Okay, good afternoon, everyone.

It's two o'clock, and uh we will uh start our short-term residential vacation rental committee meeting.

Uh this is March 5th.

It's two o'clock in the afternoon, and we'll uh we'll move through the agenda.

We do have a quorum present.

All the members are of our committee are present at this time, and this is the first opportunity for public comment.

Is there anybody that would like to approach and talk about anything?

Oh, where's my pen?

Can I have my pen back?

Good afternoon, Clark Strong.

Uh I couldn't make it last week, but I wanted to call out a couple of comments that were made that I found highly offensive.

Umessa started to question when the attorney was here what the committee can do to stop row after row after row of short-term rentals asking the attorney what the options were for you to present to the council.

Sherry made a comment saying roughly 80% of mesquite is HOA, and then she goes on.

You can move to an HOA is an easy solution.

I've been here 20 years, and I find that very offensive for you to think that you can put row after row after row, and I'm just gonna have to move to accept it.

So I just wanted to be clear on that.

Natalie, you chimed in toward that meeting and said, No, that's not an easy solution.

So I commend you for that.

But I just want you to be aware that's not an easy solution.

We're supposed to be working together, the HOAs, I mean, excuse me, the STRs and the residents.

So if those kind of comments continue and it goes back to the city council, it's gonna be another mess where people after people come up complaining about short-term rentals, and we're gonna be back in the same boat with nothing resolved.

So I asked for more of an open mind.

Thank you.

Thank you, Clerk.

Anyone else?

Sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name's Doug Hansel.

I know you people are all doing what you think is a wonderful job, but my first challenge to you is whatever you decide to do, enforce it.

I happen to live next to a short-term rental that, in my opinion, should never have been approved.

The application was never filled out completely.

The conditions we'll go over this again.

Okay.

October 18th, City Council turned it down.

Someone apparently threatened lawsuit, so it was put back on the fourth to be revoted on.

On the 18th, it was approved.

So I have a couple questions.

Why the city council can't have a backbone to support their decisions?

And my neighbor up till today, the application was filled out in August.

Body to call if there's a complaint.

I have the application, it's not filled out, but yet it was approved.

And then the city after the 18th of November had other stipulations to bring it into code, and they've not been done.

So I don't understand how the business license development committee, whatever it is, can issue a license without the proper documentation and enforcement.

I'll be back.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Appreciated the conversation we had yesterday.

Likewise.

Thank you.

Was it yesterday?

Yeah, I guess it was.

Okay.

Any other uh comments?

Public comment time?

Yep.

Uh David Gibink.

So I uh let's see.

I went on to the uh city website to try to find out where to do a complaint for SDRs.

You have to show me it's hidden.

So that I mean that's that's not really a complaint.

I just don't know where to find it.

And I I would I thought last meeting was supposed to be super easy, anonymous.

It's nowhere.

Have you guys has anybody looked for it?

It's have you?

Did you find it?

No, I also didn't find it and didn't think it was easy to find.

I found another way to make a com like other complaints, but nothing with um anonymous.

Yeah.

So I I'm just gonna start with the on that one.

Okay, thank you, David.

Um, I do have a public comment emailed in.

I said we'd read out first.

Very good.

Thank you.

Okay, this is from a short-term rental owner uh in the reserve.

Says I currently own a residence within the reserve community in Mesquite, along with three rental properties located in Cambria and Stonehaven that are managed by premier property management.

I have owned these properties for a little over two years.

I picked Mesquita's a place for my personal residence along with my rental properties because I love the area community and have been making family vacations down to Mesquite for 30 plus years.

My father also lives in Mesquite and has done so for 30 30 years.

When it comes to owning owning rental property in Mesquite, I would like to say it has been a big learning curve as is not as it is not a great cash-flowing investment.

You really only have eight to nine months of rents coming in as the summer months see very little occupancy.

I selected premier property management to manage these properties, and I'm so happy I did, as they have been a great business partner to work with.

They make sure the properties are taken care of and handle any issues that the renters or neighbors may reach out on.

I also work very closely with the HOA of Cambria to make sure there are no issues and do everything I can to be a good neighbor.

The best part about having rentals in Mesquite versus St.

George, for example, is that my renter, my typical renter is four older men that come to play golf or an older couple looking to get out of the cold up north.

I have never had any damage or issues with my properties in the two years of owning them.

I own a financial planning firm in Salt Lake, and I would like and I would be the first to say that owning a short-term rental property in Mesquite is not a great investment if you're looking for monthly income.

It is a great investment if you're looking for property valuation growth over a long term.

Most investors would never look at mesquite as a great place to own a rental as the cash flow isn't there like other popular destinations.

This leads me to believe that mesquite will never get overpopulated with short-term rentals because of the lack of fully yearly rental income.

Interestingly enough, I would say 40 to 50% of my rental occupancy is from friends and family that prefer a nicer establishment than some of the outdated rooms and hotels of mesquite, and also prefer to share spaces of family.

I hope you truly see the value of short-term rentals in mesquite and the true value that they provide for families to come and enjoy this amazing city.

I'm happy to discuss my experiences with short-term rentals in your great city.

And it has her email and her name is Courtney Albanese.

That's it.

And who was that from, please?

Courtney Albanese.

Ah very good.

Any other public comment?

Okay, seeing none, uh I'd like to entertain a motion to uh to accept the uh consent agenda as well as the March 5th, 2026 uh minute.

Sorry.

Excuse me.

Consideration of approval of March 5th, 2026 uh short-term rental committee agenda and that's today's agenda, and the February 26, 2026 short-term rental committee meeting minutes.

Is there any uh public comment?

Okay, is there any discussion?

All right, is there a motion to approve item number 2.1?

I'll make a motion.

All second.

Okay, it moved and seconded approve them the uh consent agenda for these items.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, uh I'd like to take, if I can, item number 3.2 just out of order, because it it seems to me that that might be the first one we should deal with before we deal with 3.1.

Um so this this item is 3.2.

Is the consideration of recommendation to the city council of when to review uh fully implementing AB 363 into title uh two chapter 13?

Uh I'd like to get uh public comment, please.

First, is this uh do you want to weigh in on this uh Simon now?

Or what do you or is this is this top where do you know where where are your comments located on the agenda items?

Can you want to sorry?

I'm sorry, Simon.

I'm uh I don't know.

I don't have any comments to make, but uh um if you have any questions, I can answer to you.

Um but one I I am clear that the sitting back side is a lot better than up there.

Okay, I understand.

Okay, we may have questions about this or ask you to weigh in.

Um let's let's uh wait and see if it comes up in the meeting.

Is that okay, Simon?

Thank you.

Sorry to get you up there.

All right.

Um is there any other public comment regarding 3.2.

All right, on this item, how about uh I I would like uh, well, first of all, let me let me do this just for procedural purposes so that we don't mess up and end up doing something that I'd like to try a second time on.

Uh so if it's all right with you, I'd like to propose uh a motion and and without a second have a conversation about it and see if we can modify it, see if we can come to some kind of consensus and then second and vote on it rather than motioning second and then be stuck with uh having to vote on it and not being able to do a second item.

I hope that makes some sense.

So let me just say that uh given the input and recommendations from our city attorney and several other community stakeholders, and given the current state of an active lawsuit regarding several of the restrictive pieces of AB 363, it seems prudent to protect the city from getting caught up in these protracted legal battles when it is not necessarily when it not is not necessary at this point to do so.

We need time to let these issues get settled and then adopt regulatory language that is defensible and in the best interest of our city.

Having said that, this is my motion, and I'm perfectly happy to have us fix this if you don't like it.

I move to recommend adopting AB 363 only at such time when it becomes mandatory according to the U.S.

Census population count in the year 2030, and after all legal issues regarding the Greater Las Vegas Short Term Rental Association versus Clark County have been resolved.

That's my motion.

So now some conversation about that.

Can you reread that?

I I will.

So I'm I'm making a motion that we recommend adopting AB 363 only at such time when it becomes mandatory according to the U.S.

Census population count in the year 2030, and after all legal issues regarding the Greater Las Vegas Short Term Rental Association versus Clark County have been resolved.

I'll start.

I don't seconds.

I'm sorry, I'll call let me let me let's have discussion first and then I'll see if there's a second.

Is that okay?

Sorry.

I just don't want to mess up here and not be able to do this.

Any comment?

Anything.

So with that, I uh I I think this happened last week as well.

I I struggle with just a blanket statement like that because I think there's a lot of really good things that maybe and I know this doesn't stop us from taking the the state law and implementing it or taking things from it.

Um my only my only comments on that are really I I don't want to limit us from taking stuff from it right now that's really really good that we should take and and give a recommendation.

Um I do agree that there's some lawsuits out there that um I think need to be resolved.

Um I don't personally want to make a recommendation to the city that could if they adopted what we recommend, put them in a lawsuit situation.

Um and uh and that so um I'm with that I'm I'm would accepting your motion.

I just want to make sure it doesn't stop us from taking stuff in AB 363 and using it now.

That was my hesitation last week.

I think there's some good things in there that we need to consider right now.

Um I think there's some things in there that we need to be careful of so that we don't set the city up for a lawsuit.

So this is okay, to me, this is very smart conversation, and I couldn't agree with you more.

Um the intents of of my motion is to simply set aside the the entire law.

Basically, I'm taking on the issue of being being mandatorily required to do it now.

I I want to set that aside so that we have time to resolve some of these issues, lawsuits and other things, um without being forced into that.

I I absolutely agree with you that we can take any pieces of that language out of the 363 that we like and incorporate it, incorporate that right into our ordinance.

I do not believe, and it is not my intention in this motion to restrict any of that.

I want to always be able to take any language that makes sense for us and put it into our ordinance.

I'm only wanting to sort of resolve the issue about the the overall writing issue of of mandatorily having to do it when we are a population of 25,000 by using the census rather than uh state demographer, and also to give us time to resolve the legal issues that are currently pending that we have no idea how they're gonna end up.

That's so so Dave, thank you.

That's a very good comment.

Um with that as well, then is it and or the legal issues are resolved or the census because those things could happen at different times.

So 2030, we know the US census will happen.

Is it if the legal issues get resolved in 2027 and we're over 25,000 per the state, do they implement it, or do they at 2030 and the US census says we're at 25,000, whether there's lawsuits or not, I don't believe the city would have a choice to put it on hold while they're still pending litigation if we're 25,000 per the US census.

Does that does that make sense?

I think the motion would have to be clear that we recommend that the city ultimately follow the state law when it's required to, no matter what the lawsuits say, because it's state law, but they could implement it maybe a little earlier if the lawsuits are resolved.

So that may it sure does.

That's very good, that's very good sense.

Uh so let's let's try to word this correctly then.

Let's let's let me try to amend this to make some sense here.

Well, I have a comment too.

Okay, sorry.

I've got my back to poor now.

She slaps me around every now and then when I can't.

My thinking is at first I was thinking, yeah, let's you know, put this off and give us some time.

But as I go along and look at that, you know, as far as you know, the the state and the county and the city, you know, we are at 25 now.

And I think you know, as in 2030, we'll be at 30,000.

Then we're gonna be backpedaling.

You know, we're going along for five years already at already at 25.

We know in our mind we're here, and then we've gone, okay.

We're I think what doing this is saying let's wait till these lawsuits, so these are different, you know, Henderson, they've got different needs and wants, and the lawsuits could go different ways depending on their attorneys and how they present the lawsuit would be might be completely different.

What might be brought against us and our attorneys and what we want for our city.

So I think that their lawsuits kind of set a mandate, but it's not may not be exactly the same type.

Um, as we go along, we put it off, put it off, and then we come 2030, and then we've got all these all these other things that we haven't really taken care of, then we might have to backpedal and you know, take some of the things away that we've done or something.

I think that we be we should be a little bit proactive with this, is what I'm thinking, because we already are there, we know that, and we know in 2030 we're gonna have to do it.

And if these lawsuits are, you know, what if they're done in a year?

We don't know.

They could go 10 years, and we'll and so in 2030, we may not know.

So I I think we need to think about that.

Okay.

Um last week I um said no to the motion to look at AB 363 and 2030.

And the reason I did was because I didn't want to commit to looking at it if it was in this precarious situation legally.

That certain things in AB 363 will make a difference for our neighbors and our community.

Uh based on the uh Jesselin and the code enforcement's um presentation, they'd had one call where that they were able to even act on, um, and that was a licensing issue.

And so I've been on the fence about distancing, I've been on the fence about capping because I want our citizens to feel comfortable in their homes.

I want, you know, I don't want anyone feeling um like they're threatened or crowded or even bothered by short-term rentals.

I think we have right in front of us with the changes that Jesselin's already made, that the city's already made with flagging short-term rentals, with hiring a code enforcement person, and with all of you agreeing that notifying neighbors, having that contact coming from the city, not relying on the managers, but coming from the city, every neighbor with information of how to contact the issue, could solve some problems, and we have four and a half years to see if what hasn't been being done gets done, just like the gentleman was saying.

And if that makes a large improvement.

If it does, let's let's look and see, okay, what else is left?

What what does the Las Vegas data say on capping?

Is it helping?

What does it say on distances?

But we have other agenda items that we're gonna take all of those things up with right now.

No, I know trying to focus this on one topic.

Right.

And I know that one topic might I just don't want to commit to looking at it until we have that information.

Okay.

I have a few things.

Maybe I can maybe I'm confused on your motion.

I'm I'm simply trying to resolve the issue of well, mostly uh sorry, I'll I'll I'll get you one second.

I think um we heard from our city attorney who recommended, not recommended, said to us we should use the 2030 census to determine our official population and then therefore be forced to adopt AB 323.

He told us that right.

And I think we should do that.

Yeah, that's that's kind of what I'm trying to resolve here.

I think we should do that.

Okay, I'll get you.

But it but also Dave makes a very good point about the uh about the the current litigation that's going on with with this, and and probably that ought to be first, and then the other one second.

I could I could certainly leave that, yes.

Okay, Vanessa.

So I don't think the city attorney recommended that he just said this is the this is when it will go into effect.

It will be mandated when we use the decennial census data.

That's what he said, is it will be mandated at that point.

He didn't recommend we wait, he didn't recommend anything about I mean he gave us that there's a lawsuit ongoing in Las Vegas that's dealing with a few issues that are specific to Las Vegas, and we should take those into consideration.

Nothing about AB 363.

AB 363 is not under litigation right now, that is state law.

Oh, I think I'm not sure that's right.

I think AB 363 is the actual focus of the lawsuit.

Am I wrong?

It's I think it's the focus of the lawsuit because I I think both of you are from what I understand, like they're not suing the state uh for this law, they're suing the city or the county for the implementation of the city.

Because the implementation of it, that's that's my yes, it's the implementation and the thousand-foot distancing and their process.

Yes.

So Henderson has the a thousand square feet or a thousand feet distance requirements, and they're doing a a lot of similar things, but their process is different.

They violate Las Vegas is under scrutiny because they're claiming that they were violating certain due process rights and such.

Right.

So it doesn't have anything to do with AB 363.

If I can clarify for the committee, I can read the minutes from Adam's conversation.

Yeah, that would be um so this is not to be taken out of context.

This is just a portion of what Adam said during discussion of item 3.2.

He says, okay, so looking at AB 363, there's no direct stipulation on how population is calculated according to that statute.

And so according to NRS 0.050, and allow for this issue for when do we adopt that?

When are we officially 25,000?

It will be in 2030 when we do the decennial census.

So because AB 363 is triggered by our population of 25,000, he is saying we should use the population when we reach the census in 2030 to determine that, meaning that we are not required to adopt it now.

Is that fair?

Yeah, I think we're not managing.

So that's yeah, but I think that's my motion is to accept that recommendation to accept that and uh and make that our recommendation to the council to not adopt AB 363 until we have achieved uh an official population of 25,000 according to the census in 2030.

If we do that, we give ourselves time to sort things out.

That's that's the big part of my motion.

What do you think?

May I just chime in later?

Maybe maybe this is a good thing.

You're back at time.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So uh uh Vanessa mentioned it, and that's correct.

Uh so uh what uh Adam uh City Attorney mentioned was uh uh the city population number uh number uh will officially over 25,000 when we do the next US census states, which would be the 2030.

So until that time, we do not mandate it to accept or approve the uh this six uh 363.

Uh but however he also mentioned that uh uh you can we can uh adopt it earlier.

Yes.

So so there are potential to it.

Now they the lawsuit against the Clark County is about uh uh more stringent than the state requirements.

State requirements uh they requires a 660 uh the feed, uh which is uh one eighth uh of the miles, which is uh walking walkable distance in urban planning.

Um so there are some basic uh ideas and fundamental theories under it.

So 1,000 uh feet, on the other hand, doesn't have any uh basics grounds to it.

So it'll be really tough, Clark County to defend 1,000 feet instead of 660 feet, because uh state studied and their uh not their uh the the writings and the codes are have been researched by other uh planners, I believe.

So it is not under scrutiny right now.

Uh so city can see may uh wanna adopt uh 363 as it is, it's also okay right now.

And at the same time, city uh if city wanna uh adopt partial of the 363, that is also acceptable.

Or city may not want to adopt uh 363 as it is, that's fine too.

That that's what uh city attorney mentioned.

So we don't really need to act on um I understand that you worked on really hard and that uh the language is pretty nice, but we don't need to uh adopt it because it is what it is.

That it is the on the basis of the uh Supreme Court decision.

So we don't actually need to adopt uh 363 by 2030.

That's what it is.

So uh regardless of what you do, that's what is given.

And uh the confusing part is if we do so today uh and act on it, the the it could actually uh defer other opportunities away because of the some some of the sensitivity of the languages.

Uh for example, if you wanna review some other languages like 660 feet distance requirements, and we can uh approve and adopt it today because not just because uh we we should wait until not there is a shoot part.

We can, we may be able to wait until 2030, but we we can also adopt it today, uh not today here, but the city at the city council meeting.

So there are some opportunities, and we have other audiences there uh and they want to get their uh their property rights protected too.

So we uh you guys also need to respect their opportunity here.

Uh so um I I would recommend uh we accept as it is.

Uh we don't need to actually uh put it on the actions and go for it because it is already given.

You you city doesn't need to accept uh 363 until uh 2030.

That is already given.

But however, there is also opportunities if there is uh other other issues pops up.

For example, we mentioned that uh there was one case that the illegal operations of the short-term residential rental was the case that the city had.

Um yesterday or today, there was a one another case related to the noise.

Police went to the uh location and they found it the applicable.

So uh they delayed that uh information through the system we daily get, and we were able to send that uh warning letter out.

So uh it is actually coming, and uh it we it doesn't mean that every short-term residential rental is actually in compliance.

So uh it is actually coming, and uh it we it doesn't mean that every short-term residential rental is actually in compliance, there may be something off, and uh as time goes, I mean regardless of the short-term register rental committee's determination today or tomorrow, or the city council's determination today or tomorrow, there can be some other issues pops up that actually raise more issues and opportunity for additional discussion.

And I hope we don't actually stop that discussion today.

We we gotta have to open discussions for the future.

Um so um that that's what I have to say, and also I've gotta have to make sure that uh some of the uh languages of the state requirements can be adopted today because uh if we adopt those uh languages, for example, let's say 66 feet, which which has been around every day.

So if we adopt 660 feet and somebody challenges to the city, then we can forward that information to the state uh at any time before the 2030, because it was their standards, but I don't recommend any changes in that uh the numbers that like 1,000 uh feet that can be challenged, and 300 feet, for example, that can be challenged, and I cannot actually uh protect the city from it because as I said, 660 is uh a basic walkable distance in theory.

It's been 30, 40 years uh out there uh as I studied about urban planning and landscape architecture, but there is no grounds for any other uh uh distances like uh um the 300 feet, 100 feet.

So I finished my the talk today.

Thank you.

Simon, but while you're there, uh if we choose to recommend to not adopt 363 until the 2030 census, if we did that, then your recommendation also is that we make no distancing standards in our own ordinance.

Is that do I understand it right?

It is it depends on the interpretation, so it is arguable.

So some some people may say you prevented that from happening.

Right.

Some people may say no, he didn't.

He actually uh said that the entire 363, he didn't meant the part of it, but we don't want to argue there.

If we don't act on it today, that's as it is.

Yes, it remains as it is.

Yes, and and your uh and also in terms of the population count, we can use the US Census rather than the state demographer.

Oh, that's the Supreme Court decision, so there is no question about it, regardless of your act today.

So do you think we should do nothing with this item?

Um the item is a consideration of recommendation to council uh of when to review fully implementing AB 363.

So you heard my motion.

Yeah, yeah, I I I would just withdraw this uh this title uh this uh agenda item because uh city council can choose when to actually review AB 363 whenever issue comes.

But uh, if you recommend then city council accept it and they say we're not gonna review AB6363 until 2030, then they will not be able to review it.

So that can be a concern.

So if I use language like uh we uh do not want I'll just paraphrase here real quick.

If we uh if we if we do not implement or or if we say we do we recommend that the council not adopt until we are mandatorily required to do so at the US Census, then we're then we're then we're handcuffing them from doing something earlier.

Right.

So I I would say prefer uh the motion here on this item would be accept the uh city attorney's um statement uh at the last meeting.

That that's what it is.

Except the attorney's or presentation.

Well, we kind of did that.

Did we do that?

I think we did that.

Yeah.

So we've already done that.

So we're but then this has said really well.

If you act on it, it it'll be it'll bring in more questions than nothing.

Yeah.

Okay.

And that's the same recommendation you would make to the council.

I mean that council what the uh short-term residential rental committee's role is to revise.

Correct.

So if you revise some uh code sections and make a recommendation, I can bring it to the city council and make a presentation and for their choice.

But uh there was no role for you to uh tell the city council not to review until such date.

It is actually taking their authority down and prevent that from happening until 2030.

Yeah, I understand.

So okay, thank you, Simon.

Don't go too far.

Okay, okay.

Uh well, you can okay, David.

I'm just trying to think all of this through with the with the population questions, and as I as I researched NRS or state, um the state can certify a city's population.

And what happens if next month the state says the city of Mesquite is 25,550 people, the state certifies that.

According to the what city attorney said um the last time he uh brought in uh the case of yellow cap, uh which is was the supreme court case, which was the same thing that other jurisdiction adopted uh the state mandate requirements before the population reaches that point, and then uh that this uh taxi cap companies sue the uh jurisdiction uh for that issues, and then that went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court then said that uh um the timing of the uh mandated adoption should be the uh US census states.

So that was the just uh kind of case that um the city's the city's official population right now is a state certified population, correct?

Right now that's what we are going with it because that goes through the state tax offices and uh uh we share uh population uh ratio with them so that we can get the that amount of the uh taxes from them.

So uh officially we are using that population number.

And next year when that number changes and this because the state certifies a population for the city July 1st of every year, correct?

Yes.

So my my original recommendation to you was to follow state demographers' population, but uh uh the city attorney was telling there was a supreme court case that wasn't there wasn't a case.

So but uh he also mentioned uh by the way, uh if uh city is ready and regardless to not make the population excuse.

If we have excuse that it reasons we can actually accept and adopt it before the time.

Yeah.

So I'm I'm kind of with a little bit with Natalie on this one, as you know us trying to tell the city when to adopt AB 363, um, kind of if they if they accept our recommendation and we say don't accept it, then we're kinda hamstringing them a little bit in some areas and maybe not in other areas.

Um, but there's some good stuff in in that, and there's some stuff right now that I'm a little worried about with lawsuits.

I'm just wondering if kind of not making a recommendation at all as to when they should or shouldn't adopt the population because there's lawsuits right now on that very question.

Some cities uh took things in at 25,000 when this this US census wasn't 25,000.

And and so if if we're making recommendation to the city to say yes or no when they should do it, we're we're kind of putting them up either way we look at it.

If we say adopt it now or adopt it later, we we're setting the city up for challenges in lawsuits.

No, uh that lawsuit is about uh uh the numbers, the VG cannot be approved.

Uh so there is no fundamental uh ground to it.

So uh as long as we go with uh part of the 363, uh and that that that should be actually good.

Uh so um the str committee's role is actually the amending the code.

Uh but the safe safe is to kind of uh wait is to adopt part of the 363 because uh I don't believe uh the state 363 is uh the uh authority has been challenged at all.

So as it if you change it, then we gotta have to approve why that number or why that sentence is uh better.

But uh if we utilize the part of the 363, when we get challenged, we can just simply forward it to the state's attention.

See, that's that's what I'm trying to say.

I'm just is that once this is adopted, if we adopt this, if any there's any challenges or lawsuits, the state backs us up without right with the attorney and their help and pay.

I mean, they without this, if somebody sues us, we're on our own.

And if I understand this correctly, this is just so because there's all this different information floating around.

To my understanding, after hearing everybody, this whether we adopt it or not adopt it, that's not even our conversation to have here.

We're strictly here for the code enforcement, right?

Is that correct?

Our board is just here to do the court enforcement, the approval process, and that's it.

So no, no, no, no, no.

And I think to rewrite all of 23.

Yes.

Your rule is to rewrite the code, right?

So that could include the code enforcement sections and procedure sections, application sections that uh include the limitations and uh that include include the restrictions.

So but we're not here to tell the city when or when or when not to adopt a population.

That's correct.

That's not that's not correct.

And I think that's where I'm kind of going on that, Rick, is I don't, I think we're I think we're kind of overstepping our role as a committee to tell them when or when not to adopt a population.

Um we can take AB 363's all of it and build it in there, um, or we can leave none of it and take all of it, just throw it all away.

But we're just putting together 213, City Code 213, um, and making those, and that's where I've kind of been your your motion.

I've been kind of just trying to wrap my head around it, and I feel like we're kind of overstepping what our role is.

Okay.

So once again, and the trigger for us to mandatorily adopt 363 is a is the fact that we are a 25,000 population city or more.

If we are mandatorily required to adopt 363, don't you think it has great impact on what we're gonna write into our ordinance?

I I agree, it does have impact on what we're gonna write into our ordinance.

I think we absolutely have to take that into consideration.

I don't think we should be telling the city when to adopt their population.

Is it and that may be just a slight it our role is not to tell the city when they can or cannot be 25,000 people or what they should take the state level or the US census level or whatever level they want.

That's not our role to tell them when to accept a population.

Our role is to take AB 363 into consideration, write it into our recommendation.

I I think it's important.

I'm not trying to throw away that whole code.

I'm just saying that we need to recognize that we're very close to hitting 25,000, but it's not our job.

It's it's really not barely sounds like it's barely even the city council's job to tell when they're when they're uh 25,000.

The state will tell the city when they're 25,000, and then it can be challenged if the city accepts it or not accepts it and decides to push it into a court case to say no, you have to go with the US census.

But that's but that's I think telling the city when or when to or when not to adopt this the 25,000 is I feel like that's a little bit out of our jurisdiction for what our committee's here to do.

And I agree.

Okay, anybody out here?

I agree.

I just have a question.

Is there just any room for changing the city code to what we know will work for what's already in there?

Give it we have some time.

Give it some time, see what we can do with um uh editing and enforcing and maybe adding a few things that's already in there, and then it why I don't understand why we have to jump to adopting things as in the caps or the distancing um before we take care of what's going on at home in our own city code.

And then it why I don't understand why we have to jump to adopting things as in the caps or the distancing before we take care of what's going on at home in our own city code.

I guess that's my question is since we know we have some time.

Why are we why are we rushing to either tell the city we don't want it until 2030 or adopting things of it right now when there's things that we can do right now that will make a huge improvement in what's going on with the city?

I don't understand why we're we've got four and a half years to figure this out.

If we figure it out in one and we realize, hey, you know what?

We really need to put some distancing and some caps on this, we still have time.

I think the thing is is that the distancing is in the caps has been something that's been completely ignored, and that's why this is a problem because people are concerned, and that's why we need to adjust our chapter 13.

All right, but I guess my question is are we sure that the distancing and the capping is causing the problem?

I think okay, hang on, hang on.

Just to clarify something for the committee, real quick.

Um, because we do have to follow the agenda that we set forth.

There are items of the agenda to talk about the spacing, to talk about implementing parts.

We're gonna get to those agenda items, but this one.

I just feel like we're we're in a position where we have to say yeah or nay, and I don't think we're there.

No, I I okay let me not sure that's what I'm doing, but okay.

Let me let me chime in there.

I mean you are here to make a discussion like it or not, and uh you feel like it is VI rushing into this changes or not via in time of reviewing it anyway.

So as far as I know of the short-term residential committee has been having a discussion, but a lot of discussions, but I don't think uh there was any consensus of re revising anything yet.

So it could be nothing.

I mean, in New Jersey, it could be not recommending anything to change in in the worst case, and in some cases we recommend that this, this, this need to be changed, or in some extreme cases, we recommend um the AB 363 need to be adopted today.

But you haven't actually got into there.

So the worrying about why we are doing it actually wouldn't get you anywhere.

So I recommend you to do the extra discussion and productive and um make something as a recommendation.

That's your role, and then I'll make a bring it to uh bring that recommendation to the city council and uh ask it their uh blessings.

Um but the you've got to have to get into some kind of conclusion before stopping anything.

Okay, we've spent about 45 minutes on this one.

Okay.

Uh I I'm happy to withdraw the entire thing and just accept the city attorney's recommendation that we use the census to establish our population at some point.

I'm happy to leave it just like that and do nothing here.

Is that sound about right?

Natalie.

I don't I'm not agreeing to the city's attorney's decision on our part.

That would be for the council to agree with him.

I just say that we let the city council and the attorney decide when it comes time.

So I'm saying I'll just withdraw my motion completely, and unless somebody else wants to make another one, we'll move on.

How's that sound?

I agree.

Okay, I'll withdraw my motion.

And is there any other action relative to item 3.2?

Any other motions or anything else?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

We're done with that.

Good.

Okay, now I'm going back to 3.1 consideration of making recommendation to council uh to pursue amendments to AB 363.

Um, I'm perfectly willing to let the uh had the other one happened, I would have simply said we should uh assemble a small team of people in our city, and we should approach uh our legal staff, uh our um our city lobbyists, our assemblyman and people, and approach them to amend AB 363 to change the population from 25,000 to, as an example, 50,000 only because the law was written specifically to deal with major problems in Las Vegas, and it was not written to to really impact what is happening in Mesquite, Nevada.

And because of that, I was gonna suggest that we try to amend that because it would do nothing to the Las Vegas market, it would simply solve our problem and allow us to be more self-regulated.

That's what I would have done, but I'm not doing that.

You're kind of going off, tell us what you wanted to tell us.

Yeah, had we done that, we're kind of spending.

So I would have done that on this.

They considered it.

I mean, and if you look and read on small towns and large towns, it's pretty much similar.

What's going on?

You know, when you're when you were in areas where they have resorts.

Right.

And see, I I tended to screw that only because our resorts actually seem to support the idea of having short-term rentals around them because they use them for overflow when they're full.

So we do have a bit of a difference on how that is.

That's why they're building more hotels in town.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

So I I have nothing else to add for 3.1 unless somebody else does.

Okay, seeing nothing.

Uh is there is there public comment on this?

Okay.

Uh, so we're letting this one go.

Okay, three.

We're on to agenda item 3.3.

Any public discussion on the consideration of review of what portions of AB 363 to recommend for implementation.

I'm Corbin Van Est.

What's your first name?

Sorry?

Corbin Van Artists.

So I don't want to rehash the last 45 minutes, but um, I think uh with some of Simon's comments and all it's it's pretty clear we don't want to amend anything because we would lose the protection of that umbrella.

And I I totally get that.

Um my comments last week when I arrived here, I had Miss Adams presentations, so that did change a perspective on a few things.

But 363 are not, these are issues that a lot of communities are facing.

And I'm kind of grateful 363 is out there because somebody has addressed it.

And maybe these are not completely tested waters, but they're not completely uncharted.

Like people are going there and they're giving us warning signs, and mesquite has an opportunity to look at this.

Um I think there's been some good recommendations with some merit, but it seems to be focused on you know, tenant behavior and stuff like that.

And I'm not even I'm not arguing.

I I do think that a lot of the uh agencies that oversee these properties are in fact doing a good job.

But the real elephant in the room is how many of these there are and how close they are together.

And the the density is I think is the biggest argument, and that's the one that means the most to me is how close together these units are, and how many there are in the neighborhoods.

So I would suggest that we we focus on looking at some of that.

Um that's all I have for now, but thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Corbin.

Any other public comment?

I should be at the pool today, but it's cold, so I certainly is.

Um we've been going Clark Strong.

Thank you, Clark.

We were involved on the last, just a little bit of history.

Uh, our neighborhood, Santa Fe Vistas, was the last involved with the last short-term rental, short-term rental that was approved, causing this mandate.

I mean, I think we were part of it from our neighborhood because of we had a lot of neighbors, a lot of petitions, and it still went through.

But our biggest concerns are spacing, noise, and keep in mind I'm living below um short-term rental, which has been kind of dormant lately with a pool, and then two houses down, the one that just got approved, it also has a pool.

And the way our neighborhood is situated, there's retaining walls, so everything echoes.

So noise is a big concern.

And I've called the police on Monaco Circle.

This has been two years ago or more when they were running it since then.

The owner has moved in.

Um, but had to call the police several times.

So how to enforce this distancing requirements, and I know some of you on the committee here have businesses that depend on this, but we also live in a neighborhood where we like to keep the homes where we know our neighbors, and we don't have rows and rows or stacks and stacks of short-term rentals that disrupt with parking and other things such as that.

So if you'll pull some of this language out of the 363, especially on capping or what you can think is possible there.

Well, I won't say a lot, but I've done a little bit of research, and there's some cities that have gotten tired of STRs, and they've outlawed them completely.

We're not asking for that as citizens.

We're asking for something fair where we can all live together.

And that's my comment.

Thank you, Clerk.

Anything else?

Oh, okay, seeing none.

Uh oh, who's coming?

Oh.

Are we on three three or three four?

Three three.

Three point three.

It kind of goes together now.

You'll be back.

Okay.

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

We're gonna get there.

Yeah.

Okay.

So on item 3.3.

Uh okay.

Just three, we're on 3.3 right now.

Implementation of portions.

Consideration of review of what portions of AB363 to recommend for implementation.

That's all they're talking about.

It could include recommend this.

They would like to recommend it, but yeah.

Go ahead.

We're on we're on item 3.3.

And that's uh, so I'm gonna talk about the distancing in that because that I guess that is distancing that I'm and David David Giving, in case you forgot.

Uh, you know, when I talk to people, we've been here for a while.

You know, you've heard my mom's story a million times, you know, it's the same old story, but she she's surrounded by two, and so we see the traffic problems more than anything.

You know, it it's side to side, she can't get out, especially when they stay overnight.

And you know, what if there's an emergency vehicle?

You know, do we want rows and rows and rows of this?

I mean, without some sort of spacing, you could actually have a whole line of cars just for the safety point, just for the safety of the city.

I hope that we could at least look at the the distancing.

The rest of stuff I'm good with.

You guys, you know, what anything else, but that is my number one.

So I would I would hope we could adopt that.

I sounds like from what I hear, Simon says that they'll have our back.

If we see if we I was gonna say let's go less, I was gonna even just go so we could skip one, but if we can do the 660 feet, uh that would just make a lot of the side happy.

A lot of this this side that that isn't even here.

We can get more in if we need to, if that would help, so you could hear more voices.

Thank you, Dave.

Okay, any other public comment?

So on capping the number.

We're gonna have a separate item on capping that's next.

Thank you.

Okay, discussion.

I asked a question to the attorney um at our last meeting about the 660 feet.

Would you be able to read that back?

What I asked and what what its response was?

Give me one second.

Okay.

You want to get you want to take a minute or do can I take other comments or are you guys absolutely you guys can well just pause or go ahead, Dave?

Um, so it in this uh in this uh what portions do we recommend for implementation?

Um is this uh like an actionable item where we're gonna make a motion to include certain items because again, I'm kind of in favor of we look at it all right and we consider the whole the whole section of this as we go through it.

Um I just feel like this is a redundant section with some of the other things that we're gonna talk about.

Um is it like if we if we say I just don't want to I don't like to be kind of feel like I'm pigeonholed into saying, okay, now that we're gonna include these three sections or four sections, like there's there's other stuff there.

Like I'm I'm I'm a big proponent of the application and enforcement process that we're doing down in five.

Um, and so this one here just feels a little redundant to the next three items that we're gonna look at as well.

Okay, and uh have you incorporated many of those things into the draft that you created?

I did.

So I I put that draft out last week, hoping that everybody would have a chance to kind of read it and go through it.

Okay, um, all of all of 363 was considered when I put this in there, and then after um after hearing the attorney and stuff like that, uh it was it wasn't tweaked, but there I have reason for some reasons why, but I I just feel like we're we're gonna talk about the cap, we're gonna talk about distancing.

I guess that one's not really in the agenda here, but um I just don't I don't know why we can't consider all of three six three as we go through um versus discussing what portions we're gonna take and not take.

I think it needs to all be considered.

Did I miss distancing in your draft?

No, you did not.

It's because it's not there.

It's okay.

Well, there's there's it there's a comment about it at the very last.

It's two 1315.

Yep.

Good.

So it's and I and I'll I'll make a comment about that when if the if and when the time comes.

This item 3.3, in my opinion, is where we need to talk about distancing because it is we're asking the question is what is recommended.

And as an example, in the draft that you created, which is very well done, by the way.

Thank you for the work you did there.

It it does not include it.

And so I'm feeling like we need to have that conversation about whether or not it should be included in the draft that you created that we should consider that's the next agenda item.

I it it it well, no, the next agenda item is is capping.

Which is this it's not the same.

Capping and distancing are two different things.

It was one or the other, yeah.

All right, I'm ready whenever you are.

Okay, so Vanessa, your question is getting answered here.

Go.

All right.

So last meeting during discussion of item 3.2, Commissioner Gabing asked, so it would it be appropriate to maybe consider what is in AB 363 if we're going to recommend a spacing requirement with 660 feet, since that's already uh mandated to follow it.

But if this is where we fall back on AB 363, would that help protect the city?

And then our city attorney Adam Anderson answers.

So that would be that would appear to be a reasonable approach.

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

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

You guys can have that discussion, you can decide, but I can see it making sense that well, we're going to have to live by this in 2030, so we should adopt it now, or do we have to change everything again?

Do we just get on top of the ball, or we we don't like that at all?

We're going to do something different to the last minute until we have to live by that.

Thank you.

That's kind of my point here, is that that is directly from I think listening to Simon, listening to the city attorney.

I think that's the best approach for our spacing requirements.

Now, I know that's not a popular opinion among um the committee members.

I think a lot of our citizens would be happy with that.

Um I believe our short-term rental owners have some hesitations, and I I understand that's going to have a big impact.

My original recommendation was maybe starting and phasing into that distance, but if ultimately it is it puts the city in a better position to just adopt 660 feet for legal purposes, um, then that would probably be the best approach.

However, I also am open to recommending a phased-in plan where we reach 660 feet by 2030.

And um, you know, so if if we need to have a discussion and possibly a compromise, that might be something um we can do.

I did put together a little um something about uh spacing and the and I it was emailed out to everybody, but once again, if if it this to stay on top of the agenda item, and if we're specifically talking about AB 363, I think it would be reasonable to recommend the city to adopt the 660 feet distance.

Okay, so uh Dave, this is one of the reasons I wanted to do this is because in your draft that you created for us to consider, it does not talk about that, or does it?

It already does the last item in that.

So it's the last it's the last point of of this, and let I know that once the city is officially 25,000, um, whether that be next year when the state certifies it or when the US census says we have to, we have a state law that says exactly what it's gotta be 660 feet, 200 or 2500 feet from the hotel resorts.

Um and so it doesn't matter what my opinion is on distancing or all that, eventually the state law is gonna come in and say what the city has to do anyway.

Um where I'm hesitant on the distancing and making rules right now is one, there's lawsuits out there that seem to have a lot to do with distancing.

Um, and so I I really think believe the city needs to watch those and take those into consideration before we recommend that they make a rule, whether it be shorter, the same, or equal.

Um there's lobbyists out there right now trying to lobby the state to change some of these specifically with AB 363 because mesquite is a different kind of community than Las Vegas and County and all of that.

Um and looking at it big picture, uh Premier put a map together last time, it shows every single one of our short-term rentals, and they are clustered together.

I agree, they're all in certain neighborhoods, and the reason why they're in certain neighborhoods is because we're very, very limited as a city as to where those short-term rentals are allowed to be because of HOA restrictions and all of that.

So I I get the mess that the city's kind of in now with them all being clustered together, and it's there's a reason why, and they're only allowed in certain neighborhoods.

So investors have come in and bought and put their short-term rentals in neighborhoods that allow for them.

Um, and so with everything that's going on right now with lawsuits, um, with not knowing when we're going to adopt 25,000, um, I'm hesitant to recommend a distancing at this time because I want to see the the city master plan community come in as well, because as soon as we hit that 25,000, whether it be state certified or US sense certified, and we have 2,500 feet from the Eureka and the the Casablanca, all of those short-term rentals that are within 2500 feet, there's no more.

Um, a community that's 48% short-term rentals right now, and a great community for short-term rentals can no longer the city will be tied, they will not be allowed to to have have licenses in those areas anymore.

And that will change the dynamic of that of that neighborhood.

Um, and so I want to see the city's master plan community sit and take this exact same conversation into consideration because if they allow another casino to come in, um, where do short-term rentals go?

And I believe there's a big part of short-term rentals that are involved in this community.

Um, the and and and on the other side of it, I I work with people.

I have a client that calls me weekly to complain about the short-term rental that's next to them.

And so I I hear it all the time.

I work with investors that buy short-term rentals, and so I I sit down and I have this conversation on a regular basis.

I'm I'm trying so hard to be the perfect politician and make everybody happy and be right in the middle.

Um, but I get it.

Some people are not gonna be happy no matter what we decide.

I struggle right now making a recommendation to the city for distancing and capping until at the state level and the county level, these lawsuits are resolved.

And and there, I in this proposal that I put forth, it basically says that.

I know that one day we will have distancing and caps that have to come into place.

It's there.

Whether I like it, whether I agree with it or not, it doesn't matter.

They will be there.

But I think the city needs to one at a master plan level consider where do short-term rentals go in the future.

Um, because as soon as we put distancing and and caps into place, it affects the whole town.

So master plan community, where do they go from here?

Um, and and that's it.

And another thing, we're picking on short-term rentals, and I get it, that's why we're here.

But how many plumbers licensing running from home are allowed to be side by side?

How many landscapers have home licenses that are allowed to run their business from their home?

And there's no distancing.

So we're gonna we're picking on one industry.

When we say we're gonna distance them, we're picking on one industry.

But what about all the other industries that run from their home?

We're told that residential neighborhoods are not meant to be for uh uh not what's the word, it's for making money and running um running businesses out of them.

But there's piles of businesses that run out of homes all the time, and we're not capping distances between all those other industries.

We're just picking on one.

And so I'm I'm trying to be very open-minded in my recommendations to take into consideration the big picture of mesquite, not and I know I'm just here for short-term rentals.

Um but as we make these recommendations, I want the master plan committee to really also consider what's gonna happen when we hit 25,000.

Does that that does that make sense is why I didn't put it in there?

You're back.

Well I just it doesn't I just have one thing real quick is that I I have real estate, I've been in real estate forever.

We have a large property management, we don't do short-term.

I stay in in short-term rentals or wherever I go.

I'm not against them.

We have a community, half of the people here I built in a single family residential area, and at that time they were short-term were not allowed.

At some point, there's people there that we have to protect that want.

I don't have anything, I just don't like the transient traffic in and out next door to me.

But is it against the law?

That's but that's why I say we need some distancing.

Now, if there's a plumber on one side and a plumber on the other, I've got businesses all around my yard or my road talk to Simon, but we deserve some respect.

Now I do know some of these neighborhoods now.

Guess what's gonna happen?

You got C C and Rs going now and all these single family ones now, and also lawsuits coming from the other people, the other side, so you have to think about that.

No, and that's and that's why I'm a that's why I kind of left the distancing and everything out of this proposal right now, is because no matter I don't I don't if we put distancing in there, we're gonna this it it's setting the city up right now for for lawsuits until this other stuff is resolved and the the court.

That's not what the attorney said.

Okay, let's hang on one second.

Let me clarify one thing.

Go ahead, Clemen.

Although we issue the business license, short-term residential rental is not a business in the residential area.

So the problem that caused the entire AB 363 and then cities short-term rental residential code is because it became businesses.

Residential area is not for business.

So the our code is clear.

The intent is to assist the owner to maintain their property.

So they they somehow have to move out and they still have mortgage.

They need to maintain, they cannot sell it, they need to maintain the property, so they may utilize that property for the short-term residential rental, so they can get some money for the maintenance and mortgage purposes.

It is it is not supposed to be the businesses.

Where does it say that in the it is in the code?

Where I where does it say in the code that short short-term rentals are not a business because they have to do it?

Basically, in the zoning that is uh that is allowed by the United States.

Why do they have to get a business license if they're not a good idea?

Listen, there's a zoning, and zoning is based on the residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, and residential uses is basically for the residential purposes, not the main uh businesses.

So landscapers aren't supposed to run their businesses out of their home.

If I can interject real quick on home occupations, we have three levels of home occupations that we have to go through and review each home occupation application.

You have no impact, minor impact, and major impact.

And we have to review that handyman, plumbers, that kind of stuff.

They're gonna fall under a minor impact because they're not changing the character of their neighborhood, they're not having a high flow of traffic come to the home and things like that.

So that's why this is a little different from short-term rentals.

Okay, no, that makes sense.

So um basically other businesses doesn't uh doesn't have any visitors.

Okay, you will go out, they are the residents, they work inside, they're getting getting the telephone core, they move out, they work outside.

So inside the residential area, it is not supposed to be the business.

Now it became the business.

That's the problem.

So that's why state initiated AB 363 and the city, although city had the city we allowed this, it became more severe, getting CBier.

So that's why you are here to make have a discussion about it, not to delay stuff, it is to amend, take a look at it and listen to the people and what we need to actually change it.

And we need we need to keep our focus on those details rather than just because of this, we cannot do it.

But there is a framework in 363, and think about it why it's there.

Whereas there is no distancing requirements for other home occupations because home occupation that we don't allow any auditional traffic, and this one might so that there are some differences, and uh that that's why I'm I have to be here.

Okay, no, I appreciate it.

Thank you.

than just because of this we cannot do it but there is a framework in 363 and think about it why it's there whereas there is no distancing requirements for their home occup uh home occupations because home occupation that we don't allow any auditional traffic and this one might so that there are some differences and that that that's why I'm I have to be here okay I appreciate it thank you for one thing that I would do I'm hold on okay everybody hold on hold on Simon I have a question for you okay I don't know if this would work so nobody latch on to it I'm just asking Simon would this committee have the ability to implement distancing requirements for non-HOA areas since those communities did not expressly agree to have them there would that be an option that they have or do you think that would cause problems and that would just be short term right because eventually we're still going to have to have the 660 exactly once the state it'd be a bit of a phasing like Vanessa mentioned but in those areas where it's not I'm actually right uh I'm not ready to answer right now because uh I need to take a look at and uh see other perspective to other side of it uh so uh it it's an idea yeah I'm not telling uh it's a bad idea it's a good idea uh just uh I need to take a look at it and think carefully before I uh give the answer okay uh now did who else wanted to I did okay uh go ahead so one thing that as I'm listening to everybody talk is um the question I want to pose is and I really like how Amy had keyed it up in the very beginning as far as um addressing because I I understand and it's obvious on the Hill spacing I feel like the spacing the there's several lawsuits happening all throughout the United States currently right now and it's related the biggest um common denominator in regards to short term renting is due to the spacing and everything that it violates.

And so with that said I'm kind of just thinking in my head is what if if the it was on either side of you or two houses down or whatever it was but if the operators had the some of the things I've heard people say was like the lawn wasn't taken care of the operators had the lawn taking care of the operators had the cars that could fit in the driveway if they were they were taken care of well and if they then would that still be an issue if there wasn't the noise to complain about or there wasn't the traffic to complain about would that still be an issue and that's why I think with these cars and I understand the concept like you want to know your neighbor but there's also lots of neighbors that even if you live at the current residence that you never get a chance to know just because coming back to going back to um the concept of if they don't uh if they do have the issues with the noise or they do have the issues with the cars not being parked in the driveway then that could go down to our complaint department where one strike two strikes three strikes you're out and that can get rid of the bad operators long term you know because if if we if we do these other other every other house if the uh bad operators over here bad operators over here it's still gonna cause the issues so I think it really goes back down to the operator if we had the key operators in place and we had the punishments in place if they were not good operators then I I really that's just kind of the question No I I think what it gets down to is your transient neighbors it doesn't matter my neighbors have junkie cars I may have a junkie car I they're my neighbors I know them I know their habits I know who comes and goes I know who days sleeps who doesn't sleep it we just some people we buy in single family residence you know and I was the other side of town didn't even exist when I moved here and they wouldn't you know it was definitely yeah this is you know as a single family residential Hawk Ridge is built in hotel condo and that's why they have they're allowed short terms they had you know spaces for that and like Simon said you know if you need to rent your house out your you know you know that's your home that's fine but when you own three or four you can it's a business and it keeps hearing it's not lucrative but we just don't want transient traffic around us.

So your issue is not necessarily the traffic your main thing is if everything was perfect your issue is that you want to know your your next door neighbor on either side there's I don't mind even if there is a uh a short term right next door to me I don't want one across the street or behind or next door I think they should be spaced out I don't hate them I don't like them I just think that they need to be spaced out instead of clustered like they're becoming because if you're in a non-HOA there you go I just I just feel like that goes right and we can move on to the next topic but based on all the lawsuits I've been reading right now is it's treating one house different than the other house different that's where a lot of these lawsuits are coming in place.

But see there's gonna be a lawsuit from me because of my property rights have been taken away you know as far as the neighborhood so you're afraid of the lawsuits one way or the other we got to move on from this everybody's afraid of a lawsuit but it's just an excuse to to prolong it.

Okay.

Also can I just ask a question like can you give us specific lawsuits?

Like I meant a lot of lawsuit talk is being thrown out but we need to have specific lawsuits.

I mean I know there's the one going on in Las Vegas and I know there are a lot of lawsuits going on.

And I would I know a lot of people utilize AI and I mean I think that's amazing but just be sure that if you do do that you're also double checking that it hasn't hallucinated I mean I'm not sure if you're how much you've looked into that but it happens all the time when it comes to especially referencing court cases.

So I would just recommend that you really look into the lawsuits that are going on, because I did, I looked at the the violation of the Fifth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and there's a couple interesting things that I found with those, and also that they've already the the court that it's already the precedent has already been set.

And I do have those specific lawsuits that I could email to the committee if you guys would like to take a look at them.

But a lot of it comes down to how the city goes about implementing their enforcement, their policy, their application, making sure people have a right to due process.

The spacing issue, it doesn't violate their 14th amendment right because you're not taking away their only opportunity, their only opportunity to rent or to make money or generate money, they still have two other ways.

They can long-term rent that property and they can also own or occupy that property.

So if they took away their rights completely, then that would be a violation.

But because they don't completely take away their rights to being able to utilize their property, it doesn't violate that.

And the court has that that's actually happened.

That case has been, and like I said, I would be happy to send those, but um if there's specific lawsuits that you want to bring up, I think you know, I'm open to that discussion, but I would just like to know which specific ones they are so I can do the research as well on those.

Okay, hold on.

Now, that's fine.

And one of the big ones, of course, is the Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association versus Clark County, which happens to pertain directly to our county and us.

So let me do this.

We're gonna be here all night if we keep this this going.

So let me do this.

I'm gonna throw a motion on the table and let's either kill it or modify it or come up with another one here.

Don't anybody second this until we have had discussion.

I move that we recommend amendments to Title II, chapter 13, not any distancing standards until such time as legally defensible standards can be defined.

That's basically what you wrote.

You that's basically what you said.

But our but our discussion is what are we recommending for implementation?

That's right.

Short distancing.

But it but are we are we not gonna recommend any other things for we might, but I wanna I I think distancing is the elephant in the room.

Can we have more than can we have more than one motion on a agenda item?

This is just a consideration of what to review, not what to recommend.

Right, right, Marco?

Right.

Um, yes and no.

So I mean the motion can be modified several times to say which sections of AB 363 the committee would like to recommend to counsel, not just specifically the spacing, but others as well.

So I in your in your motion, I would recommend that you add other items from from like application process, enforcement process, finding process, like those are all things that I think we need to include.

I understand it, and that's built into what you wrote here.

So my point of this is that if we're gonna this is the big issue.

This distancing issue is the is probably the biggest one we're gonna deal with here.

I agree.

Fair enough.

But but the agenda item that we're discussing is what portions of it are we going to recommend.

Right.

And your motion just focuses on distancing.

I think it needs to be broader.

I okay, if what but I can't make a giant list and have it.

That's why I didn't like this agenda item because we have to make a giant list is what this agenda item is.

So I'm trying to drive us to some decisions here.

That's what I'm trying to do.

That's all I'm trying to do.

So I want to take that up.

Marco, I I I agree with what you're trying to do, but it it then just says all we're recommending for.

No, I'm not I'm not sure.

But that's what your motion says is we're recommending distances.

Okay, how about this?

Among other things, among other things among other things that may come up.

Marco, you want to win among other things that may come up.

Um I move that our recommended amendments to Title II, chapter 13 not establish any distancing standards until such time as legally defensible standards can be defined.

I make a request before there's a second on this.

Of course.

Um we have yet as a committee to flip through this and see what you do in Delhi.

Can I recommend or request that we maybe table this until the next meeting and then say, yes, we think some of these definitions are pertinent?

We need to look at those.

Hey, this has five authorizations.

That's something we want to look at implementing.

This has an overnight cap.

Let's look at implementing that distancing, and then go through it, and then we can come up with one big list of things you do and do not like.

That's just my request.

Okay.

Uh because I'm I'm trying to start that list here.

And I'm happening, I'm I'm starting it with the probably the biggest issue on the table.

Fair enough, and it's all I'm trying to do here.

So you're are you talking about what the the draft that Dave wrote, or are you talking about the actual words?

Yeah, the actual oh the actual assembly bill.

Oh wow.

So if I also make for a little bit of structure for a future meeting, I mean we can add 27 items to the next agenda, going section one through 27, whether we're gonna you guys are gonna recommend that to council or not.

Yeah.

All right.

What's what's the okay?

So I I threw a motion out there, and obviously I'll kill that.

So that's just fine with me again.

I'm trying to get us focused.

We're spending a lot of time talking, you guys, and we're not doing anything.

So we gotta do stuff.

I make a motion that we table the agenda item 3.

And um when we and bring it back to go through this item by item and say yay or nay on it.

Wait, so if we table it, it's gonna bring it back up exactly as it is.

So maybe do we want to well I would I would I would I like it the way it is the way Dave did this.

I like this one, but um, but we can because I get we can't we'd have to go all the we'd have to go through it right now and say yes, no, yes, no.

We may be 363.

No, but we're yeah, Dave is a revision.

Oh, days revision, it's online, it's in the packet online.

You you I tried to download everything I could beside just there's a copy, so all right.

Okay, so Marco, what do you what tell me go what uh commissioner haffeen made up motion if anyone would like to second that or or not?

But um I just feel it would also give up the public a chance to discuss on each section, yeah.

Um to give a chance to vote to tell the committee whether what they like in that section, and then this the committee can vote on whether to recommend that or not.

All right, but that is 27 sections to go through in that assembly bill.

Yeah, okay, get your pillows.

There's a lot that's not all of them are gonna be applicable.

So I think don't you think we just leave it as one big one and they can do, hey, we want to look at these items, or would you prefer it the other way?

Well, I haven't I have an idea I just want to throw out there, and you guys can squash it, feel free to.

But I don't I think we sh whatever wording I need to use of them, but just to throw an AV 363 and not even consider it, and then we can implement whatever we want.

But I going through this whole entire list, we've already spent four different times getting absolutely nothing done.

And so I don't even think we need to go through the AB363, just delete that off of our amendment, and then we can look at this thing they put together and then add stuff in that we want to add stuff in without having to go through this, it's gonna take us another 17 years.

I don't like them that the thing is uh uh state AB 363 has been researched by their uh planners, and they it was proposed as it was.

So if we accept some part of it that can be supported, again, 660 uh fit distancing is uh urban uh the uh theory that is a walkable distance, which by the way has been used for the urban uh block distancing.

Uh so like you guys mentioned that uh New York City and other cities actually used it.

Uh so it can be actually expanded to the quarter mile if we are not we are more rural, and uh we want to use more relaxed, but we cannot actually reduce it because the reducing can be happened open uh only uh when there is a more density in that area.

So um I recommend uh everyone, I didn't we can leave you.

It it is actually uh uh section 14 through 27 is applicable to the city.

So uh we can leave you and uh in the end you there's committee think that uh nothing is uh uh applicable, we don't like it, and we want to go some other direction.

That's fine, but uh I don't want you to throw away what has been actually proved and what what is what we can uh defend with it.

Well, I think a lot of the stuff that Dave put together in this packet.

If you if and I know maybe somebody hasn't had time to review it, but I think this incorporates a lot of it.

So I'm just trying to convince it.

So what I'm making a recommendation is uh committee members uh read it through.

It's not that long.

I I believe me, it's it's not that complex too.

And then Steph will make uh uh presentation on the screen, and then we will go one line by line, one section by section, and say yes or no, and have discussions and uh go for go with uh 3.3.

Uh so what what kind of uh section we want to uh consider or not consider.

That was kind of like the motion I made was just to go through this next time.

Yeah, yeah, that that that is the same thing.

So Dave's and then that that will be the efficient way to go through it rather than just uh kind of talking about this and that and throw it away and okay.

I think Natal and I are on the same page for maybe the first time.

Yay, celebration here.

But so date here, and I would like to make this motion.

Just tell me how exactly I can make it.

Hang on, we have one motion on the table already.

So if you're gonna make a second, we've got to hang on.

What's your motion?

Okay, I make a motion that we look at uh Dave's revision of the um the pros, his pro's clean right chapter of the revision of the chapter 213.

Go through the ones that he's got go through this and accept it or say no to the ones like that next week.

All right.

Yeah, I like that.

And then is there a hang on, hang on.

If you like it, sorry.

Well right, go.

Discussion, go.

Okay.

So I would like to I would like to do this in re in replacement of having to go through the A B363 because Dave already took a lot of time going through this.

I feel like this is we can add stuff, we can delete stuff if it's too harsh.

Um and then uh I I think that would just be much because we I and I've read it, and I think you have incorporated much of 363, and and and so that's fair.

It's a rewrite.

Basically, you've drafted a rewrite of our ordinance and incorporated uh components of 366.

That's what Dave did on this.

Yes, right.

This is I I re I think that's a great idea too.

So 3.3 is basically done.

We've we've Dave went through it and did for it, did it, and we like it.

And so we kind of did 3.3, so we don't have to table it.

We can just be done with it.

Right.

So next week we can just say, okay, now we're gonna go through this revision that we've and make sure we accept it.

Okay, I we don't have to wait until next week.

That's actually an item today.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, okay.

It is we have that item on here.

So okay, hang on.

Now let me just say this.

3.3.

We've we've hashed that out.

I'm just wanting to point out that the reason that I even approached the idea that we should talk about distancing is because it is not in Dave's yes, it is well okay.

I can I can I ask you.

I think you know what I mean.

Okay.

Can I ask a question?

I'll be happy to abandon uh the or we can well 3.3.

Have we are we done with 3.3?

Vanessa, did you have something you want to say?

Yeah, so are we making a motion on 3.3 right now?

Or what what I mean?

A motion was made, it wasn't secondary.

The body can choose to take no action on this item.

Well, you were you were getting ready to do that.

Well, I would call that motion.

We just made another motion.

We always show the motion to that we table 3.3 then.

No, we we're done with 3.3.

You don't want to table it because then we'll done with it.

Talk about it again.

I no why are we not reviewing it section by section?

Well, that's what is the other motion would be that we um go next week.

It'll be uh an agenda item that we go through Dave's review.

But that's Dave's.

I think we need to go through AB363.

I like Jesselin's recommendation.

I think um you know, we really need to go through A B363.

I feel strongly about that.

So basically we can table it.

Uh it says consideration of review of what portions of AB 363 to recommend for implementation.

So you guys can do the homework read it, and then uh this decide what to go O or X, and then is this under the same title?

We can come and Step will make a presentation, put it on the screen, and go one line by line, and then you uh the uh committee can consider and then review what portions of AB 363 to recommend for implementation.

So that's kind of what Dave did here.

So it is the same thing.

So you can table it so uh the you can have the same discussion, but with the different uh details next time.

I would like to make a motion.

Okay, hang on, we have a motion.

Okay, hang on.

If can I just interject real super quick?

The reason I'm requesting that we go through AB363 is because as a staff member Azure License Clerk, I think there is stuff in A B363 that everybody has brought up here in one way or another, but you have not dressed it, it's not in this.

There's definitions that we should be moving over that are not in here.

We haven't done anything in three weeks.

Okay, hang on, finish.

That gives us a staff the ability to say, hey, what about this?

How are you guys feeling about that?

Do you like that?

Do you not like that?

And we can go over all those things.

Timeout.

Have you read Dave's revision?

Dave's is outstanding.

And it's good.

But I think there's stuff we can add to it too that are directly in AB363.

But we could each go home and go do our own homework on AB363.

And then if decide we want to add it to Dave's and we can add it to Dave's.

I think that's just a way better use of time than having to go through all this stuff.

It's of time.

No.

This is not a waste of time.

It takes time.

That's the thing.

We have to spend the time.

This is a very serious committee, and it's a huge obligation of our time.

And I know we're all busy.

I'm busy.

You guys are busy.

We are all very busy.

And so maybe it's just we need to get more efficient.

I think breaking it down is really responsible and spreading these meetings out a little bit further.

We can talk about that later.

But it's not a waste of time.

We are just not being efficient with our time.

And it takes time.

I'm sure trying.

Okay.

Now can I make a suggestion?

Yes.

We do what Jocelyn says to do.

I have an alternate suggestion at this point.

Why don't Dave and I meet one on one, go through AB 363 and his revision, and we can bring that back to you guys to review.

How do you feel about that, Dave?

And that's what I was going to ask you is can you can you specifically tell us things that as a staff member and uh maybe if is Nick the code enforcement guy there?

Like like these ultimately you guys are the ones that are going to enforce this.

You're gonna go through the application process.

You're gonna be the ones that enforce it.

Um, you know, we we've heard from you guys, but your your insight is is really the most valuable.

We all have really passionate biases as to why we want this and don't want this.

Um you guys have to, and you'll have your biases as to what makes it easier to enforce and not a force, but I think your guys' opinion and your definitions and all that stuff is really I agree.

Like that's what I was gonna say.

Can you just give us a list or can we?

I would if you want to meet up this week, this next week, we can go over your revision and then see if there's anything else we can implement, maybe 363, and we can bring that back to the committee for review.

I would also like to be there because I feel like I have a different, you know, like there's some things that I think that Dave and I have different opinions on.

And if I was able to be there, I feel like maybe that would be a little more balanced with um, you know, although I I only have so much time, so uh sounds like we're creating a subcommittee of the subcommittee.

It can only be three of us, three.

We can't we can only have two three well, we could have three, actually.

Yeah, three.

Um I'm agreement.

I agree with Vanessa.

And um Jesslyn, if you want to have one more from the committee.

I mean, it is it's a big commitment of time.

Like I get that, but it would be nice just to have a little bit more of uh like at least two people there, just as a committee, I I would appreciate them going through that and bringing it to us.

And I I don't mind that Vanessa and Dave are there.

I think they both bring great um equal points to the I'm willing to take that on to save you guys some time if it's helpful.

So you're okay, so we're gonna have a little subcommittee here.

Dave, Vanessa, well, and if they did anybody else, yeah, then I'll do it be a third person.

Yeah, you want to be the you want to add on, you know.

Sorry, who else?

Amy, you wanted to get I'll do whatever you need to do.

Who did you say you wanted to be on it?

Who who who wants to get together and be a part of this?

Better yet, who wants to make the motion to make a subcommittee?

I do not need to.

You want to make a motion for that purpose?

One of you guys should make a motion.

I'll make a motion to create a subcommittee to work with Jesselin so we can get some things.

Okay, and who's line by line.

Fine.

And who are the members of that?

Yeah, who are the members of the subcommittee?

Okay, with Jesselyn, Dave.

I'll volunteer to be the third and Amy.

Amy, because you oh, yourself?

Yeah, just because I have a lot of stuff to add.

I feel like that's too many people.

I think we need to stick to two, so it's been the good.

Then Dave and Jocelyn, that's fine.

No, I I would like to be on it.

If Amy's not gonna be on it, then I would like to be the volunteer to be on it to make it three.

What's your motion?

Your motion is to maybe we all should just do it together then.

If that's if we all would like to have input, then maybe we all need to do it together.

Okay, so we have a motion to create a subcommittee, and the subcommittee is com is uh is uh Vanessa, Dave, and Amy?

Is that what you're Jelyn?

Just one.

Yeah, and she can have one more of you.

We can have one originally I can help if you need me.

Yeah, okay.

Do you want are you okay?

You said yourself.

You said that's a good one.

Amy, if you don't want to do it, then I said I would do it.

Go ahead.

Okay, then I'll do it.

Okay, so now do you want to amend your motion so that we know make a motion to create a subcommittee with Jesselin, Dave, Vanessa, and Sherry to discuss implementing AB 363 with the city code line by line, and bring it back to us.

Okay, is there a second to that?

Well, come on.

Anyone can second this.

You're you're the one you want to second this.

Okay.

So moved and seconded to create uh the committee to meet separately with Jesselin and and basically meld these things together to create one policy to bring back to us for consideration.

And the committee is made up of Vanessa, Dave, and Sherry.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

We have public there.

Well, public comment.

Well, we this we had public comment at the beginning of the item.

We rearranged.

Okay, there's a motion in a second.

I have stated what it is.

All is in favor say aye.

Aye.

Is there any opposed?

Me.

I'll go with I.

Okay.

So we have uh sorry, who was the opposed?

Me, Natalie.

Okay.

Natalie's opposed and the rest.

Okay, so this motion passes, so we'll do that.

That'll take care of a considerable amount of our agenda here.

Thank you.

Okay.

So now well, actually, does that is that uh resolve 3.3?

Yes.

Yep.

Okay, so now we'll move on to 3.4 discussion and possible action of possible cap on short-term rentals.

Public discussion, public uh comment.

Doug Hansel.

I would love for you folks to put a cap on them because there's nine homes on my block.

Three are uh winter residents, three are full-time residents, and three are rentals.

So one third of my block is rental properties, and I challenge Kim.

I don't know if that's under this topic, but for Simon to say the short-term rentals are not a business, is really kind of a inaccurate statement.

I don't know any of you people up here who are run rental properties for a loss.

You run it for a profit, correct?

Nobody's talking.

I don't have any, so I don't I don't you use it for an income.

If you're running them for a profit for your investor, for you, for whoever, you expect to make a profit.

Okay, go date.

This is public comment time.

Just tell us what you think, and we don't want to get into a debate with the members, but please go ahead.

Tell us what what you'd like us to do.

Anyway, I think you need to put a cap on these numbers specifically go location-wise, because one third of my block does not need to be transient.

Very good.

Very good.

Thank you, Doug.

Other comments regarding capping.

Okay, seeing none discussion.

I I just I think what um this gentleman here, I think what Simon said was that it's it's not a business for your your personal home.

You're the the one that you reside in.

You know, that's what he's that was what he was talking about on the zoning.

I understand.

Okay.

Comments about capping.

When when I brought when I brought this up, um, my biggest thing was you know, to to keep it, you know, just an even kill town and not turn it into a Sedona or Bonson and Brownson or whatever, you know.

I just something like that.

Um, I've kind of turned to where I think the the spacing is going to take more better care of it than the capping.

Because right now we're, you know, a lot of the suggestions that I've read have been, you know, from one and a half to to maybe three to five percent on the cap.

Um when I look at it right now, we've got about 230 um registered legal um short-term rentals, and that's um just under that's under one, it's about one percent right now.

So if there were to be a cap, I you know, I would think that the one percent would always be good, but I think we either go with cap or space, but not both.

So I I don't if we're gonna do the spacing, then I don't mind the cap, but that's if but a one percent cap if somebody's interested.

Other comments regarding capping.

Is do we have a cap for multifamily residents like the Hawkridge condos like that AB 363 says 10%, correct?

In a in a uh like a multi-family type community.

Are you asking are multifamily communities capped or are the vacation rentals inside those communities capped?

Vacation rentals inside those communities.

It does I thought I thought there was a 10% in AB 363 there is, but not in our current okay.

No, that's right.

I was asking about 363.

If if they so when we when we hit the 25,000 and 363 takes effect, um those multifamilies will have a a cap no matter what, but I do agree with you, Natalie.

I think any kind of distancing is definitely going to reduce the amount of short-term rentals.

Again, that's why I want to see the master plan community deal with this as well, because um the city will go 10 years without issuing another license once that distancing comes into effect because it'll I think that the presentation last week dramatically shows what that will do to our short-term rental community.

Okay, other comments.

Okay, Natalie, this was your item.

Did you want to make a motion?

No, it was just kind of you know, a possible motion.

I think I just kind of voiced my opinion this time, but I don't think there's a motion to be made at this time.

I agree with um Natalie and Dave.

I think that um as far as the the capping goes with the distancing, I think that'll kind of regulate self-regulate itself, it'll be a byproduct.

Um, and capping's kind of interesting because of the way our city, like we have so many hoa um, so they're really concentrated in certain areas.

So I'd almost be like if we did do a cap, we'd have to look at just like the condos and the way they're set up, like it's a 10% cap on that area.

So I don't think that would solve like back to back.

And I think that's a lot of the concerns people have is just maybe being trapped between two of them or having them side by side.

And per a cap wouldn't solve that.

So I think it would make more sense to go um like to not do anything with the caps on STRs.

I agree.

The spacing is the the big is the big item, the big elephant at the same time.

So do you want to make is there uh an action item here to not put capping in place?

Is that what you're I think we're just just just gonna let it die?

Well, what you you so there's no you don't want to have any action on this item?

Does this as a discussion or fine or that's that sounds good?

Okay, so if we did do this though and say there's no caps, then would that eliminate the caps on the condominiums?

Like what that wouldn't have anything to do with those recommendations if we decide we want to or don't want to.

I mean, it I think 10% is so significant, it's gonna disrupt the Skyhawk and these other places so much.

I I agree we need to like have a plan on and how that's gonna work out.

So no, this was just brought for discussion and possible action if we felt necessary, so it's just a discussion item.

Okay, okay.

So on item 3.5, there is no so I'm sorry, on uh on item 3.4 having to do with discussion and possible action of uh possible cap on STRs, there is no action by the committee.

Okay, we'll move on to 3.5 discussion and possible action of application process and enforcement procedures.

Do you expect that this will be covered in your commit your subcommittee to bring this forward, Dave?

Um, yeah, it'll be covered in that.

Um, but if you look at what was uh uh put forth, um, probably the biggest overhaul on uh the current city code is application and enforcement.

And I think um I think it's been expressed here several times.

Um enforcement is probably our our biggest issue.

Um if we make a whole bunch of new rules and the city doesn't enforce them, we haven't solved anything.

If they're not enforcing the rules we have, then what guarantee do we have that they're gonna enforce new rules that we make up?

So that's why uh I think enforcement was one of my biggest um items that I wanted to address is somehow encourage the city to enforce the rules.

Okay, uh I need to have public comment time on this.

Public comment Doug.

Doug Hansel earlier I mentioned the fact that you guys know October 18th, the it got turned down on the fourth, it was brought up because of a possible lawsuit.

And on the 18th, it was passed.

My problem is that rental short-term rental properties was issued a permit on the 18th of November.

I picked up a copy of the first page of the license permit several days ago.

And the information on the front page is still blank.

Covering contact person.

And when I called a member of the city administration, I was told, don't worry about it, just call the police.

But everybody up here is saying, oh, call your contact.

Yeah, an agent, they'll fix it.

But who do I call if I don't have a number?

I call the police.

And the police come out and will or will not do anything about it.

So I just understand why the permit, and there were other stipulations on a letter approving the license on the 18th to correct certain things.

And as far as I know, it's not been corrected.

They would have required major manpower and work to meet those codes.

I haven't seen that.

And I uh would her I would love to see code enforcement go to some of these places and find out what's really going on.

Okay.

Um I don't know how you're gonna enforce it if it starts out unenforceable with out the city requiring proper information included in the applications.

Thank you.

Thank you, Doug.

I think uh I think that's your you're spot on in terms of what we are trying to accomplish.

And I think we have to take into consideration too, is not all these two, all these 230 other ways like what you said, all these 230 um permits that the permitted ones that we have now.

Not everybody goes through a management company, so they don't have a contact person, but them or the police.

So that that's the thing to like the people that go through the management companies are the ones that are taking care of care about their properties at the all do, but go I realize a lot of them don't go to management companies.

So my bigger second biggest question is how do you know who's running short-term rentals?

Yeah, and that's what we need to do.

And how do you know it's self-reported income from what I heard last your last meeting?

So if my neighbor rents it out for six hundred dollars a night, how does the city know he needs to pay tax on eighteen hundred bucks?

You have no way of knowing.

You know, I'm sure a lot of you people are honest.

You actually write your license numbers on your ads, which I appreciate.

Not everybody does, but not everybody's honest.

Let's be honest.

There's a lot of people out there, and there's a lot of people not even listed.

I would recommend oh, three seconds two seconds, just shut up.

Can I talk?

Go finish that.

Only you though.

Okay, yeah, go ahead.

I appreciate your time too.

Thank you, Doug.

Go.

Um I would like to see the city, and I assume they have this information available, to on their website list all the legal licensed short-term residents.

What do you want to call them?

Short-term vacation rentals.

Yeah.

Okay, because I can tell you for sure.

If I knew all the addresses, I can point out two or three in my neighborhood are running their houses without a license, and I'm sure they're not reporting the income to you guys for tax.

So maybe you can do like a the police, a tip line or whatever for people without licenses that are operating properties.

That's what you do that Jesselin's there for.

Yeah, that's what Jessel's for.

Matter of fact, she had a really good idea, I thought uh one of her ideas that I heard.

She has a lot of great ideas.

One of one of her ideas was that actually the city take the responsibility to notify people that live near short-term rentals rather than leaving that up to the property owner or the owner to do that, which I thought that was a pretty smart idea, but not quite.

We give the list and they would do the mailing.

Oh, you're okay.

But we can provide the list of the people around the area.

Oh, I understand.

Okay, but there is some okay, good.

In other words, there's some effort to make sure we get them all, and that we don't just just have management people doing it, but everybody's required to do that.

Yeah.

You'll see right here, you have a list.

You just look at the list to see who's on it and who's not.

Not online, I will say that.

Um a few years ago, it was something we talked about with the city manager at the time, taking it offline because it became a red flag of these houses might be vacant.

So you can go loot them if you want.

So we took that off the line.

But I how it has an option of looking at it because I know you used to have everybody's business license on there, and then you took them all off.

So if you all are on there still, my all active reports are all on there, and they can sort through them and find them if they wanted to, but I don't put the specific list of vacation rentals on.

However, I do have an email that goes out every month for short-term rentals that are licensed.

And if anybody wants to be added to that list, I can add them to that.

Just send me an email.

Okay, very good.

Any other public discussion?

Public comment.

Okay.

No problem.

It has all we pull it down.

I need your name.

This is Colleen Gleaton.

We get the same list that she's talking about.

And I did suggest to her that maybe we should add a column with the contact phone number too.

And maybe that way when everyone gets that list, say if Christina, my project uh property manager gets a call and says, Hey, do you rent this place out?

I'm having an issue.

She can go, oh wait, I don't, but so and so, here's their phone number, give them a call, or get the list from Jesselin.

And that's something we're working on with our software company, it should be implemented with the next push.

Very good.

That's all.

Thank you, Colleen.

Okay.

Is this gonna be taken care of with our subcommittee?

I think so.

I think you know, unless anybody wants to add anything, I think that the three of us can discuss this and bring it back.

But if there's something in particular, especially if it's not in AB 363, I mean, I know occupancy will be in there.

I think that's something we need to discuss.

I know there's no like limit on children, and that was like something that the city council was like, oh no, like you know, we need to have that for safety, and um then I think we need to address maybe so like the inspection uh for the pools a little bit better, like just looking at what other cities are doing regarding pools, and then every other year inspection is something I was thinking, and I don't know if that's all in AB 363, but uh those are kind of the main ones that are coming to mind right now for me.

Okay, so my question is this this sounds like this is going to be handled by the subcommittee.

Fair enough.

These these questions, you'll sort this out when you guys get together and bring something back.

Yeah, okay, good.

Amy.

Can I share something with uh at least the subcommittee?

I prepared um a bunch of stuff for not only application, but then for also notification of neighbor.

Yeah, I spoke with Jocelyn about it.

And I spoke with colonial and Tara West Management, and it seems like everybody was on board that um the notification of neighbors and contact people would be the first thing that would be helpful to them.

And then the second uh thing, well, the uh a postcard being sent out, like we've talked about before.

Um the front of the postcard would read uh the city of Esquite would like to inform you if the city's not gonna send this out, then you we could require it of the owners.

Um, and it has uh one or two local contact numbers, um, the emergency or emergency and non-emergency on one side of the card, and the other side of the card would be condensed um rules for um for the guests, so that the neighbors would know what kind of a complaint can be actionable by either the owners or or the code enforcement police officer.

And so that's on there for the committee to look at if they're interested.

Um there's there's uh two emails in the back from Terra West and Colonial Supporting that they think that would make a major change in issues that they're seeing in the uh condo communities, and I know I've spoken with Colleen before, and uh she's said the same thing.

Um also there is I talked to Jesselyn about this about in the application process that we could have, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jesselin, uh notarized signed letter by the owner acknowledging um who their response who their contact and response person is and acknowledging that if there is not a 60 minute response, and if it's not available 24-7, that um if we were going to create uh um if uh uh excuse me, fines for the first, second and third response.

Um anyhow.

So you're basically submitting this to the subcommittee to take into consideration as they bring up something for us to all act on.

Is that fair?

Yes, thank you.

So the subcommittee got all that?

Okay.

Sounds good.

Anything else?

Good.

Some of this was uh you had previously distributed, I think, Amy, correct?

I think nope.

Well, the one on um the one from I took me information for the um the notification to the neighbors card from what um we do in our business and what Sherry has done in hers and suggestions from the colonial and terrorist property management.

Okay, so we don't have any.

Do you need an action item on this, Marco?

Here I think we've just no discussion.

So the uh the discussion is I think over.

Anybody else have anything to say?

Okay, item 3.6 consideration of review of amendments title to chapter 13 to recommend to council.

Clearly, this is exactly what we've created a subcommittee to do.

Fair enough.

Okay.

I'm hoping nobody has anything to say about this, but I'll try.

Anybody have anything to say?

Public comment.

Oh my gosh.

I this is awesome.

Okay.

Uh I I have one thing.

I um Corbin here had brought up something regarding taxes and a population.

Was that you decide not to uh state county counts our population as part of our tax law that's gonna get back?

So he he he can't he, he's could you I'm sorry, would you mind stepping up?

He can't uh Doug Doug can't hear you, and I want Doug to hear it.

The microphone, yeah.

I want Doug to hear everything.

So if you're putting Corbin on the spot here, talking about counting the population, yeah.

Step up the mic, we'll all hear you.

Okay, yeah, and talking about counting populations, and I think Simon's actually said this several times, so I'm kind of echoing something he's already um elaborated on.

But it is that when they count our population, that is you know, every the state demographer or so on, that is part of how we get our allocations of tax money, but the town gets that's our new intersections or our new traffic lights and things like that.

So this may or may not be directly connected to 363, but it's something to consider if we start playing around with how they're going to determine the population of our city.

Okay, very good.

Anything else?

Okay, so we'll turn this also over to our short our little subcommittee to Hannah Mair out.

And actually, I think Dave's done quite a bit of that already.

So yeah.

All right.

That's the end of that one.

Item 3.7, consideration of future meeting dates.

Okay, we are obviously gonna have to have at least one more.

Uh, do we want to calendar Marco?

With everything the subcommittee has to do, I would recommend at least two or three weeks from now.

Oh, fine.

That sounds I mean, uh I have of course I would also take Jesselyn's um recommendation to account.

Okay, do you what what pick a date?

I'd like to see at least two more meetings.

Pick a date.

Take a date save sunset.

Pick a date.

Uh well, can I mention reopen for discussion?

Uh yeah, we're open.

So spring breaks coming up, I have a trip planned with my family, and then I would like to be able to get together with subcommittee with enough time.

I think that we need at least and three weeks, like we can have three weeks, like the next meeting to be March 26th, and then maybe continue every week after, every two weeks after for two more, a total of three.

Like, would that work for people?

Or I know I don't know.

Can we like discuss dates and stuff?

What works for the committee?

Yes.

I'm fine with skipping the next two weeks, the 12th and the 19th, and reconvening on the 26th.

That gives us time to put everything together.

I do have other stuff on my lap as well, so that would give us time.

Okay.

Are you suggesting March 26th and then April 12th and 19th?

Is that what you're saying?

I'd like to keep it weekly after we take this two-week break.

That's my so March 26th and then April 2nd and April 9th.

April 2 and 9.

Okay.

Does anybody have any problem with that?

I am okay with you meeting without me, but I will not be here on the 26th.

We could do April 2nd.

If that I don't know if that's too much time, but that would be pushing it out one more week, but I'd be fine with that.

I think um you have you bring a lot of good you know points to the table, and it would be good to have you here, but it's awesome.

Dave, I mean, is it are you gonna be gone before that or after?

Could we do the 25th or the 27th?

Something like that.

Oh, I I uh be I I wasn't sure that we had a choice.

I thought we were stuck to Thursday and we might.

There may be other meetings that are here, right?

Conflict with the clerk's office.

We just have the two of them, so we have to make sure we have one of them here with us.

We have a hard enough time just worrying about ourselves.

Okay, let's keep trying here.

April 2nd.

I'm April 2nd's fine.

Okay, uh April 9th.

Yes.

Okay.

Anybody uh anybody else got just joking?

His was the 20th, his was a okay.

April 2 and April 9.

And with but again, I if if I'm on the subcommittee and and work with them and put a recommendation together for the committee, I I don't have to be able to do that.

I think it's the big one.

I think the second will be the big one.

That's where we're discussing that.

And then if you're not here the ninth, I think it would be and maybe we can be done by April 2nd.

Yes.

Okay, what are the dates?

Oh, I think let's start with the second and the ninth.

If we get to the ninth, we don't get enough done in the second, we can put it on the agenda to extend it one more time.

Fine.

We're we're uh we're recommending that April 2nd and April 9th be our next meeting dates.

And in between now and then, you guys are gonna come up with something we can adopt.

So um is just a point of of legal question.

Is I guess there's only three of us meeting.

I was gonna say, is a subcommittee of a subcommittee like where's the legal?

I just want to make sure that if we're getting together, that we're not I this is way new for me.

I didn't sign up for this, so I didn't realize what I was signing up for.

So I didn't realize that we couldn't talk.

So I just want to make sure that we're putting together a committee that's Marco.

Yes.

So since uh there's six of you, um three of you can meet since four of you would be a quorum.

Correct.

Um, however, I would advise that once those three meet in the subcommittee, no one else, none of the remaining committee members um discuss your opinions individually, because that would create a walk-in quorum.

Got it.

Yeah so wait to hear from the subcommittee until we reconvene again.

Yeah, that's okay, got it.

I think we all understand it.

We all understand what serial committee uh serial meetings are.

We all understand what you know uh what when we would step over the line.

So you three are gonna do a lot of this work.

We're not gonna talk to anybody, and we're gonna be good.

So our next meeting is on April 2nd and then April 9th.

And do we have any public comment on this?

Do we also want to discuss time?

Oh, what time?

Two uh still what okay is two o'clock uh work?

Pay with two if you want.

Okay.

Uh uh, Dave, you guys and Natalie?

Two, good.

Amy?

Yeah, that's fine.

Two o'clock.

Okay, let's say two o'clock for both of those meetings then.

2 p.m., April 2nd, 2 p.m., April 9th, are the next two meetings of this committee.

And on the April 2nd meeting, we will consider the revisions that have been done for uh for us to get for consideration.

Okay.

Uh public comment time.

Did we already do that?

And I don't see any.

Oh, oh, Doug, did you want to come up here and talk about what dates we're gonna meet?

Thank you very much.

Pardon me.

Okay.

Okay, good.

Good.

I like I really like what we're doing.

It's so this is such a cumbersome process.

Look, I think if the whole group of us were sitting around a round table and we were just working through this, we'd be done by now.

But this is a difficult environment to work in, but a necessary environment for us to work in.

And so I don't mind doing this.

It's just a little clumsy, a little difficult, and I appreciate everybody's patience here.

I think you're talking about us not sitting at a table together.

We'd well, it's not as I that's what I mean.

You can't communicate with each other as well.

It's just not an easy one.

Well, we're getting there.

We're getting there, and I really like the idea that we're gonna put a little subcommittee.

Is it is it pretty clear to the subcommittee about what we all collectively sort of think and what the consensus of is.

I think it is.

I feel comfortable that you're gonna represent what I think as well as the other members here, and so we're trusting you to come back with something that sort of puts all that together.

I we've talked about this so much.

I think we're deep into it, and it would be hard to miss what everybody wants included, I think.

So if that's the case, God bless you.

Well, and I think that we're not there might be some things that we're not all 100% on in agreement on, but we're gonna we should include those, so then we can bring it back to everybody, and then everybody has a chance as a that would be great.

There's probably a good idea to have a uh, you know, like if you come to a certain paragraph, something there and you have a division of of idea about that, by all means, it seems to me there ought to be uh a majority opinion and a minority opinion and bring it back and let us decide as a committee which one of those we want to do.

Fair enough.

Yeah, I like that.

Okay.

Okay.

Do we have a motion to approve those uh new meeting dates?

Uh okay, we need a motion to approve the next meeting dates.

I'll make a motion that we that we approve uh April 2nd at 2 p.m.

and April 9th at 2 p.m.

for our next two meeting dates.

I'll second it.

Moved and second to approve those dates and times.

Any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we committee?

Do we need to put on the agenda then for the second that we will, or is that already on the agenda for the second that we will review the subcommittees?

That is a great question because since that next meeting is so far out, just a couple of housekeeping items.

Uh the next agenda will be posted March 26th.

So as a commit as a committee, you have until then to make any changes to the agenda.

Um, so that also go goes with what Rick was saying.

If you ever encounter something that you feel needs to be brought back to the committee, you can agenda ize it so we don't have to wait for a future um meeting date after that to discuss it.

So could I get Dave?

Could you could you make an agenda item?

Could we make recommend an agenda item to him now for what your committee's gonna do?

Could we do that?

Yes, go.

I don't know, it it doesn't have to be right now.

Um but I would I do would like to put on the agenda for April 2nd that we as a committee review the changes that the or the revisions that the subcommittee is gonna propose.

Got it.

Is that good?

That would be probably our is there any other agenda items we need to deal with?

Uh no, that'll take a long time.

Sounds to me like that's kind of it.

So good.

Okay.

Okay, now we're on item four, 4.1 committee comments and reports.

Anything?

Yes.

Yes.

Um, something we haven't talked a lot before.

Oh, wait till they're done.

Pardon me?

It's okay.

I they were finishing up.

Um, one of the things we haven't talked about very much, and I think we need this, maybe the subcommittee needs to discuss it.

If we if and when we add the caps and or distancing, it won't be a problem right now.

But in the future, as we've seen Doug and um Simon's presentation of where what the distance distancing would affect um in Cambria, what 660 feet would mean.

Um it's not going to affect us right now because we are grandfathering in those existing properties, correct?

That is correct.

Okay, so that is one thing I'd like the committee to look at and consideration of that ability to if someone were to purchase it as a short-term rental, that that would be tr in a way transferable.

They would still have to apply for that license.

And the reason I suggest this is in 10 to 20 years' time when our uh owners are not making the money.

We've all discussed that.

Owners are not making the money that they had possibly first intended when they bought their short-term rentals.

So they are being sold one at a time.

And it's you know, for the next 10, 15 years, we might be okay.

But in 2030 years, when that has dwindled and there's no more applications really that can be honored, we are not going.

I don't think we're gonna have enough housing for the the tourism industry that is needed in in Mesquite.

So you're you're basically making a case for sorry, you're making the case for um uh transferable trans being able to transfer that.

Yes, not only grandfathered, but that grandfathering would be transferable to the next owner.

Okay, Natalie.

And I wouldn't agree with that at all.

You would not agree with that.

Okay.

That's for the subcommittee.

We're we're off topic here.

That's gonna be outside of your guys' scope in the main section of business licensing.

It states all business licenses are non-transferable.

We are we do guarantee the same fee as the previous owner, but all licenses are non-transferable.

Okay.

So that's then I think we really need to consider what 30 years from now is gonna look like for mesquite.

And a lot bigger anyway.

And that's why I want, and that's why I want the master plan committee involved in this because distancing, and it will come, distancing will affect the amount of licenses that the city's allowed to approve.

Um, and so that's where I think the master plan community needs to be involved in this and look at areas and zoning.

There's it's it's bigger than just our our little committee, because you know, if we could build a zoning area that knows that there's not going to be a hotel resort close to it, and then they can build a special short-term rental community or something like that.

Um, because it is an important industry, and as soon as we implement distancing, um it takes effect, and and it's a state law, it will happen.

So it uh, you know, I I think this the master plan community needs to be involved in in these decisions.

So two of the members of the master plan committee are sitting here.

So Natalie and I are both on that committee, and we we understand your comments, take them into consideration for sure.

Um reports.

Um, I just I the only comment I have is I just want to say I I do agree that I do like short-term rentals.

I enjoy staying in short-term rentals, so I never want to don't want to come across at all that I'm anti short-term rental.

Um I I just think we need exactly you know what we're doing here, and I appreciate all the different voices and opinions and the people that are coming up and expressing, you know, thank you for taking time out of your day to be here.

We really do want to listen to what you have to say and take it into consideration.

So I'm I want to maintain as neutral as possible, and uh I appreciate the opportunity to be up here and serving on the committee with all of you.

Thank you very much, as do I.

Um I have been so impressed with everybody's uh respect for each other.

It's kind of nice, and I really do appreciate it.

It's good that we can take in all this information, not have anybody yelling at each other, and that that's there's a chance for that.

And Doug, well, maybe Doug accept it.

I don't know, because Doug and I, but we we we've really had some I I can't imagine how we can learn more or understand more about this than we already do.

And it's largely because we've been business like in most ways, and I appreciate that from all of you from everybody on the committee and from all the committee members uh community members.

Okay, any other public comment here?

Uh okay, sorry.

Uh, this is our last opportunity for public comment.

I just Corbin again.

I just like to bring up one point.

When an investor buys a house, maybe he has some expectations or so on.

When a person buys a house to reside in, they have a completely different perspective.

And I know we've heard the stories, and there's two sides to all of this.

I I agree with the grandfathering and so on.

Um, we need to appreciate that the city's gonna grow, there's gonna be other opportunities in the future, it's gonna be new neighborhoods, new growth.

Um, an investor has to know there's risk, and that's a factor of investment.

And if it doesn't look good and I keep hearing how this isn't profitable or something, well, sell it and put your money somewhere else.

So, anyway, I just kind of wanted to address that argument.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Any other public comment?

Okay, seeing none, if unless there's an objection, I'll adjourn this meeting.

Make movement to adjourn the meeting.

We're adjourned.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Thank you.