

So at the um late last month, that decision has been appealed now.

And it's this federal court, so it's gonna go up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

And so there's some, you know, uncertainty about it all, but I want to bring that up to the committee and to others interested in the community, because it the court order that's been issued by the judge in that case is some good kind of guidance, or at least you kind of can see how at least one judge has looked at this whole situation.

And where um, and then there's things that I read too where I'm like, hmm, that's interesting if they're gonna if they're gonna win that on appeal.

Like it just in my own mind, I was like, well, the judge said that you have a a pro uh uh a valid 14th amendment property interest in the opportunity to apply for a short-term rental license.

Now that's a mouthful.

Um, but it made me think, hmm, that that'll be interesting to see how the Ninth Circuit handles that.

But at least the situation down there right now, the it's it's instructive to look at what the judge was kind of pointing out to say, hey, these might be some problems.

There might be some property rights interests that are getting infringed upon based on the constitution.

Okay.

And some of them that are specifically mentioned that at least the judge brought out was having um a spacing requirement.

You couldn't have an approved permit within a thousand feet of another.

Okay, so that was one thing that the judge talked about.

Um, and then they also the other thing specifically mentioned in the order, it's a percentage cap on licenses that are approved.

There was a 1% cap.

Okay.

And that was something that the judge pointed out.

And so, and then another big part of the case is that they were arguing that, hey, the county set up this portal where you can go and apply, and it's so you can get your short-term rental license, and you go in and the portal was open only once for like a little while, and then it didn't work.

And so there's all these applications that are pending that can't get through.

And so they were kind of arguing that even though there's some regulations in place, the procedure associated with it is burdensome enough that it's almost like there's a complete ban.

Okay.

And the judge looked at those things and said, at least from this preliminary view, it that judge thought that the that had some constitutional concerns.

Okay.

And so kind of the the advice or the guidance here is hey, we've got one judge that says one with every thousand feet, there might be something wrong with that.

Um having a percentage cap of one percent, there might be something wrong with that.

If we set up a system that's impossible to roll out, like you know, there's a lottery system for licenses, and you know the city never gets around to getting the lottery together, or you know, this is just procedural things that could amount to a de facto ban.

Um, so but again, there it's just preliminary.

That's that's the status right now.

It's been appealed.

We're watching it, we're gonna see what happens in the Ninth Circuit.

But um for the purposes of our committee, it's some good, at least some initial guidance of maybe what not to do.

I understand.

So this committee then uh is not under a mandate under AB 363 to adopt AB 363 until we achieve until we get to 2030.

Yeah, and I would say the city's not under a mandate.

Yeah, but I know what you mean.

Like but no, um, it would be 2030 where we get the official decennial census.

If we're over 25,000, which we all anticipate that we will be, then that's when we got to roll it out.

Could this a committee recommend to the council?

Uh I always mean that, but yeah, um, could they recommend that they adopt AB 363 prior to that?

For sure.

Yeah, but we we could act sooner.

It's just that we're not forced to.

Right.

We would be we would be in a mandate situation once we get to 2030, but we could adopt that at any time we chose to.

Yeah, and or more stringent or less stringent.

I mean, it's just okay.

What the committee makes recommendations to the council, then the council needs to decide if they agree and if they're gonna adopt it.

The greater the greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association versus Clark County is the case that you were referring to, is that correct?

Yeah.

And does that inform our committee in any way?

I you kind of touched on that, but is there any does that a should what you said um we you know we can take some direction from that in terms of not being too stringent, whatever, right?

Is that yeah, so so that I mean that case involves unincorporated Clark County rules.

We are not unincorporated Clark County.

We're a charter city, we have our own rules.

Okay.

Um, so that's chat that that case is challenging Clark County specific ordinances.

It's not challenging the overarching state legislature AB 363 that we have to live by as well, which the county has to live by as well.

There's two separate sections of that, one applies to the county, one applies to the municipalities based on their population, right?

The 700,000, you got to be in a county that's over 700,000, and you got to have 25,000 population.

So um, so in theory, let's say the city could adopt the exact same regulations that Clark County has.

I'm just trying to give you an example.

We could do it, right?

Bad idea because they've Clark County's been sued for those rules, and there's at least one federal judge that says, hey, I'm seeing some problems.

And so it's it's not um, it's not mandatory on us, I guess is what but it it is instructive, right?

We've got an example, a real world example in Nevada about a judge who has who has found that there are at least some initial potential problems.

Okay, and then again, I talked about the specific ones, one within a thousand feet of another, a one percent cap, and you know, if rolling out however the process is to get a license, if it's so onerous that no one can ever get a license, then the Supreme Court or not the the district court here has said that looks like that infringes on some constitutional rights of how we use our property, right?

Yes, okay.

I'm those were my questions.

Uh are there questions from the other committee members for Adam?

Yes, ma'am.

So what would our options be as far as like implementing something that would prevent a whole entire row side by side by side of becoming as licensed as STR.

I mean, I get the likelihood of something like that is probably highly unlikely, but what would you suggest as an attorney to be able to do something that could help prevent that from happening?

Uh it's hard to say, because the only real guidance that I have in the law to look at is this this order by this judge on that preliminary injunction.

And so me looking like at that would say, okay, I know that and the judge didn't explicitly say this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong.

But they kind of told the story of things that are going on, and there's certain things that they they they picked out to use as as an example.

And so um one within a thousand feet in that case was being barred from obtaining a license.

And so that's a pretty big area, right?

And so at least guidance from the court, if you did something smaller than that, it looked like that would be a little bit better, right?

As far as passing legal muster.

But again, this is on appeal, maybe none of this will even matter once that if the appeal goes the other way, right?

So it's it's a real this is the this is how the law really works.

It evolves.

We, you know, 100 years ago there weren't Airbnbs, and so the law didn't have stuff, and now we've got them, and now we have these issues.

And so we're in an we're uncharted territory.

And so so, but the general principle that I'm reading out of this order is if you're too constrictive on it, it could infinge on some constitutional property rights.

The balance there, who knows, right?

It's gonna be something that's gonna be litigated, it'll be um issues that'll be brought up in this case, you know, who knows?

This the city could get sued if someone thinks our rules, whatever we come up with, are too restrictive, and then you go you send it through the courts, and then you see how other judges interpret it and you see how the you know you apply the constitutional principles and it it gets really complex.

Um so I know that's not a great answer, but it's really pretty gray, and it's hard to really say, you know, well, what if we did one every uh 500 feet?

Would that be okay?

Or one every 300 feet, would that be okay?

It would appear to be better than what was done here.

So it would appear, yes, that that's moving in a direction because this one at least you could tell the judge was like that's pretty restrictive, one in a thousand feet.

Yeah, go ahead.

So would it be appropriate to maybe consider what is in AB 363 if we are going to recommend a spacing requirement with 660 feet, since that is already, I mean, although we don't have to, we're not mandated to follow it, but if that is where we fell back on AB 363, would that help protect the city?

Um so uh that would appear to be a reasonable approach.

I don't want to impose any of kind of my thoughts on it.

That's kind of the job of the committee, right?

You guys can have that discussion, you can decide, but I could see it making sense that well, we're gonna have to live by this in 2030, right?

So should we adopt it now, or do we have to change everything again?

To do we just get on top of the ball, you know, or we don't like all of that, we're gonna do something different to the last minute until we have to live by that.

You know, that's that's the the policymakers.

So, you know, it I could again, I could see if somebody, I mean, if I was on the committee, what would I say?

Like, hey, we gotta live by this, then I don't know.

I don't know.

But it's not I wouldn't say it's unreasonable to say, yeah, this is something we're gonna do.

And then with in the law too, like I'm sure, and I didn't read the briefing, right?

On you know the underlying motions, um, but I'm assuming that they would appoint to like, hey, our legislature's already said it's set a foot distance, and those guys are even more than that.

It's more stringent than what our legislature has said.

And so that's one way that you try to convince a judge that you're being a little bit too hard, is that we've already got something established that our whole legislature has said, and I if if that's um something in there.

And I have a question, um, just a clarification question.

And one to kind of go off of the answer could be that 80% of mesquite roughly is an HOA.

So to solve that problem would be to move into a an area where there's an HOA, you know, and you know, as far as like having houses back to back to back, I think that could be an easy solution.

And I just want to reiterate right here is to understand what you were saying is you were saying that it could potentially be unconstitutional to um for the 1,000 foot rule, and it could potentially be unconstitutional based on what they're doing in this um lawsuit you just finished referencing to put a cap on it.

Did I hear that right?

Yeah, well, those are the those are some of the specific examples that the judge identified.

Okay.

And in the Clark County ordinance.

Okay.

That there were that he's drawing they're drawing the judge is drawing issues with.

Okay.

Okay.

Got it.

And then whenever you had just referenced, if we were to hypothetically adopt what Vegas is doing as far as the restrictions, that would be that could be seen as like a bad idea for opening up the city for more lawsuits.

Right.

Yeah.

I mean, I if if if the you know, if the council asked me, hey, we want to do exactly what Clark County's doing, I'd say, well, we already got one judge who has knocked it out, right?

And maybe it'll get overturned when it goes up to the Ninth Circuit.

We don't know.

But at least from an initial standpoint, wouldn't wouldn't seem a very good idea.

Got it to have those wholesale restrictive.

So I think we're all trying to do something this defensible here.

Yeah, for sure.

And and taking lessons from those before us, right?

So Natalie.

So my question is, you know, we're right on the the 25,000 right mark right now.

So obviously in 2030 we will be.

And right now with so if we had have to adopt this in 2030 with the map that we have, right now some of these um some of the the homes and and um subdivisions like Hawk Ridge and the Springs and stuff, they were built with with a zoning proper, you know, proper for this.

And the now you know with this map, they wouldn't be able to be in it.

Um so in 2030, if we go on and we've put more of these in here and then 2030, are we still gonna have to take those out if we adopt this with it, you know, like okay, we've let them go five more years.

What's will that affect them then?

It's it's hard for me to form an opinion, just kind of I'd want to look at the specifics when it was and if there's grandfathering issues or if there's other, you know, but it's hard for me to answer right off kind of the okay, because I could say if we you know we just we're just preventing it, you know, if the if the census was next year, then next year we have to adopt it, yeah.

You know, do we gotta get you all more and more of these uh properties like this, and then all of a sudden we sorry we like to do this for five years or whatever now you know.

And that that's a proper uh definitely a proper discussion for the committee, right?

Do we do something different for five years?

Because a pretty you know, it looks pretty likely that we're gonna have to follow the rules in 2030.

I mean, that's that's uh your your decision.

And I know not everybody can move into an HOA.

Um, they can only qualify so much, and when they add an HOA fees on it, knocks them out and they can't qualify for the home, and that's not their choice.

So that's not everybody, oh, let's go move an HOA.

That's not gonna work.

Yeah.

And I'd want to make sure we're not straying too far from the agenda item, just so that you know we can get public comment on it too.

And I think there are other agenda items where you guys can get more into those details.

Yeah, you know, specific recommendations, but well, you you certainly answered the big question, which was are we in a mandatory situation to adopt 363?

The answer is no.

Yeah, not yet.

Not correct, not not for another four and a half, five or five and a half or five years or whatever.

Okay, well, that that was the big question.

And I and I again I think it it helps us to at least uh inform us going forward on what you know what we're doing here, because if that were the case, obviously what you know, yeah.

Uh, but it's if it's not, then it gives us more latitude to do other things.

So correct.

Did you uh did you have something, Amy?

No, I think I can say it when we're discussing, and I don't need Adam.

Yeah, there I am.

Okay, any other comments from the committee?

Questions?

Adam, we want to let you go because we know.

I'll stick around.

I've got uh did you I've got a client who's getting married, and so I'm gonna go.

Yeah, and so but we just so I'll stick around for a few more minutes, but then I'll head out.

Thank you very much, Adam.

Appreciate your your your consideration and time on that.

I know you had to do a little work to figure that out.

Thank you very much.

Okay, um it was especially nice.

It's not always super clear, and we did have a Supreme Court opinion that really, yep, it's very clear.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we'll we'll take up uh oh, I'm sorry, we're we we have uh public comment time on this on this particular item, Mr.

Gibink, yes.

Yeah, so uh David Gibink.

So this isn't exactly about this, but almost everything you said I was gonna talk about, and I'll just be brief.

Okay.

So first thing I was gonna ask of the committee was uh let's look at a thousand foot spacing.

Well, I've already dropped that down to 600, now I'm down to 300, now I'm down to at least, so they're not side by side, right?

I mean, that's because my mom's place, you know, she has one on each side.

That's why I'm here, is is basically because the hard room she deals with.

So even if we skipped one, I think that would be given us something.

I would rather do 600 feet, maybe adopt that.

But that's that's one thing.

I took away the thousand right away, obviously.

Uh I had popular and bait pop population based, that was on there.

So maybe we jump that up to four percent instead of one percent.

You know, do these things that are a little farther out, so it still looks good, like we still have something.

Because when I go back and talk to all the people and they say, How to go, I say, hey, I'm at least trying to get a little bit of this and a little that.

The last one uh was I thought and it kind of hit his again, it's really weird.

It's like uh city monitoring, you know.

That that's that software you guys are gonna talk about.

I think I think if we all have the same form, the same uh login, we can all get the same answer.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh Doug, are you good?

Is this where you're gonna make your presentation at this point?

Yeah, Jess thought it related well to the beginning of all right, Adams.

And for the record, uh Doug had uh briefed me brief a little bit about this offline and asked for some additional time, more than three minutes.

And I've I'm grant I'm gonna grant you that time.

I think you've asked for about eight or nine minutes at the most, but um, so I'm I'm gonna do that if you could.

So if you don't turn the clock on for me, thanks.

Who's doing that?

Is Marco doing that?

Okay, thank you.

Doug Reath.

I'm this will not fit in the square, so we're gonna try to figure out how no it won't.

Best where you guys can see it.

Everybody see that.

We did our best to put pins into where the STRs are.

It's I think we're pretty close, and with the amount, and and really what this depicts is where you can and where you can't, because when you see the dots, that's where you can.

The majority of the city, you can't for one reason or another.

Whether it's in Sun City, they cannot do it at all.

There's only a couple places in Falcon Ridge, and Mesquite Vistas for the most part, you cannot.

Mosquito states, there are some subdivisions you'll see, and that's Cambria, uh, Hayden Estates, Boulder Heights, and Stonehaven.

So getting back to the whole city can't do this.

It's just in certain certain pockets.

So I I think this shows and a bigger part.

If I'm missing something, let me know.

If you look at Hawk Ridge, or no, excuse me, um, yeah, Hawkridge and the other short-term rental big area.

Pardon me.

The springs, and how they relate to the hotel casinos, basically all of Hock Ridge is wiped out.

Not only is it wiped out because it's in the 2500 foot sphere, but if it that wasn't a problem, then you'd be you'd be that you can only do 10% based upon AB 363, in which 40% of them are doing it right now.

About the same thing with the springs, but it cuts out about half of that.

You have anything else to add?

I have um facts on all of these subdivisions that are listed here.

Hi, Colleen Gleaden.

I just um did a little research, and with all of the HOAs, we have roughly 9,000 homes in HOAs.

Sorry.

Okay.

Are you trying to get that on the camera?

Are you trying to get that on the camera?

Is that what you're trying to do, Jesselin?

Colleen.

Is that 9,000 in all HOAs or so?

So okay.

All Hs that include short-term rentals and do not.

That's a total that I've again roughly got off these numbers right here are listed.

And the new developments.

I actually added more because there's new developments that went on there.

This was from 2023.

So with that 9,000, there's only 658 homes that do allow for short-term rentals in the their HOAs.

So out of that number, it's seven percent of all HOAs allow short-term rentals.

It's a big number.

Then there is the non-HOAs, there's about 1,600 non-HOAs.

Um there's condos are then separated, and on this list, it's listed as condos are Hawk Ridge and the Springs are included in that.

Um, so there's 14 different condo projects, and only three of them allow short-term rentals.

So that's only about 38 of the 1,800 condos that allow.

So we're already at a very small percentage that even allow short-term rentals.

And over the years, like I had said last time, over the last five years, our company has done between 90 and 11 uh vacation rentals.

And we fluctuate right now.

We're at 94.

A lot of these homes bec sell, and then a new owner comes in and wants to rent that same exact home.

That's why it doesn't seem to grow with us.

And I don't know if the city had time to go through their numbers or not.

Not yet, okay.

But um, from the beginning, it just had the short term rentals just haven't grown a whole lot.

Okay, let's grab that other one.

Okay.

This is Cambria, and you can see how many short-term rentals are there.

This blue line, can you see it down at the bottom?

That represents 660 feet.

And so what I did is I took a ruler, 660 feet, and I basically spun it all the way around, and you can have one.

We're not as much as you know, we could say we're Henderson, but Henderson, we're one tenth the size of Henderson.

They could probably do the thousand feet because they've got two, three, four hundred subdivisions.

We're limited as you as we just showed you.

This is the only two in um boulder heights, but it eliminates one of them.

And then lastly, this is Hayden Estates, and I did the same thing.

Here's a blue line.

660 feet allows two.

And I'll tell you, I'll show you where I live.

Right here.

Excuse me, right there.

I've got them around me.

I have absolutely no problems.

I just don't.

So that's about all I have to say, other than this.

You know, 363 has some good things in it, but there's those three big issues the 2500 feet, the 10%, and the spacing.

I spoke with Warren Hardy, which is our lobbyist for the city, and he said, you know, there are two fellows that actually wrote the bill, one of them's still in legislature.

I'll call him I know well.

I think there's a way to amend this given time.

So even at 2030, you can tell right now.

A B363, as is gut it guts our industry.

It just guts it.

And I think the philosophy behind the the injunction isn't the fact the spacing, I think it's the philosophy of property owner rights.

You know, when I bought in Cambria, I always thought, you know, I'm gonna build one more house, maybe I can do this.

So then people are gonna say, well, your neighbors grandfathered in, but you can't do it.

And it's the philosophy behind that that bill, if you read it, it's it's a violation of the 14th Amendment, constitutional amendment.

So that's all I have to say.

I don't know if you have any questions for me, but I I would like to ask you a question if you don't mind.

Sure.

Relative to the casinos in Mesquite.

Do the do you are you aware of the uh the position the casinos?

Let's take let's take uh eureka as an example.

Absolutely.

As a matter of fact, uh we had a joint marketing with Eureka for a number of years as this thing was evolving, and we just didn't have enough of them.

But I talked to Alish Coach, I believe is the CFO of Eureka, and I told him what was going on.

He says, that's a alarming to me, Doug, and I'll tell you why.

Your average occupancy rate during the middle of the week in Mosquita 67%, but we're 100% during the weekends most of the time.

And without those, it's gonna hurt our our gaming.

I I'm hoping to get a letter from him.

They sometimes don't like to be political, but I could tell you he said that it I'm gonna talk to Greg and see if I can get a letter because I we need you guys.

We only have 1800 rooms, and every function that comes in, like I mentioned before, the youth soccer league, most of those folks are staying out of town.

One other question.

Uh your I think this nice work.

You did a lot of work here, obviously.

But uh, I think I I feel like since we're grandfathering in all of the existing units, and that's not gonna affect them uh unless, of course, they sell or there's uh there's turnover there.

But what you're describing to me is is what the future looks like if we adopt uh the strictly AB 363 as an example.

It it informs me going forward, that's what things would look like with one or two in a neighborhood rather than eight or 10.

Yeah, and last year there were some numbers, I believe, um, 35 applications last year.

And and we tend to believe that 20 of them were just redoes.

In other words, if you sell to somebody else, they have to reapply.

So there's probably about a 15 net game from new ones coming in.

Right, from what we could tell.

Very good.

Thank you, Doug, uh, very much.

Did you go ahead?

Um, how did you measure from distant?

Because there are three several different ways.

Um, so just curious on how you did your you did a thousand feet when you 660.

Oh, you did 660, and and how did what form of measurement did you use for that?

I took an average like a 50-foot lot, combined the three or four.

It was, you know, to this measure, and then put it out to what made 660 feet, and then made a radius with it.

Okay, so I don't think that you do a radius.

You do, you do in AB 363.

Yeah, it is.

Okay, I would have to double check that because I also researched that and I didn't I didn't see that, but I appreciate your presentation, and I think it's something we um definitely will, you know, as a committee need to consider.

Thank you.

Uh Amy.

Well, I came into this meeting actually thinking the opposite of what Adam said.

Is that what you okay?

I thought maybe I wasn't listening to you yesterday, which yeah so it kind of threw me a little off guard.

What I was gonna ask, if we had to accept it, was to at least wait until July.

Okay, hang on a second.

Okay, eight, we got two meetings going here, you guys.

Thank you.

Go.

I was gonna suggest at least meeting until July because we have to look at the entire town of Mesquite and all the factions of mesquite that's gonna be affected by this.

Tax money, our tourism, um our gaming, and so I felt like we need time to we can make a suggestion to the council, but I really felt like we need more time to make sure that this was for the good of the whole.

And um, this gives us more time.

However, I do think there's some real problems, but I don't think they're gonna be solved by spacing.

And I think we really need to look at what the presentation is today for applications and reinforcement and figure out where the holes are because our community members that are being hurt by bad behavior on each side of us, that has to stop.

And it can't just be relied on code enforcement or the police, not their job.

It's the homeowners and those people that are representing those homes that need to be held accountable so that our neighbors aren't miserable.

Okay, we're still in public comment time.

I've got a couple of uh Natalie, did you want to say something?

No, I just uh you know, I just kind of disagree when you know on the spacing.

Um when you look at it, and you know, we they said we're gonna give us four meetings to look at all of this, and then we get more and more information, and we're able to, you know, look at what we have.

And um, yeah, the space you know, the thousand feet, you know, and I was looking at it, and I'm not the best mathematician, so my mind I'm you know, I go by football fields.

Um, and like, okay, you got this hundred yards here, and how far so the spacing to me is like okay, a thousand is kind of extreme.

I thought the 660s okay, but it's still you're still far out.

But I think um it doesn't matter whether the person in the short-term rental next door to me is the most nicest polite people forever and ever and ever.

It's a other people have homeowners' rights too, and that's not to have a turnover of neighbors every other day.

I don't know who's coming, who's going.

Is this the right, you know, and do they vet the people, you know, what type of people are coming?

You know, they could be the nicest people, and they, you know, they could be pedophiles or something.

I don't know.

I don't want to have two or three all around me close.

And that's just that the transient traffic next door to you if you don't have some type of spacing.

A thousand feet's way too much, six sixties way too much.

But if we don't go to put a cap on it, then we'd have to have spacing.

And that's because there are people that I don't care how well behaved and how well these are managed, the other people have homeowners' rights too.

And that's what I want us to pay attention to.

Very good.

We're we're still in public comment time, and it seems like we're doing it all at once here.

Just uh did uh yes, ma'am.

I'd like to comment.

Sorry, this I'm Mary Williams.

I'd like to comment to both your comments.

Because I'm living here as a snowbirder in my condo that I bought in 2022.

And so I've been here all winter with all of the rental.

Um one side the person lives there permanently.

Every on probably six.

I'm in a con Hawkridge condos.

So all of my building is short-term rental.

And I have not had a problem with any of the people that have come in with the short-term rentals.

I've met enjoyed actually a lot of their company.

So I'm experiencing it as someone who is living here right now, and I've also experienced as someone who short-term rental my place.

And um, and I am for 11 years, I was in charge of the lot the largest soccer tournament, the Park City Soccer Tournament in the state of Utah.

And so we so connected to the fact that the Utah um soccer tournament comes down here into Mesquite, and I've had three sons in soccer and other sports, and we have come down for decades down here and stayed.

Your hotels do not work for families, period.

Not and that's why that one failed.

The I can't remember the name of it, that's now the Holiday Inn.

They failed because I stayed there with my family one year, and it was not a good experience at all for a family.

We needed we needed these short-term rentals that were not hotels for our families.

And that is a lot of what I'm seeing at Hawkridge coming in, is baseball tournaments, soccer tournaments, and then there's golfers, right?

And so a lot of it is retired people that are coming down to golf because they're from Wyoming and the colder areas.

They're not a problem.

And if you look at your police department reports, a point two five percent, it's not a problem.

If one person in this county, and that's what I'm hearing, this one man is having problems sadly, and and I feel for his mother, but that can't outride not only the 14th amendment, but the Fifth Amendment as well, because you can't say, because this is going across the country, this is a problem across the country.

They're using both not only the 14th Amendment, but the Fifth Amendment, because you cannot say that you're giving me due compensation if you suddenly now say my neighbor can rent, but I can't rent.

It's not being fair with either one of those constitutional rights, those either one of those amendments, because I'm not getting due compensation from the city.

That puts you open to a lawsuit, and um, and we are not making money off of this.

Every year I take a loss off of my place, every year.

This the max I've made is probably 12,000.

This year I won't even probably make four because I'm staying here myself this year in the winter.

Zero, zero rentals happen between June and September.

We maybe get one weekend in September, maybe a weekend on October until you hit after Christmas, that's when we really get our rentals, and then they they die off in May.

And and they're not every week, most of the time.

Sometimes some of the people there, like right now, the people below me, they're there for two months.

Another couple's there for a month in the in the area.

But I think you're making too much to do about nothing because one person sadly is having problems in what you've seen is happening in this whole city of not that much happening.

Thank you, Mary.

All right, is there any other public comment?

Sir, Dave, did you want again on Corbin?

Uh 145 coil run.

Um, a couple things I'd like to address.

First, I I asked for forgiveness here, my notes aren't very well organized.

But uh the presentation we just saw, I heard in the same presentation that these aren't very profitable, and then I hear that a few minutes later they're filled every weekend.

So I don't know.

I'm a little confused by that.

Um so far, and I didn't make the last meeting, but I did watch it the entire thing when I got home that evening.

Um, there seems to be this error in this committee or in this room at least today, that this is somehow optional.

And there was a talk last time of maybe we'll use a census to count the population or so on.

Um I did bring some facts along because somebody mentioned that there was a lack of facts.

Um the county does do an annual assessment and they estimate populations, and I want to remind everybody that that's tied to the revenue that we get back.

So I don't know if we really want to go there.

I kind of think that's above the pay grade of this committee, so to speak.

Um so I'd really suggest that we use our time knowing that this is coming and on for both sides of this.

Um I am an advocate, of course, of this bill of limited.

Isn't it?

And I'm not even sure if it's a bill now.

Has it actually been codified into code or is it still just a bill?

Talking about AB 363.

Yes, I am.

Uh because when I pulled it up, it came up um as chapter 7.10.

Or to the answer.

It should be part of the NRS now.

Yes.

I think I think it is just part of NRS law.

Okay.

But it's coming, we're not gonna stop it.

So we let's learn how to deal with it for both sides for the fairness of both sides.

Um the young lady just came up and said, like there's one person.

Well, you've seen one person here, but there are person people if you've been to the city council meetings and so on, and a couple of you announced and you announced at the last meeting uh discussions with premier properties and other words.

How about having an open house and discussing it with the public in general to get more turnout?

And then uh the police statistics, I'd like to address that.

I don't pick up the phone every time some little thing happens in my neighborhood, and I do think that the rental people that have been here, I I think they're sincere, and I think they have done a good job at maintaining their properties and keeping an eye on their guest, but some of the talk of getting you know little report cards at a kindergarten level, somebody said that was kind of insulting.

But I think there should be online, perhaps with the software that we're talking about that that could be part of that package that we could just go online and find those numbers to call that in.

I'm more apt to call somebody that I think is responsible for it than I am to call you know the police department over every little thing, and I and I don't want to get to this point, and believe me, I was once uh the president of a homeowners uh association in Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and it was a very displeasing position to be in.

And I don't want to get to the point where I'm wandering down the neighborhood with a clipboard marking citations so I can call them in just to make an issue of it.

I don't want to go there.

I want that's the whole thing.

I want to live in peace.

Um I did want to bring up quickly.

Um time's up, so go.

Well, I'm sorry.

It's all right.

The last people got a few more minutes, and I did take like four hours off to be here.

Go ahead.

Um I do have a fact here.

This was published in the Nevada Independent, it's online news source.

Um they're quoting the real estate data from batch data.

So I'm giving you as much facts as I can find out right now.

But this article was published on January 30th or 26th, and it says as of October 2025, corporate investors owned approximately one quarter of the homes in the Las Vegas metropolitan area.

So a lot of people are saying, you know, we don't want this to become Las Vegas, and I agree, and I think this is an instrument to help us not go there.

And as far as you know, there's the grandfathering, which I think is fair, and and so nobody's actually losing anything right now.

What if anything they're looking for the future gains or so on?

The skite has a lot more developable land, more land to be developed within our city limits.

And I suggest getting with planners, developers, and working on that route for those those people.

And there's a future here.

The sky's not falling, it's not gonna come to an end, it's not gonna come crashing down.

And you know, for both sides of this issue, it's coming, so let's deal with it and not try to put it off or kick the can down the road.

Um, there's also the vision 2045 that I believe that our master planning community has put together.

So let's look at that plan and see how we can meld these together.

I mean, we've had other committees who have done another work for the city.

Let's not throw that work aside and not look into that that future.

Um I might have a few more comments uh at the end of the meeting, but thank you for the question.

I gave lecture time to Doug, I'll give a little extra time to you, and then we'll call it even.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I think we're there for now, but I might have a few more comments at the at the next uh opportunity.

You will have another opportunity, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any other public comments?

All right.

Um see, Dave.

Oh, no, you didn't have anything, right?

All right.

So it's uh it seems to me that uh we've done all of the discussion here, both uh public comment as well as uh the uh the committee's comments, and so we've got possible action here.

What you want to what do you think?

What action would you think at this point with based on Adam's recommendation there?

Um you could um just accept his recommendation or Marco.

Do you have anything else?

I think that would be the most appropriate.

Um yeah, so it is possible action here.

So if a committee member would make a motion to either postpone or make a motion to whether or not recommend to council to adopt uh when to adopt AB 363 as the item says.

So if a committee member would make a motion to either postpone or make a motion to whether or not recommend to council to adopt uh when to adopt AB 363 as the item says okay.

All right.

Sorry.

Yes.

I would like to make a motion to um use the US census for the um to make it 2030 before we actually adopt the 363.

So just for clarification in your motion, you're saying you'd like to recommend to the council to adopt 363 in 2030.

Yeah, so we you are talking in regards to Adam's presentation, correct?

Yeah, well, so when they go ahead.

Sorry, just the the item on the agenda is possible action of when to adopt a B 363.

Yes, so what so does my what I just finished stating work?

Yeah, and just to clarify, you're you want to recommend to the council to adopt it in 2030.

Correct, and 20 to wait until the US, just like Adam had recommended, just like the gold standard is to wait until 2030.

That's what I motion.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Okay, I'll second that.

Um discussion.

So um I will if I I'll make just a couple brief comments and we'll go down the line here, okay.

Um the committee continues to have the option of adopting any of the language out of 363 going forward.

Uh given that not adopting it now, will give us some breathing room to do things.

This the city give us some opportunities going forward to uh take care of other things.

This this could affect other things in the city.

And so I'm just suggesting that uh my second and my position on this would be that because we have the option of adopting any part of AB 363 without adopting the entire thing, uh, we can accomplish an awful lot.

Okay, uh Vanessa.

I would prefer to wait um and table this item just to give us a little bit more time to maybe discuss exactly what parts of AB 363 we might consider before we jump to this step.

I just think that there's some more conversations we need to have, and I don't want to eliminate the discussion from coming back up, and I would feel more comfortable tabling it and then bringing up the suggestions and do some research on which aspects of A B 363 I'd like to um recommend we move forward with.

So there's already a motion on the table and a second it, so the next step is to vote on it.

Oh, okay.

Well, we we're in discussion right now.

Are we have okay?

Yes, we have there's a motion and a second, and we're now having council or we're now having our discussion, and we will vote as soon as we're done with this.

All right, Dave.

Um I I think I with that that was I think Vanessa's question was mine.

Um, and I don't know if there's a legal opinion that can come in, but if we were to vote yes on just tabling and not adopt and not recommending to adopt 363, um would we prohibit ourselves from all of it?

Like that's the motion seemed pretty broad.

I I think it I would lean with Vanessa and kind of tabling this and then voting on like so that we can still throughout the rest of our discussion pick and choose stuff out of 363 as opposed to just saying yes or no in a blanket statement right now.

And maybe I can just like adjust it.

Rick said it perfectly what my motion was.

I mean, he said it brilliantly.

All I was saying was that for 20 um taking Adams as far as not applying 363, because once we apply 363, it's the whole entire thing, including the spacing, including the the the um all the things it has to do with it, the cap, etc.

And so I'm saying just not adopting that until all of it until 2030.

With that said, what Rick just finished saying was so perfect was we can pick and choose.

We can take 90 percent of it and apply it.

We can take 99 percent apply it, but we're just not gonna adopt the whole entire thing until 2030.

And by the way, just so everyone's clear is we're not the ones that have the final say on it.

You know, it's the it's the city council, it's just our opinion, but that's what my clarification is.

So we can adopt all of it, but or 99% of it, but I just don't want to adopt 100% of it until 2030.

Understood we can amend that motion.

Okay, Natalie, anything?

Amy?

Um, I would be in agreement.

Um, I don't want to set a 2030 date.

I think as soon as I think as soon as the committees and those in Mesquite who know and understand the needs of mesquite better than the six of us.

I think as soon as we have answers from them of how it different different distancing, different uh percentages, how it would affect us, but then we make our motion if it happens at the end of this year, then it happens at the end of this year.

But I I just think we need more professional and and more facts to consider and how this is gonna affect our town, our tourism, our taxes, until we set a date on what we're gonna pass or when we're gonna do it.

Thank you for the discussion.

Marco, can you restate the motion?

So if I understand it correctly, the motion on the floor right now is to not fully 100% adopt AB363 or recommend adopting 363 to council until 2030.

Okay, so everybody understand the motion and the second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And all those opposed.

I okay oppose.

So this uh motion fails.

Uh four to two.

Did you get all that?

Okay, is there any other motion on this item?

There can only be one motion per item.

Sorry?

Only one motion per item.

Really?

Yes.

And request to bring it back at a later meeting and make another motion then, but one motion per item.

Ah, okay, very good.

Oh, okay.

Uh very good.

I think okay.

Okay.

So now we're gonna go to um item 3.1, right, Jocelyn?

Is that and that's your item, you're gonna make a presentation, correct?

Yes, I am.

Thank you.

Okay.

So today, per your request, we are gonna be going over the application process, code enforcement, and violation processes.

I do have Nate, our code enforcement officer here with us.

If you have any questions of him at the end, he can certainly come up and help answer those.

So let's just get started.

Who's the code enforcement officer?

Okay, very good.

Okay.

So before we do anything, when we first get a call for a short-term application, what we're gonna do is establish the location of where that unit is.

Is it permitted via whether outright or via conditional use permit?

If it's not permitted, um, someone has C C and Rs that don't allow it, we let them know right away.

If it would require a conditional use permit, meaning it's in an area with no CCNRs, we would give them the information for the conditional use permit, which is a planning process.

We've talked about that, and they move forward with that process.

Once they get their conditional use permit approved by the city council, then we move forward the regular licensing process.

Currently, there is the moratorium as you know, on non-cc and r areas, and no C UP applications are being taken in.

So right now, if anyone calls and it's no CCNRs, it's can't take anything in for you.

If it is outright permitted via CCNRs, the staff will just provide the application information.

And that includes uh you have an application that you fill out, and part of that application includes the second bullet point, the operating conditions and acknowledgement.

All of these outline things in title to chapter 13, and they have to initial that they will abide by them, basically.

Um, if they need to have their Secretary of State license, they have to provide me a copy of that.

I need to have a diagram of the premise showing the number of on-site parking, and um the we designate how many max number of vehicles are allowed.

I need proof of ownership of the property, proof of owners, home uh liability insurance, a copy of the CCNRs if I don't already have them, and then we do have to have an inspection done by the building department.

Any questions on that so far?

I do.

Yeah, go ahead.

Is there is there the possibility of adding anything to the application process?

I think that's definitely something you guys can recommend.

Okay, okay.

Can I ask the quick just a quick question?

Um, on when you said outright, like staff will review the location if a rental is permitted, whether outright or via a CUP.

What would be outright?

Outright means there are C C and Rs that expressly permit it.

Oh, okay.

Thanks.

Um, so for the inspection and co-requirements for the building department, the address has to be identified, it has to be on the outside of the building somewhere that's easy to read.

Um, you have to have the emergency egress and rescue openings, handrails for interior stairs, grare guardrails for outside stairs, um, exterior illumination, smoke alarms, they have to be within 15 foot of the bedrooms, a CO detector, the kitchen cook stove has to be anti-tip.

GFI outlets in the kitchen and bathroom.

There has to be a fire extinguisher, fire separation in the garage, they make sure there's no holes in that.

The water heater must be strapped in place.

The outdoor receptacles do have to have a waterproof cover.

If there is a swimming pool, they ensure the barrier is in place and in compliance with code.

There has to be a boundary map where we see these are my property lines, and this is where this um property is.

So that has their local contact information and local PD information and the rules and regulations in Title 2, Chapter 13.

So if it passes, then they can move forward with their application.

So yeah, once the property passes the inspection, the applicant has turned in a complete application, meaning I have everything on that list from slide two, then we can issue the business license.

The license is sent, the certificate of occupancy and the good neighbor brochure go with it, along with the room tax information and their room tax forms.

What questions do you have on that?

Nothing.

Okay.

So we have two types of code enforcement for short-term rentals.

We have um our good code enforcement officer, Nate, and then we have our wonderful police department that helps us with this.

So for Nate, his process is going to be there is a complaint is received.

We assign it a case number, he does an inspection, he determines whether or not there is a violation.

If there is a violation, he mails a courtesy notice.

They have 15 days to comply, come into compliance with the code.

After 15 days, he does a follow-up inspection.

If they're compliant, he closes the case.

If they are not compliant, they have an additional 15 days and they receive a notice of violation.

It's a thousand dollars per day that the property is out of compliance and they have to come to court.

Questions on that, Sherry?

Yes, I do have a question.

So just to I really like how detailed this process is.

We just basically paid the money and they got their license correct.

That's correct.

But now they have to come and do an on-site inspection and actually get passed.

Now is it accurate to say that there has been property a property or properties that have had this inspection done that did not pass since this new was this new rule was put into place?

Maybe one or two, but it was something minor and easily correctable, and they got it fixed, got it reinspected, and then they were able to move forward.

That's actually I haven't had to deny any licenses for inspections yet.

Okay, cool.

I have two questions.

Oh I have a question about um the comp after the complaint received.

Listening to Colleen today, she told we were talking about have you ever been cited?

And we were talking about that, and she told me about an instance where a garbage can was not taken out and they were fined.

Um later, housekeeping did pull it in.

Um, and I was just seeing that there is um there's a vacancy there for either management owner, whoever it is that's on that contact to rectify the issue before it goes to a case number.

And I was wondering if there's a space in there for notification.

That would be could be your warning.

I'm just wondering about that.

Yeah, to maintain fairness to all residents, any complaint that comes in is assigned a case number.

Nate goes out and inspects every call that comes in, and then um if there is not a you can't substantiate it, then he just closes that case.

So can I add to that?

Yeah, Nate, you want to go up the go right up?

So the way it works is unwell numbered, that doesn't mean it's a violation.

That just means it's complaint.

Okay.

Well, I will go in and once I if it's after the initial, once I after the initial 15 days, if it's not complied with, then I will make it a violation, and that's when I'll start sending out the letters.

And technically, by the code, I don't have to give notification.

I can issue a citation on the spot.

This is just me.

I want people to have business in this town.

I want to give them chance to fix the problem.

Right.

So this is my my this is how I'm going to do it.

I guess my question is mistakes are made.

And let's say every week, premier's um guests or somebody from their company has taken it out.

And it's it's they've done it correctly.

And that one time there was a miscommunication with the guests, there was where does that where does the phone call go to?

I know you're not required to, but maybe it would be a good idea to add that.

Okay, so the way it works based on the code is I'm only responsible to react immediately to non-HOA or non-property management companies.

So if your vacation, if your short-term rental is within an HOA, they have to contact the HOA first for the complaints.

Okay, so question on that.

I've been to Cambria HOA homeowners meeting.

I've been to Hayden Estates, and every time I talk to the colonial um, I guess they're the project manager or whatever for that community, they do not want any calls.

They they don't have time to respond to them.

So I'm wondering they have to get the call first.

I will contact the the that company myself if I get a call and I'll say, Did you receive a call?

Then I will act on it.

If the if the HOA or the property management company doesn't do anything to act on it, that's when I get involved.

If it's if it's within those perimeters of the HOA and property management.

If it's outside of that, then I will react to it.

But I will go on every call.

I have no problem with that.

That is my job.

And I will assess it, I will investigate it.

And if it's something that is a violation that HOA or the property management didn't do anything about it, I will let the HOA and the property management know that they they I can't use the word failed, but they did not follow up on this, they did not take care of this, and now they have to.

And so does the so does the owner.

And Amy, on that particular item you're talking about, I think they received a courtesy.

We didn't cite them.

Okay.

That's what I was a little confused on that.

If there's a chance to fix your mistake, or something so minor, I don't think that's what we're looking for.

There's always a chance to fix the mistake.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um, for the in-person inspection, is that just a one-time thing?

Is there anything in there that is like every other year or doing another inspection to make sure because anyways, that's it.

Um currently it is just once a year.

The committee would have the ability to recommend that it's redone on inspect on renewal as well.

Uh my question is is um one I really like it's nice to officially meet you.

Um was this process in play before?

Yes.

This has been our code process for a while, a long time.

Where someone would actually come on site and go check everything out?

Yes.

Is he a new hire then?

Okay, got it.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

That makes sense.

Okay, that's anything.

How how I'm sorry, I do have one more.

How many citations actually go out?

I'm just thinking there's a lot more concerns, community concerns than there are violations.

So I'm just wondering about that.

Think you'd be right about that, but I'll defer that to Nate.

So I've issued out one citation to a vacation, but it was actually on short-term rental.

As for citations to them, I have no, I don't know that number.

I've looked in the system to my predecessors, and I haven't seen any.

I've seen complaints, but by the time we react to those complaints, it's usually the the people residing are gone.

So this is a point I'd like to like take a snapshot of in time, because I think I think there's a solution here, and I think it needs to be embedded.

Uh Nate, before you walk away, can you give us the just the general nature of what that citation was?

Oh, it was for uh it was the citation, the only citation I've ever issued was for them being not licensed.

It was unlicensed.

Very licensed.

As for complaints, most of them are parking.

A lot of the a lot of the guests here, they'll park anywhere, anyway, any way they want, and that's me in my opinion, that's up to the property owner or the person managing the real quick.

Hold it, don't go away.

When when when uh when you issued that citation for someone who's unlicensed, what happened?

It's still in process.

Is it is it a misdemeanor?

And is okay, so it's a court case, it's gonna be a court case.

I'm happy to hear that.

Thank you very much, Nate.

I do have one more question to Nate.

Is it you could just hang out there for just a minute?

Because I think you're really good resource, an actual pulse out there because you're part of the system that's getting these calls and getting these complaints having to resolve it.

So my question is your your largest complaint, is it correct to say is parking?

And then second to that, is there do you do you see it being more side of like more um issues that are actually against the city code or the um the vacation rental code or more like a lifestyle preference?

Meaning example is um as I've been out there interviewing and talking to the um the public is some of the comments I've been you know, like the well, actually here on this committee is like you know, playing in the pools and hearing the splashing and the like the kids or you know, the cars driving in and out, like how much has been more breaking the rules versus a lifestyle preference.

The lifestyle preference hasn't been the only I got one call and it was because they said somebody was smoking marijuana in the backyard of the vacation rental.

You're in Nevada.

Welcome to Nevada.

Um, as for most of my complaints, they're their city, their code, there's their code violations that within the city, not the actual parking, like I said, parking's my parking's the biggest one.

This one would you say what was your second one?

Noise, noise parking and noise.

That's when they can call law enforcement for that one.

And is that a far second, a distant second, or is that complaints I get?

I can't that's enough.

Is that before or after 10 p.m.?

It's all all the time.

It's all the time.

They most of the most of the calls are what time can they start making noise and what time do they have to stop?

And I just I I'll inform them that six and ten, and some people aren't happy with that, but that's just the way it is, or they'll the vehicles will be rolling out from construction workers that were staying in the vacation roles, they'll be rolling out at 6 15 and it won't cover the whole neighborhood up.

It's okay.

Uh good.

Yeah, thank you.

Jessly, do you want to continue on?

Sorry?

Yeah, I just have one comment.

Oh, we got one comment.

So um, how about like do you do any additional um like proactive rather than reactive as far as code enforcement?

So, like if you go on Airbnb, we can find quickly like a whole entire list of people that don't have business licenses in their listings, like just a lot of the tedious work that is done that we could also find people that are not in compliance rather than a neighbor having to call and turn them in.

Yeah, that's more for me.

Um, so you I am your business license department, so it's just me.

I do try to do that at least annually, if not semi-annually.

Um, in the past, what I've done is I go through so sometimes it'll start with a list from other people, which Mr.

Kabink has been helpful with me on supplying those.

Um, but we start with the list and we go through.

I I'm usually able to determine pretty quickly who has a license and who doesn't.

And if I'm not quite sure where that property is located, we will partner with code enforcement, send them out to ensure the property is where I think it is, and then we start with this process if they're out of compliance.

So I do that right now myself.

You have software that you use, or is it just the good old-fashioned research?

I don't right now.

Um I have done demos from like Granicus and other ones in the past, but they're only pulling maybe five to ten more licenses than I have, so it wasn't a huge enough gap to adopt it.

Natalie.

Thank you.

Um one of my things is you know, on the complaints, I know we're trying to decide which complaints are the most that probably helps the the owners of these um business homes.

But my thing is too, is I wonder how many recorded it not non-recorded complaints come through, which we don't have because I think a lot of people just don't complain.

Um, first of all, in chapter 13, if and I wasn't aware of it as a citizen, you know, if I complain and you know I get a fine after so many too, a thousand dollars.

But that's just you know, especially if you don't have if you're in an HOA, you know who to call, you're gonna call your HOA president or the HY, but I think there's probably more complaints that don't get put in because people are afraid to or don't want to or don't know how to do that.

So I think we have to take that in consideration that just because we have some, there's not that many that there's probably some that want to be and don't know how, or something, you know, going forth with that.

Yes, sir.

So the biggest thing that I want to educate the the city on and the and the residents of the city is they can go to our website and they can anonymously put in a complaint, and I will react to that complaint.

I have no problem with that.

That's my job, whether it's an if I is ever it's founded or unfounded.

So that's the biggest thing is I tell people this, they don't know that it's there.

So getting it out to the public saying, hey, we have a website, you can go in there, you can you can you can put in your concerns or your complaint anonymously, and then I follow up on it.

And you're right.

I don't think there's a lot of but I don't think everybody's doing that.

Yeah, what I'm thinking too is like you know, nobody's gonna go on the website when there's a bunch of noise because by the time you get to work the next day, yeah.

There's those little complaints and stuff.

And like me, I'm like, oh, it's 10 o'clock.

I was thinking it was midnight.

I was giving everybody till midnight.

So I will not tell anybody.

Right.

But I think there's just those immediate things.

It's like hopefully this will pass over.

I'm not gonna call in on what it's gonna happen, or who cares or whatever, but I think there's a lot that go unfounded.

For later on, then you can be aware that there was one.

That is one thing we always tell people that do call.

If you don't tell me, I can't do anything with it.

You can't come to me six months down the road and be like, I've been dealing with this for six months, and I have no paper trail, no document, no nothing.

You have to turn it in so we can build a case.

Okay, Jessly, you want to continue on?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Okay, so our police department is so wonderful to help us with this.

We have been working with them to create a system within their when they get called out.

So when they get called out to a property and it's a short-term rental, it will flag that in their system now.

PD has the ability to issue citations on site if they need to.

The system flags that property, what the complaint was and what the disposition was.

Did they comply?

Did they have to get a citation?

Do they have to go back out again?

All that stuff.

Compiled into a report, and then it sends it to the entire development services staff.

So it goes to myself, Simon, uh, Ben, Nate, all of us, and then we will follow up and with the appropriate action per title two, chapter 13.

Okay.

And you get that report every day, don't you?

Get that report every day.

And but in most cases, there's nothing on it.

I have not gotten a single report yet with any complaints on it, any call outs.

So what how many not one?

Not one.

For over what period of time?

Uh, I think it's been in place for about two months, two and a half months.

Right.

And okay.

Right.

Okay, I have a question.

So I just was thinking on these complaints.

I mean, these would be whether they're vacation rentals or not vacation rentals, right?

No, this is limited strictly to vacation rentals.

It is a short-term rental report.

How many do we how many do we get for regular people?

For regular homes.

On like regular complaints?

Non- non-short terms.

I mean as far as noise complaints and things like that, we don't get that report because it's strictly a PD issue.

We only deal with the short-term rental enforcement.

Okay.

Very good.

Okay.

Continue, please.

Okay.

Sorry, quick question.

How many people know about this?

Like in the last it's two months, like what was done to like notify everybody that this is like how they go about reporting their issues with an STR.

It's not a public initiated complaint.

It's if you call PD and that they have to go to that address and it's a short-term rental, it flags it in their system and tells us, hey, we had a violation of this house.

It's not a public initiated through a website, it's just by calling PD.

Okay, so when they were advising people to call PD, because I know like people were like, I don't want to, you know, call the police department over something and waste resources, but that's good to know that that's something that's been established that they're aware of that.

Because I remember talking to um Chief Fells, and I want to say it was about three months ago, four months, and I this is so this is new.

Yeah, we've been working on it since about October with them, and it's fully implemented at this point.

Very good.

Okay.

Amy, did you have a question?

Well, so this is this is going to help regulate the bad actors that aren't aren't.

I just want to point out that it's not taking care of the immediate problem for a neighbor.

Yeah, they're only getting involved after, well, if it's considered a or if the complainant thinks of it as a crime, and very often, as I understand it, it's not.

That is a lot of the complaints I get.

Right.

All right, do you want to sir?

Yes.

Understand.

I understand.

Yes.

Okay.

Jessly.

So our violation protocol.

So if the owner fails to comply with the chapter, um, they can um there these are all different violations.

So if they fail to comply, they fail with the additional conditions we put forth.

The local contact failed to respond.

They have uh violated other provisions of the chapter, they failed to uh remit lodging tax, or they have any misleading information on their application.

Those are all sorts of violations that we deal with in chapter 13.

Penalties um for the first violation with any 12-month period, it's a courtesy warning.

So we just send a notice.

Hey, don't do it again.

Second violation within a 12-month period is a notice of violation or a fine, but with the fine is not to exceed a $500.

We can do both, but typically one or the other.

Uh, for a third violation, it's a with any 12-month period, it's a suspension of the license for 90 days, and then fourth is the license can be revoked and they can't petition to get their license back for at least a year.

That's what we currently have on the books.

I have one question.

Um, so you mentioned lodging tax.

How do you know what they would owe?

Like it is self-reported.

I take in their reports every month and I run their payments or some of them send me checks or whatever, but it is self-reported.

We have the right to re we reserve the right to audit their books if we need to, if we think something's fishy, but I've not had to do that.

Okay, anybody else?

I do have a question.

Um Jesslyn, so they are cited if they don't comply.

Um was one of those items in 13 uh 247 response from the accommodations facilitator or whatever they call it.

Yes, if you look at number three on this screen, if the local um contact fails to respond or did not respond in a timely fashion, that is a violation.

Thank you.

And does that conclude your presentation?

Not quite, almost.

So additional enforcement information.

So anybody operating it without a permit is of guilty of a misdemeanor.

You guys have touched on that already.

Um so we do let's see.

Yeah, so council can change the rules if they want to, but also we can find the the occupants of the vacation rentals as well.

So if they're being unruly, despite efforts from the property management company to settle them down or get them out, we can find them as well and cite them.

And that is laid out in Title I chapter four.

And that goes over whether it's a misdemeanor or just the fines.

And that's it.

I can take your questions.

I have another question back on 213 13, sorry.

Yeah.

Um for a third violation uh with any 12 within any 12 month period.

This is on penalties for 213-13.

Um, the penals penalty is a special suspension license for 90 days.

So I would question that because if I get penalized in June, July, and August, say la V, I'll close my property down and do the do the remodels I want to do.

If I get shut down in February, March and April, it cripples me.

So I'm just wondering if we could look at that as maybe either a longer time or um you could.

That's a recommendation the committee could look at as well.

I've never had to do that.

Yeah.

10 years, never.

It's just a heads up.

Other comments, questions?

So just so I'm clear, is as of the last few months.

One, I'm I'm highly impressed with all of this, and I I have a feeling that I mean, just this is my first time really seeing everything that you've put together.

And I had thrown in you know, these approval and these enforcement stuff for us to go over, but I'm just I just want to adopt what has already been working with the it with the things I want to clarify is the differences now is Nate is in this role, which Nate seems to be highly open and highly proactive, super high.

Even to the fact that I mean I don't think anybody in here even knew that maybe they did, but knew that there was option to do anonymous reporting.

I don't I didn't know that.

That was already in place.

On top of that, a new addition is the police department's working with you guys and has all these flags.

That's a new addition, correct?

And then new addition is the on-site inspection, correct?

Correct.

That's all.

Thank you.

And we are working on the anonymous site too.

I did confirm with IT.

We can there's different boxes for different issues, and we can add one specifically for vacation rental problems.

So we did confirm that as well.

Okay, other comment questions.

Okay.

Uh I do have one.

Yeah.

Do you remember when I asked you why is this a C UP?

Do you have any?

Is there any more about that?

Um, so kind of the history of that, I guess.

When I first started with the city, uh short-term rentals were not allowed in areas that did not have CCNRs as strict expressly permitted it.

Uh at the time I kind of asked Richard, who was our director and said, why?

There's no HOA, there's no rules preventing it.

Why do we restrict it that way?

He was kind of like, yeah, okay, let's take it to council, see what they say.

Council did allow us to change that code to make it a permitted use unless it was prohibited by CCNRs.

And then in September 2024, when Simon redid the planning code, he put the conditional the short-term rentals in non-HO areas, HOA areas back to a conditional use.

And that's when he saw those come forward.

So I I failed to ask Adam this question.

I wished I had, and I forgot, but does anything prevent the council from putting that back into an administrative process rather than a CUP?

Nope, it's an ordinance they would need to have staff draft and they would need to pass.

And it's clearly it could move back into the admin and an administrative process rather than a public process.

If that's what the council chose to do, right?

And if that were the case, I would assume that it would have some type of appeal right to the council.

Um yeah, I mean, if you you're not gonna be denied unless you're failing your inspections, but if you were for if you're just straight and not in compliance with the code and the things that we need, they could appeal to council, yes.

Right.

So if it were an administrative process, it could include an appeal right to anybody that felt like they weren't being treated fairly, obviously, and the and they could appeal it.

But otherwise, I would think about 99% of those would would be processed without having a public forum.

Absolutely.

I think the right to appeal the decision is even in our just regular Title II um guidelines.

So excellent.

I have a question on that.

Then when the moratorium is over, it is it June 7th, 7th.

Are the people that were denied the right for consideration at a council?

Are we going to because there were three people in process that were just shut off after the moratorium was voted for?

Is that going to are we gonna go back into allowing them to continue with their application?

Are we gonna automatically shut them down like what started, or are we going to go back to the way we had been operating and allow that to happen?

So I don't have the outright answer for that.

I think uh by and large depends on what this committee's recommendations are, and then of course council's actions.

Uh, we did have three people apply for the conditional use, but it was never officially started reviewing before the moratorium hit, so their applications are just at a standstill at this point.

Um none of them have withdrawn that application, so they are still in the queue.

Okay, thank you.

It this question I have about being administrative versus a public process.

Is that something we can chat about here?

Um it's not really within the scope of the committee.

The committee is title to chapter 13, that is um title seven chapters.

That would be title nine chapters.

So you're saying that's not something we could recommend to the council to consider.

No, it's not within your scope here.

All right, okay.

Other questions?

Yep.

Just one clarifying question.

So when you said whether outright or via conditional use permit, aren't they all conditional use permit?

No.

If you live in an HOA that your CCNRs say you can do short-term rentals here, there then no conditional use permit.

Okay, so you don't they don't have to stand like go up to council and do a yes, they're outright permitted.

Okay.

So the action we're taking here is just to accept your presentation, or it or do you want are you looking for some some kind of an action here?

Nope, I think they have it to just accept it.

Okay, okay.

Just a really short question with 10 years being in this behind the scenes and everything, so I just feel like this is important for me to know.

Um, with this, everything that you already have in place, and with the add-on of the police department involvement, the inspection involvement with Nate here, just a personal preference.

Do you feel like based on the complaints or noises that you've heard that could help that could be enough to fill the hole?

I think that that's a good question.

I think that and and one more thing on that, and making sure that every single neighbor knows exactly who to contact because I know that's been a chronic theme that you had brought up that if someone if he knew who to call, that would help.

I think that would be a big a big fix for this is if people had an immediate contact to call where they're not feeling like they're you know taxing the police department or coming out that you have Nate and I.

We are code enforcement business licensing.

So this system does work for the staff that we have, but I don't think there's any harm in adding additional layers of people who can correct that issue outside of the city as well, as Amy said.

So on top of that, then I have a suggestion.

Um in the application process, I think it would be solve a lot of our problems between the gap between a frustrated neighbor and quote enforcement.

If we were to require applicants to have two different things, one would be to come in to you with a plan of how they were gonna notify their neighbors, what neighbors can get, you know, what what are the condensed rules for the city code and what they're gonna get action for, and what they're you know, not don't you know, for instance, a nuisance call is gonna be you call the city about children screaming in the pool at 4 p.m.

in the afternoon.

So one would be an applic in the application would be that plan for how they're gonna notify their neighbors and how their neighbors can get a hold of them for that immediate 60-minute response.

It's been a long time since we filled out the form.

But from what I understand, you have to write down a local contact person.

That's correct.

I think that falls pretty short.

One reason is um, you know, Jesse and I are the contact person, and usually, unless I'm mad at them, we travel together.

Okay.

So if we're gone, even if they call me, who's gonna go out?

So I would suggest also in that application process that you have either, I don't know, it if it needs to be a notarized statement or whatever to get people to be honest, but a signed piece of paper that you already have printed up that says I am the responding person.

I will come out 247 in 60 minutes.

This is my name.

And here is also um, I don't know if it has to be the two people that could come out, but whoever is managing it says they sign something that says, yes, we have we have enough staff to come out and deal with this issue.

That's definitely something you guys can recommend.

Okay, I recommend it.

And just to advise the committee, that would be more in item 3.6.

This is just regarding the presentation.

Oh, sorry.

So I'll entertain a motion to accept Jocelyn's presentation.

I'll second it.

No, okay.

I sorry, I said I'll entertain a motion.

You want to make a motion?

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Nope.

Do you want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion that we accept Jesselin's presentation.

And second.

Sorry about that.

Thank you very much.

And all say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are they opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, very good.

Oh, sorry, I'm so sorry.

Uh, we actually need to have some public comment time on that.

Is that right?

Yes.

Uh, so this is we have an opportunity to comment on Justlin's presentation.

Would anybody like to talk?

Good job.

Okay, it was a good job.

Yeah, thank you very much, Jeff.

It was a very nice job.

Okay, seeing none, and we've done our action there.

Okay, so now discussion and possible action of using property technology software.

Um, Vanessa, this is your item, I think.

Yes.

So um everybody should have received a copy of the um document that I put together.

I thought maybe they would be printed out, so I apologize for not bringing some of those, but you can see it up on the up on the screen.

So basically what I did after we met last week, I wanted to gather some of the information of what exactly the benefits are of a technology software that monitors short-term rentals.

And it sounds like the city is familiar.

Um, they've looked at doing something like this in the past, and I I understand there might be some aspects of a software that are beneficial and some aspects that aren't.

So I kind of included all of the different features that um are available with the software.

And I also focus mostly on Granicus because that's kind of like the number one that pops up.

And in addition, I know the city uses Granicus for um other aspects of the city, not exactly sure where or what for.

But um basically the most significant challenges stem from data and information, lack of reliable contact information, inconsistent property data, insufficient court admissible evidence.

And I think that's one that I wanted to really highlight.

So even when violations are suspected, collecting legally defensible evidence to support citations or penalties can be resource intensive and difficult without systematic processes.

Um, and with the increase in uh people requesting public records, I don't think that we have the capacity at our city to address um address it without technology.

Ineffective complaint processing, and I'm not saying this is the city, this is in general limited staffing resources.

I quickly did a business um, so I did a search on um just Airbnb specifically.

I didn't go anywhere else, and I took a couple screenshots.

I left off any identifiable identifiable information.

So I'm not here to you know point out that anybody is or isn't following um the city code, but both of these listings and there were several others, did not include a business license.

So whether that means that they don't have a business license or they just need to be updated on how to make sure they go about knowing and updating their listing information to include that with this software.

With this software, what it would do is it scans all these sites, Airbnb, VRBO, several others.

And then it will either notify the city, and the city then can send out an email to these locations and just let them know they need to update their advertisement to include that.

And then advertised occupancy exceeding ordinance standards.

This is another one that really the city is as far as I know has no way of knowing if somebody books an Airbnb with 16 plus people.

And these are specifically adults.

I did say I did I did show that in this screenshot, because some of the applic um software the hosting platforms will allow you to just select guests, and that's kind of hard because that could include children, and our current code allows for an unlimited amount of children.

So we can't really enforce enforce anything there, but with this one specifically Airbnb, if somebody were to book this as 16 adults, that would notify the city.

So I'm gonna skip on down to what is host compliance by Granicus.

So the core functions, automated listing identification, continuously scans, publicly available STR platforms, data matching matches listing information to parcel and assessor records, revenue visibility support.

This is another one that I think is really important for the city.

An internal audit by the City of League City, Texas, 2023, identify discrepancies between self-reported hotel occupancy tax collections and estimated taxable STR activity when transaction visibility was limited, highlighting administrative challenges associated with reliance on host self-reporting.

If you look at the bottom of my presentation or at the bottom of this document, you can see a list of my references, and you can go and find that article, and it will tell you exactly how much money they actually were missing out on.

And this isn't just the city of Lee, Texas that put this information together, but there are several other examples.

But why I brought this one in is because I wanted to show if you go to Granicus, it'll tell you that, but I wanted you to also see an independent study that was also done.

Evidence archiving captures and timestamps, timestamps, listing data, creating documentation that may support administrative review and if necessary, enforcement proceedings.

Complaint intake and case tracking.

So I took a screenshot.

This is an optional service that they offer, in addition, I mean, all of these are extra features.

So if the city already has a complaint intake and case tracking on the website and that's working effectively, that's something, you know, maybe they don't they don't need this complaint and case tracking, but this is what it would look like.

They would um they would be able to go in, put in the street address of where the SGR is, and it would be able to pull this form up and it would walk them through the process.

This is if the um the report comes in and they want to do it online.

Otherwise, they also have a 24-7 phone-based complaint intake to ensure accessibility for residents because I know that was another question that people had.

Um support structured communication with property owners, administrative purpose.

I'm not gonna read through everything for the sake of time.

Some of the questions that were raised, owner or family occupancy and taxation.

So if a property owner or their family occupies a property without compensation, lodging tax does not apply.

Host compliance identifies listings advertised for commercial short-term rental activity, it does not impose taxes or regulate private non-commercial use.

Tax obligations remain governed by the city's ordinance and applicable state law and apply only to compensated rent transactions.

Funding and cost structure.

I'm sure this question a lot of people have.

Um, because without doing a demonstration, they didn't, they there was no information out there, but from the just research that I was able to do, it looked between maybe 200 and 400 like per STR, like if they paid that on an annual basis, that would probably cover the software.

But of course, that would be something we'd have to find out through a demonstration.

And different softwares are probably going to be priced differently.

So some of the options you can look at are allocation from existing STR revenue, permit or registration fee adjustment, revenue recovery from improved tax compliance.

This is another one I wanted to bring up.

If improved compliance and reporting result in additional net short-term rental revenue beyond current collection levels, the committee may wish to evaluate whether a defined portion of such incremental revenue after administrative and software costs could be considered for a reinvestment into municipal departments directly impacted by short-term rental activity.

Potential areas for evaluation may include code enforcement, public safety response, and related neighborhood service functions.

Any allocation decision would remain subject to council approval, applicable state law, and standard municipal budgeting procedures.

Accessibility for residents not comfortable with technology.

That was one of the questions we got brought that was brought up.

So they do have that 24-7 phone feature.

Uh and then you can kind of just read through that on your own as far as enforcement authority recommendation for committee consideration.

Given the operational challenges identified and the increasingly digital nature of short-term rental activity, the committee may wish to review and evaluate the upcoming host compliance demonstration.

I believe there was the city was maybe going to look at a demonstration sometime in the near future to determine whether the platform aligns with the city's administrative and enforcement objectives.

The review may include accessing cost structure and implementation requirements, evaluating system functionality and staff workflow impact, determining accessibility options for residents concerning fiscal implications and revenue visibility.

This document is intended to support committee discussion and administrative evaluation.

Policy decisions remain subject to city staff review and council approval.

Okay.

What is it you're wanting to do here?

Do you want are you looking?

Let me just see if I maybe I can sense from what you're saying, but you tell me.

Um are you asking the the committee to uh to recommend that the city evaluate this software and apply its applicability to its use as a city?

I mean, is that what you're looking for?

Yeah, and I just wanted to make sure that I covered all of the basis just because I felt like there was a little pushback pushback from it last meeting, and I know everybody values the facts, as do I, which is why I wanted to make sure that I did bring in the references at the bottom of my page and just show that this isn't a personal opinion.

This is something that I really do think is going to be beneficial for the city for tax purposes.

And in return, I also think it's just gonna benefit the the city as a whole to um yeah, just streamline the process.

So one of the things I'm noticing here, and I read through all of that uh is part of the packet.

Appreciate that.

It was very well done.

Um I I if I understand this right, there is a uh an AI AI type uh part of this that goes out there and and watches, and when it finds something that's not licensed, it brings that to your.

I mean, is that right?

So the and the reason I'm bringing this up is this is not something our staff would have time to be doing.

We don't have anybody in the city that's gonna be doing that type of research on a daily basis looking for unlicensed uh Airbnbs as an example.

But this software automatically is out there searching around all the time looking for that, and if it finds it, it tells the city about it.

Is that right is do I understand it right?

That's correct.

Okay, well, that sounds pretty cool.

Um, because it would relieve well, it would do two things.

One, it seems to me it would relieve the the burden that that could be on city staff to do stuff like that.

And at the second and at the same time, uh it would give it would point out violations that we all agree are uh something we want to get all over.

Fair enough.

So I sort of like I like the idea of all of this as an action item.

You're suggesting to the committee, it sounds like that we simply ask the city, its IT department perhaps, Jesselin for sure, to evaluate this in terms of its applicability to the city's use.

Uh so what do you think?

Um granicus did reach out to me this week, and I can do a demo with them if this committee is interested in that and see kind of what they show um that estimated cost would be, and I can report that back.

Very good.

Is that what you're looking for?

I definitely think that it would be helpful if we have an estimated cost by the before we make a recommendation to the council, because then we can also include how we plan to pay for it.

Because I know the the mayor did get up in the first meeting and he explained that that's also something we need to take into consideration.

If we make recommendations, who's paying for it and how is it going to be, you know, funding?

I would know is I'm gonna have to do it with multiple companies to get multiple bids.

We can't just go with one.

Totally.

You can have to look at smart.

You mentioned a couple of them, right, Vanessa.

You mentioned a couple others in there.

I I have a question.

Okay, just okay, I'll get right to you.

Do you use Granicus?

Oh Granitus is what we use to put our agendas together for council and other committee meetings.

So when we do your meetings, they go online, we use Granicus.

Okay.

So you are familiar at least with the company and and the software that they're okay.

Uh go ahead, Amy.

With the stuff that you have to monitor, like the business licenses.

If you can only get to that once or twice a year, because I imagine that's a is this something that would be helpful?

Um I'm not gonna turn down help.

You know, I wear many hats, and um, with the growing workload and the growing number of short-term rentals, if this is something council wanted to adopt, I would embrace it.

Is I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Vanessa, do you know if there are different levels of the package where you can choose like it's gonna detect business license, it's gonna detect number of people.

Can you pick and choose your expense level to based on what we need?

I know there are different packages.

I don't exactly know what you can opt in for and what you can opt out of.

Um, you know, there's a few that I definitely know, like the 24-7 phone line and the uh reporting online.

I know our optional features.

So if the city maybe has something that it's established, I mean the benefits of using something like that is that it's time stamped, it's more admissive, it's better to use if you do go to court.

I mean, just they've established this process, but of course, those are optional.

And if it's not a a need for the city, a big enough you know, need, then maybe that would be something to opt out of.

But as far as other little things that it does to monitor, I'm not exactly sure what you can opt in or out of.

Okay.

Um do you see this as an add-on to what the city is currently doing with their technology?

We've talked, we we had a chance to understand what the the communication between the police department and code enforcement, et cetera.

Um, do you see this as an additional to that, or do you see this replacing that?

You know, I think it really comes down to what the cost is um and how much it costs the police department to handle it, if the complaints are are rather low, then maybe it's it's not um to replace everything, you know.

I I really think it depends on we need to get more information in order to make that recommendation.

I think the biggest benefits that I see to the city would be the instead of having the self-reported for the um for the tax purpose.

I think um that would be a little bit more transparency there.

And that's honestly one of the the biggest things at first.

I was really interested in the 24-7 and the reporting side of it, but if the city's in the last two months been working really hard to put something together and that works, maybe you know it's it's not necessary.

So I I don't know if that answered your question.

No, it does, because I think what we're saying is we just want to recommend that the city consider this as an option and and look at it, right?

I I think that's about what I'm getting out of that.

So um, okay.

I do have some thoughts.

So one I just did a really quick and I really appreciate your presentation is very thorough.

Um I just did the really quick search, I was curious, and it said it was on chat GPT, so we'll see.

But it said for the city, it was gonna be 70,000 for like a base package.

And so here's where I kind of think about I totally agree with what you just finished saying with all these things, and you did all this presentation before we found all this, but after today, it's like one thing as far as if you're worried about the taxes, Airbnb and BRBO and booking.com, all the online platforms have the ability for free, we can connect it to our houses so it can automatically send it to the state for free.

And I would actually prefer that because I don't have to do every single month because I hate doing it.

And that's a free option we can do.

The second thing is um like we're not Las Vegas to where like the main thing we want to do is that I hear a common theme is that we want to like bring our neighborhoods together.

And we want to like be able to have Mary call us up and be like, hey, there's a noise problem.

Okay, great.

Let's take care of it from Mary, not have to have build up all these walls.

Because what destroys a neighborhood the fastest is having to like build these walls where you can't talk to your neighbors, you can't just have this basic conversation.

So I really like the idea of what she just finished presenting today, is like we have we oh, and also the other thing is is whenever Jesslin just finished talking about whenever she did the comparison with the software versus her doing it, they only caught an additional five, and I just don't think that warrants $70,000 let alone an extra $200.

I'd rather that go to something that's like a real problem, like the lack of police department um enforcement here, which they're like half under staffing on base in the national average versus paying for something that's already done.

Um but the other thing is assistant in place is we already have the police department flagging every single one of the houses and sending a note every single day to the captain if there's issues saying it's Simon.

We already have the inspection, which wasn't there before.

That already has helped with um making operators be better.

We also have Nate, which I think Nate is a big improvement because I don't know if the other guy was as involved, but Nate seems highly motivated, including having the anonymous reporting online, which I don't agree with anonymous, but there's an option there.

Plus this vacation home rental, a common theme that happened with last time, and then somebody else had brought it up, and then now he had brought it up, and all of us kind of on some level I feel like have brought it up.

The concept of we don't know who to talk to.

So is if they had these cards where every single neighbor within 300 feet had this card that says, okay, contact person A if there's an issue, contact person B if that person is an answer whether have two contacts like you just finished talking about.

And if they can't within 60 seconds fix the issue, then they can call them police non-depart non-emergent number.

But if they want to do that, they can do the city and do the anonymous.

I mean, there's all the stuff in place for free already.

Or I guess there's already stuff in place that's been working, and with all these enhancements, I just don't think we need to spend more resources on this.

Okay, so go ahead.

Go ahead.

So um, yeah, like I said, it it is about 289 to 300 um per STR.

So if you divide that 70,000, that's what it would cost them on an annual basis.

Um so that is correct.

That's how much it would cost a year.

But if you do some some research, and maybe if you go to the bottom of the page and look at the Texas League of Cities, you will see how much this it's most cities are actually losing by relying on self-reported tax.

You know, hold on, I'm not done.

Um, and then so and then when you said send to state for free, that's already you know implemented.

Well, that doesn't come back to the city of Mesquite.

And actually does.

It does.

It and it tells you who which household it is.

Yeah, it actually has it on the back, and then Justin can talk more about it because she's more familiar with it.

I thought it was anonymous, though.

I didn't know it was specifically to that that home.

It'll tell this the state, and then the state will tell the city of Mesquite.

My understanding of the way it works, because it's something I've been looking into, is getting those platforms to submit the taxes to us.

I don't think they even go straight to the state.

I think they come right to us.

I misspoke of straight to the city.

They come straight to us, and then we remit them to the LBCBA and they distribute it out.

Um, but yes, there would be a report for each house and much revenue they're bringing in, and um we have those listings.

Okay.

Well, that that's really good.

I think you know, I'm really happy with that.

I I don't care if the city can get that information for free.

Um I think that's a great idea, and we should look into it a little bit more.

If you if you do some research on that, um that would be great.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Did you have something?

Oh, okay.

Do you want to try to put that into some form of a motion that you'd like to make for the game?

Oh, that rig, we gotta have public comment.

Oh, you're right.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

I'm sorry, open up the public comment.

Who would like to talk about technology?

Okay, seeing none.

Go.

Add one thing just as your license clerk.

Just hearing the cost, I just want to make you guys aware.

Our current license fee is $50 annually at 230 short-term rental licenses, that's $11,500 a year.

That's what we're bringing in a licensing revenue.

The room tax, we're only bringing in two percent of that out of the 12 and a half percent we collect, we get about 2% back from the LVCBA.

Um, and if you guys implement those distancing requirements too, I think that's gonna impact how the well this works because you're gonna see a mass dwindling of licenses, and so that revenue we would maybe be getting from increase of short-term or room tax is gonna slow down.

So I just want to kind of make bring that to a point too.

Yep.

Okay.

Uh now, oh, Dave.

Ready to make a motion.

Please do.

So I would like to make a motion that this committee accept the Vanessa's uh presentation and that we uh uh add language to our recommendation to the city that says that they may use may include the use of software and technology in their application and enforcement procedures.

I don't know the last word.

Somebody help me.

Okay, let's see.

Okay, hang on.

Marco, did you kind of cover that?

We got it.

What do you think you said?

Um let me play back the record real quick.

Just okay.

No, uh, essentially we we're just recommending to council to consider you the use of uh property management technology.

All right, that's that sounds about right.

Yes.

Okay, is there a second to that?

I'll second it.

Okay, moved and seconded to uh do all that Dave said.

Any further discussion?

All right, all in favor say aye.

I and any opposed.

Thank you.

All right, we're gonna move on to 3.4, which is uh discussion and possible action on uh the cap.

Can I ask a totally out of agenda question?

And that is if we start running long in our meeting here, is there a way to table this agenda for next week?

Possibly.

I just know that some of us have other things to do this evening as well.

So a any motion on any item stops um discussion on the item.

So if an item gets brought up to the table, someone makes a motion to table it, someone seconds, the item can be tabled.

So can we, since it's five minutes till four o'clock, because I have to catch it a flight.

Um could we if we wanted to table where we're at right now since it's already been two hours, does that mean we've just pick up where we left off next time?

We can table each remaining item to the agenda, but it has to be a motion to table on each item.

One at a time.

We'll take them one at a time, right?

Correct.

Okay.

I motioned to start that process.

Okay, is there a motion?

Is there a motion to go okay, Vanessa?

I'm sorry.

Justin.

Um, if you guys want to tackle 3.5 real quick, I do.

I do think the basic is answer for you.

Okay, that's that's thank you for bringing that up.

That's exactly what I want to do.

Let's go through these one at a time, and I think we can knock a couple of them off.

Okay, so as far as 3.4 is concerned, do we want to table that?

Did we do 3.1?

Yes.

Jessly, just made a big old presentation.

She spent a whole lot of time doing 3.1 as a matter of fact.

Just was I had moved on, and I'm sorry.

Okay, 3.4.

Do we want to table that for the next meeting?

I just have a question on this as it's one that an item I brought forward.

Is um because we we um the motion didn't go forward to hold off the the adoption of the ABR 363.

And so that if we accept if we adopt that, then it has if we go ahead with that that it has a lot of stipulations, it has the stuff in here.

And so if we don't, I mean, this is depends on when we suggest that.

So I I I would I would say that we table this because we need to know when we're going to um uh you know enforce or have accept the ABR 363.

Uh agreed.

And and along those lines, um, as an agenda item for the next meeting, we need to have some kind of a uh direction on what we're doing with 363.

You you slapped me around when you said I couldn't have a second uh uh motion there, and that was fine.

There's a lot of these go along with the code.

I've been slapped around before on things, but uh I'd I'd like to get something on the done about that.

And so on the next agenda, could we at least have that?

And is there a motion then to table 3.4?

So, real quick, Rick.

Um, yeah, let's hold off on any of those comments until the item number four.

But with each item, since it is on the agenda, we still have to hold a public comment.

Okay, so the public wants to be kind to us and but either way, we'd still have to have public comment on each item.

I haven't I don't even have a motion to table it, do I?

These I know we'll well first has to be open to public comment.

Okay, okay.

Is there any public comment on 3.4?

Item 3.4.

Step up to the microphone, please state your name.

Hi, Colleen Gleaton.

Um just one thing that you guys have to think about maybe for this next week until the next um agenda our meeting.

There are people out there that are thinking about getting an S uh a license and they're a homeowner and they um just want to get one so that no one around them gets one, and they're not using as an STR.

So there's got to be thought of how that is controlled also, and if it's through they have to have so much 12% tax or something, they have to have a minimum of something or whatever it may be.

You'll have to kind of think about those things too, because I never thought someone would do something like that until I heard that, and I was like, what?

So that is something if you put distances in line for where you need to go, people will do that, and we need to put up something in place to prevent that.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comment, public comment on 3.4.

Okay, now is there a motion to table this?

I'll make a motion that we table this for the next meeting.

I'll second move and seconded to table this.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Everything opposed.

Thank you.

Okay, now on 3.5.

Let me just very briefly say uh Natalie and I both serve on the master plan committee.

And we at our last meeting just recently here asked the committee is there anything that we are doing that could impact the work of the short of the uh master plan committee.

Is that fair, Natalie?

And the answer was no.

So I'm done.

Unless you have is there something else about that?

Because there's literally they they don't think there's any impact whatsoever on uh on our committee.

I only have one quick thing.

I know everybody's in a hurry, so I don't want to take any like overwhelm.

But I did look up the uh Nevada League of Cities, and it does say uh regarding short term and tourism, short-term rentals outside of the typical tourism areas in cities can be a boom on to local economies, spreading dollars across the cities in ways that traditional lodging accommodations do not.

On the other hand, cities with high tourism tourism rates face a greater share of the negative impacts of short-term rentals in communities.

So I do think with like as we think about tourism in our city, there's a little it I do think it's a little bit relevant for sure, but I you know that I just that's from the increase because like we talked about prices can decrease or increase depending on short-term rental.

There's so many factors to look at, so we do have to take into consideration the city of Mesquite.

And that's that's hard to do, but I think we can look at other cities maybe that have some similarities and crossover and try to but anyways.

I I just wanted to make that comment about that that I found in the Nevada League of Cities regarding short-term rentals.

Okay, so so again, the yeah, got it.

And I think the committees, the the master plan committee simply says, listen, whatever you guys do is fine with us.

Okay, fair enough.

And we we don't see an impact on what the master plan committee is doing.

Fair enough, Dave?

I'm just gonna put it out there that I I disagree.

Um I think if we implement spacing rules, zoning rules, and again, I'm not saying I'm I'm against that and following law, but I absolutely believe that if we as a committee recommend that the city adopts uh 363 and the 2500 foot and the 660 foot, all that goes into effect, and we we effectively wreck communities from being able to do short-term rentals.

The the master plan committee has to take that into consideration for future.

Where do we build short-term rental communities?

So I just on the record, I think the master plan community needs to consider this, and we if we adopt spacing and stuff like that, we have to do it carefully because we will affect what happens future in the city.

Okay, totally.

So Simon is on both of these committees and is well aware of what what's happening in both.

I I think I'm real comfortable with what we're doing here.

So anything else on that?

Okay, if not, then we're oh, public comment.

Any public comment regarding uh the master plan the work of master plan 3.5.

None.

Okay, thank you.

Uh now 3.6.

Is there a motion on that item?

Uh sorry.

Is there a motion on 3.5?

The table or what?

Well, we're done.

Is there any there's nothing else to talk about?

I think it was uh motioned.

Are we gonna table it?

No, we that was the comment.

That was it.

We've done it, it's over.

I I'm just I so what what I don't think it was over.

I was gonna say I can make a motion that we accept Rick's presentation on 3.5's uh proposal.

Okay, or something.

Okay, Marco, are you okay with that?

I'll second that.

We can work with that.

Okay.

Moved in second to accept the presentation that there's it's all good.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

And 3.6, we are likely to want to uh table this as well.

But is there public comment regarding 3.6?

Okay, seeing none.

I motion we table the discussion and possible action of application process and enforcement procedures until next meeting.

I'll second it.

Okay, moved in second to uh table item 3.6.

All in favor say aye.

I are there any opposed, thank you.

You know, Jesslyn warned us about this.

All right, okay.

Uh okay, committee comments and reports.

I have a comment.

Okay, you have a comment.

Yes.

I need to do some traveling.

My mom is 92.

I need to go see her, but I don't want to miss any meetings.

I'm just wondering if since we have some relief and we don't have to like dunno get it done done done.

Is there a possibility of us meeting every two weeks rather than every week?

We can do that if you guys want to.

We also have the ability for you to phone in.

So you don't have to be present.

Okay, then scrap that.

Well, personally, I'd like to keep going and knock this.

I'd like to get this so done.

I think Dave, you have want to get it done, right?

We really only need one more meeting.

I I I honestly feel like we're awfully close to putting something that we can all agree on.

So what do you think?

Anything?

On this, I I do on 4.1 here, I would like to read a statement into the record.

Okay, go.

No, I'm I'm I'll be as quick as possible.

I've been saving this one, but I just want to start by saying how informative and valuable the process has been.

Um serving on this committee and learning about city politics.

I uh I my father-in-law was ready to shoot me when he found out I had signed up for this.

Um but uh I I want to just again remind us that uh our role here is to make a recommendation.

We're not adopting code or law.

Um, we're just helping guide city council and planning staff and and uh legal counsel as they ultimately will make this decision that will affect the city for decades.

Um, and it's important that that that distinction be made.

Um it's my strong opinion that we should move forward with caution when it comes to making recommendations that affect that directly affect zoning and spacing and capacity requirements.

I understand that the city will have to comply and adopt uh the 363 when we're officially at the 25,000 population threshold.

However, I believe that there is a much bigger issue in play than just short-term rentals, and we need the city to follow uh these cases and the lawsuits that are going on right now.

Um, I don't want to be a part of a committee that makes a recommendation that sets the city up for future lawsuits.

Um reaching 25,000 residents represents a major transition for mesquite.

It affects planning, zoning, infrastructure, housing balance, economic development, and long-term vision for our community.

Because of that, I would strongly recommend that the city work closely with the master plan committee, the zoning department to fully understand what this transition will mean and how short-term rentals fit into this bigger, larger framework.

Right now, only a very small portion of our residential housing stock is used for short-term rentals.

Because of the way the city is currently set up with our HOAs, we are very limited where those short-term rentals can happen, and therefore they end up very compact and in just a few uh in a few neighborhoods.

So I believe it's part of the master plan and the and the zoning and the development of this city to be uh much more far-sighted in where areas like short-term rentals can be used responsibly and flourish.

Um, at the same time, the city should also carefully review how it defines resort areas, um resort hotels, um, and taking that into consideration could help us uh in our areas like Hawk Ridge and the Springs, because right now 363 will significantly impact uh those neighborhoods um effectively wrecking them from being able to use as short-term rentals.

At this time, I'm not comfortable recommending strong zoning or spacing restrictions until we have a clear understanding how the state law will ultimately be implemented, whether ongoing discussion and efforts at the state level and the the legal level, how that will affect our 25,000 population thrust threshold.

Um this process has opened up a Pandora's box, but I believe it's opened up a good one.

Um, it's opened up a lot of good discussion, and it has highlighted um not just our need for short-term rentals, but also our need for uh quiet, peaceful communities.

Um, it's about the future of mesquite.

Um how we plan for growth, balance comp uh competing interest and protect the long-term, long-term health of our community.

Um, and I believe it would be short-sighted for us to fix just one section of this code without a broader planning, zoning, and growth strategy for mesquite.

Um, I do believe that I we could I I do believe we can have this wrapped up and fixed next meeting.

I believe that there's some proposals that have been put forth on code 13 or 213.

Um, that I think with a little bit of tweaking, we can make a strong recommendation to the city by next week.

Okay.

Uh anything else?

Okay, so this is our uh item five is our last public comment time.

If you guys want to add anything to the agenda, this would be the right time.

Yeah, thank you.

You got you got the one I want to take up where the what we're doing with 363.

Yes.

Okay, for sure.

And then what else other other things?

So three 3.6 will be on next week.

Yes.

Yeah, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.

So I mean next week.

Not 3.5.

Not 3.5.

That's right, you did it.

We're done.

Done.

Okay.

Um, I submitted a uh a revised code 213 to Jesselin.

I think the the committee got a copy of that.

I would like that on the agenda to uh possibly um tweak and accept as a recommendation for the city.

I'm I'm gonna come up with um two items for the application process that deal with um the communications to neighbors and the 24-7 facilities that seems like it can be part of 3.6 six towards tables for next week.

Can I just give it?

I send it to you, right, Jesselin.

I think so.

All right, uh Matt.

Um anything?

Good?

Everybody good?

Okay.

Uh can we talk about um next meeting talk about spacing though?

Because I know we had a cap, but I think that's different than spacing.

I don't know if we can just talk about and I don't think we're I don't know, the attorney kind of advised I think against a cap, but I'm not a hundred percent sure if we can if we should still talk about that, but definitely can we discuss spacing?

We put that on the same same agenda item.

I think that we could encompass that in the application because if they're within so many feet they can't apply.

Oh, yep.

That's a okay, that's a good place to do it.

Okay, okay, good.

So our final public comment time, sir.

I just want to thank you all.

And David, I think your next city councilman.

I I'm gonna finance your campaign.

I love you, baby.

Good job.

Okay, is there any other public comment from anybody?

Okay.

Um and uh seeing none, seeing none, then this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.