Do you want to introduce it?

Do you want them to do it?

Okay.

All right.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Welcome to the uh vacation sub vacation rental subcommittee meeting today, Tuesday, March 17th, 2026 at 2.30 p.m.

Uh we have a quorum here.

All three members are here.

So we are going to start with item one, which is 1.1, which is public comments.

Is there any public comment to be made?

On items not on the agenda.

On items not on the agenda.

Seeing none, we will move on to the consent agenda.

Item 2.1, which is the approval of the March 17th, 2026 short-term rental residential vacation rental subcommittee agenda.

And we will look for public comment on that.

Anything?

We lost you.

Are you there, Vanessa?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um we just uh lost the look a little different.

We've got a we got a big picture of the mayor on the screen now.

What's up?

I'm okay without my picture being on the screen.

As long as we can hear me.

Right, we should be fine.

Okay.

All right.

Uh so he's make motion or yeah, is there any public comment on the uh consent agenda?

Seeing none.

Do we need a motion, Mark?

Okay, what I'll make motion that we approve the consent agenda.

Perfect.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Aye.

Aye.

Perfect.

All right.

Moving in on to item 3.1 review of title 2, chapter 13 and AB 363.

We'll go ahead and open for public comment.

If you have any comments to make, please step forward.

You are limited to three minutes.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to bring up.

The new one, the old one, or the 363.

We're gonna be looking at all of them today.

I'll start a subject and I'll jump in if I have a problem.

Nope.

So you have three minutes to make public comment, then the committee will converse and then we will close the item.

So if you have public comment, this is the time to make it.

Okay, if you're talking about the ones being rewritten, I have some problems with that.

Can you state your name for the record, please?

Doug Honshell, 960 Santa Fe Drive.

Uh rewrite 2-13-5.

Parking gas shall be park only designated on site space street.

I mean that's maybe we're posted.

Does the rental property post those or does I have to pay for it?

We're not responding.

We're just listening to your comments.

So you can continue.

Okay.

Number two, 30 minutes is too long.

I think they should be able, since they're a local agent or representative, should be 10 minutes, and three respond within 30 minutes.

I've had a one next to me since August.

I still don't have a qualified operator phone number.

I got it for a second property from the same agent, but not the agent next to my house.

21311 has been eliminated according to the rewrite one.

But yet you refer to 213.

But you've eliminated 2131.

So I don't know what 21313 applies to.

Again, I go back to another part I have a problem with, and some of you know this.

I have problems with code enforcement.

It hasn't really been something that's been a major concern for some time.

I know we've recently hired a code enforcement officer.

I know we've recently hired a code enforcement officer uh who yesterday told me I can't call him with a code enforcement of improper parking on the street at 10 o'clock at night because I'll just get his email and if he shows up the next morning they're gone.

So now I've gotten one where I have to go out and take photographic and video proof that they're parking on the street.

Ten seconds and send them to Simon.

So and my overall com comment was you can do all the rewrites you want, the old one, the new one.

You can adjust the old one to meet what you want in the new one.

But unless any of these rules are gonna be enforced, you're just here pounded stake.

I won't say pounded.

Your pounded stake.

Yep.

Because I was told yesterday just call the police.

If there's trucks parked at 219 Santa Fe.

Every time they're call the police, call the police, call the police.

So that you folks have some documentation through the police that they're violating it.

Now the one thing I do like on the new one is 213-2F that I can submit limited stamped photo and video evidence that these people don't give a care about what city ordinances you write.

That's all thank you.

Any other public comments?

Can I get another three minutes?

Nope.

One third I I will.

I think I'm not going to be able to do that.

Yeah, just speak up loud.

Okay, your name for the rest of the Colleen Cleaton.

Um, I'm just uh looked into the code.

Uh you can park on the street for 24 hours, um, according to the city code, and you have to be moved and then you can park another 24 hours.

So if they are moving their cars, it's still legally okay to park on the street.

Um that's basically all my story.

Thank you.

Okay, seeing no more public comment, we will close public comment and the committee can begin discussing.

So cool.

Can we just kind of cruise through starting at one?

So I would like to make a suggestion.

Yeah.

Um I like a lot of things that you have in this rewrite, but I would like to merge them into our current code versus doing a complete rewrite.

Just because there's certain legal lease that's in there that we need to keep.

And like um Mr.

Horchow pointed out, there are some things that are missing.

So if we don't mind if we have two title uh two chapter 13, can we start going through that one at the top?

And doing that.

Is that on our hands?

I don't have the um I don't think I have that one.

Right handy.

But I I'm sure I have it in here.

Let me see if I have an extra code.

I it's in my email.

Um, how do we want to like do our do we go through each individual one?

Yeah, I think so.

Just start at the top and make our way down to bring some copies.

Well you know how do we how do we merge them then um if you guys want if it suits you, we can make notes and then I can compile them and send them out to the committee members to verify that they look accurate.

Okay, and we can merge them that way.

Um because yeah, I just uh I had kind of tried to merge as much as I could um with all three documents, the city, the 363, and but uh let's see where our Marco's gonna go print copy.

So definitely just to uh make sure I'm understanding correctly, so you would be willing to actually put together the two documents and to a one rewrite of chapter 13 based on the committee's notes and um conversation, yes.

Okay, I'm just making sure I know that's a lot of work to type everything up and I I just wanted to clarify that that would be great if you would do that.

I can definitely do that for you guys.

Okay, so here so if you want to switch these spots for a second, you can use my computer to look at it, and then we can uh thank you.

All right, maybe okay.

Alright, maybe so then we can just you want to just we can just go paragraph by paragraph based on the current 213 and then just go back and forth between the two.

Okay, so I do have some notes too as well that um we can look at as well.

So okay.

Okay, so um so you don't have it.

Do you want the pencil?

No, I got it.

Oh, you have it?

Okay, okay, purpose.

So the purpose of the chapter um on two-13-12.

I think they're pretty much saying the same thing, unless you feel heartburn about adding anything to there.

So just to just clarify one more time, overcommunicate, is we can just read through this and see if we want to add stuff from here into here.

Yes, and I have an ABC.

Okay.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um I do like the way they uh Dave Newfield uh rewrote the purpose and intent.

I feel like it provides a little bit further clarification as far as I guess that should be on there of that, but I did like that you also mentioned protect neighborhood quality right.

I don't know if that was on there.

Well, it kind of is on A, it says provide the community benefit, but I mean I guess we could lose referred to.

I think that's a community benefit.

Um for the vacation home rentals, not so much the community benefit of the residents in the neighborhood.

I mean, I I get what you're saying.

I I can see the community benefit in some aspects, but there also are aspects of it that clearly some of the people don't see as a benefit.

What if we add an A and B at the end?

So I I ended up taking one and two, the title and the purpose of the chapter of the city and combine them into one purpose and intent.

So yeah, like that's easy.

Um to um make uh make a title there.

Um so the title needs to stay the same because that's the the ordinance title.

Okay, so but the purpose we can amend if you guys want to.

Um but subtle these, like I said, are like legally starting that you need to have in there.

So I think it would be perfectly sufficient to add A and B on Dave's write-up to make them at Fin G.

Yeah, we can incorporate both two things.

And if there's anything that's redundant, um I'm comfortable with you making I don't know about uh Sherry and Dave, but I feel like if there's anything that's redundant that you want to eliminate out of there, I feel comfortable with that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, and we can I'm just reading B really quick.

Okay, yeah, no problem.

Um so we would just kind of make uh F and G.

Yeah.

I feel like I'm playing Call of Duty.

And then maybe one thing to add into B is just to also protect B because it has a lot about protecting um the public in the neighborhood.

But it doesn't have anything rep um, maybe just like add a four that says repeated, see how it says re um to protect from basically false complaints.

Yes, from the and maybe that's on this one over here.

So it's and I know the city code had something in there in another spot that we're kind of protecting against false complaints or false complaints or nuisance kind of.

And I think that's covered on the meaningful enforcement.

Perfect.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, I like it.

Let's not let's not okay.

So the only adjustment we're doing is just adding or make A and B of mine uh F and G of the supplement.

Yeah.

Okay, perfect.

Um applicability uh 2-13-3.

We need to leave that's something we need to leave because it shows where it applies to.

Okay, so okay, definitions.

213-4.

Thank you.

Okay, so one thing on Dave's uh letter A, vacation home rental.

You change the period from 27 days to 30.

Was that intentional?

Or we can.

It's up to you guys.

Um if you want to recommend that.

I I don't care either way.

No, I was just as I did a lot of research and stuff like that.

It it was just uh kind of a recommendation, so I don't have a personal preference.

Um is there a state of Nevada?

Like what's the minimum that we're talking counties is 30, so I'm comfortable with the 30 then.

Okay, so easy fix.

What's that?

February.

Yeah, February is the only month that we're going to do.

You have to keep it at 28 days.

I think that's why they had it at 27 prior.

Um, but I believe Clark County does do 30 in actually.

If I can see this bottom folder, no, I would I would say that's a good point.

Um I would say it 27 or 28, just to make sure we we keep February as not trying to like I can just see that messing up the city if all of a sudden they're like, well, you know, February doesn't count now.

If they book it for that whole month, it all of a sudden falls like I know that's a nuance, but I would say it, but I think if you just said 28 days.

Perfect.

Yeah.

Okay.

What does AB 353 actually it does doesn't it have a date that amount of days?

A B363 doesn't I don't think so.

Let me double check here.

Oh, does it not?

Because I'm just thinking if it does, we could go off of that, and I think it's less than 30.

And the reason why I do feel like can I switch we can go less?

It would be nice, is just for those people that aren't able to have a short-term rental and they um want to rent it out for like a month at a time.

It's a little bit, I know it's only a few extra days, but it might make a difference.

So can they check that out real quick?

We were just we were just saying go to 28 days to just be the minimum for February, and then basically anything that rents under 28 days will be considered short-term rental.

Okay, yeah, that that sounds good to me.

Yeah, I think that's fine.

Okay, perfect.

All right, so let's see.

Okay, I this is my personal uh opinion because I deal with all these.

I do not like the term authorization in one specific section of the licensing code and no others.

So I would like to just keep it to license if the committee is admitable to that.

I'm good with that.

So everywhere that it says authorization, it would just say license.

So we're we're in definition.

So you have uh yeah, authorization or vacation home rental license means the city authorization required to operate a short-term rental.

And we do already have vacation rental license defined in our code.

But I think we could get rid of the authorization term and just stick with the one we already have.

Okay.

That that sounds good.

Um I guess one question I have is so I know an AB 363 they have certain definitions, but that's just basically what they've chosen to define those that, right?

And the city of Met can define them in any other in a different way and get it the state a different name.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, yeah, that sounds good.

Um changing that to license makes it easier.

I think that'll also be clearer for people when they read it.

Perfect.

Are we aren't we working off of the 213 in the office days and we're just I'm kind of looking at all of them because they did a good job bringing up a lot of things, and then also AB363.

What would you like us to have our centerpiece as we're now to this one?

We're just looking at the definitions here.

Um that was a note that I had.

We already had vacation rental license defined.

So is that is that like the last point of vacation home rental license?

Yes.

Is that the one there?

Yes, and under 213-4.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um is there anything in the city one there that we can that you're is there what we did and what is here is there's a lot of differences.

Um one thing I think we need to add and to the city code from AB363 is party.

We need to define it so we can prohibit it.

So in the code.

So um it was brought up that we can in my revision that kind of took out uh number 11.

Um so I would I when we get to that, I actually have a a thought on adding um on 21311 adding a phrase in there that would define um oh, where is it?

Uh 11 here.

Uh no vacation rental may be used for parties.

I guess we still doesn't define it though.

It just says um, but what it does say is that events or other gatherings that exceed the mac maximum occupancy limit established.

So it does kind of define it in the sense that you can't have a gathering wedding event or any other gathering that exceeds the max maximum occupancy.

Yeah, we can add that under that section.

So it does say like if any any gathering that is over the occupancy is not allowed.

Yeah, I like that.

So that uh I uh I I was gonna bring that to the sense.

So yeah, it makes sense, but um so that would be 24 hours.

So at any point, if it says a guest, there can't be a guest at any point during the day.

Can be more than a guest at any point in the day.

Um is what that uh is that what is what that means is that it's used, it's the homes aren't being rented for events or big parties, and the one specific thing that I can think of is the baseball teams when one family comes into town and rents it, but then the whole baseball team comes in the evening for the barbecue and pool party.

Um and you go from an occupancy that's supposed to be 10 people, and now you have the whole baseball team plus their families there, so you're 21 people hanging out.

Um and so that was kind of the the thought behind the party was this I think that's probably where one of the biggest complaints is coming from is the the noise when big gatherings are happening.

Yeah, parking or something.

And then the and then the parking that comes because all those people show up with the all those people show up with different vehicles.

So the question right now in the existing code, Jesslyn, is there any sort of um uh prohibition towards preventing anything from parties?

No, no.

So that's actually making the law even stricter, the code even stricter.

Um well in AB363 it does give you the ability to define the party and rehibit it.

So we can do that and define it.

But yes, it would make it stricter.

If we even get to the point of using AP363.

Well, that's what I'm saying.

If we adopt these because they're maybe 363, like Simon said the state would support it because they are part of that state law.

So what you're saying right now, just so I understand is if the max is four people, then no more than four people can be there at any time 24 hours a day.

Or that's considered a violation.

But I I'm I I have no skin in the game.

So you that that's just yeah, I'm just thinking through it just really quick.

Um and it makes like when there's four people there and you have a fifth person in there, um, especially you know, I bit you know, five people is not a big deal.

So maybe coming in and defining that terminology a little bit better is you can't be exceed by so many people.

What what the what about if we did um this just throwing it around because I I understand and I see where that because the odds are, I mean, a group of four people if the house is just four, they can still cause a lot of noise.

I mean, but a regular single family home can cause a lot of noise for two people, you know, it's majestic.

Um but it does increase the chance we do have more.

But I don't like the fact that if it's a for occupancy, then five people would be a violation, they could get file for that.

And so maybe if we did the what is the code on the max, is it 12 people?

Uh 12 adults, but it's based on the number of bedrooms.

Bedroom.

So and that's something else I want to go over too later on.

The AB 363 max out of 16.

Let's let's if we can hit this again when we hit number 11.

Yeah, that's it.

And kind of mole that over and circle back.

I think that's okay.

Okay.

Where are we at right now?

We are still on definitions.

Definitions on tooth on yours.

We need to add a definition for the um hosting platform.

I think that's a good idea.

I don't think we have it anywhere in here, but I think it would be a good um thing to define with that becoming more and more popular, adding up the hosting platform definition from AB363.

Yeah, I think we should have that as well.

We might need to refer back to it, especially if we implement some of this technology.

Um or however, you know, basically we go about being some of the what is that?

Um the hosting platform definition means a person who for a fee or other charge provides on an internet website an online platform that facilitates the rental of the residential unit or a room within the residential unit by an owner or lessie of the residential unit for purposes of transient lodging, including without limitation through advertising, matchmaking, or other means.

And that's in 363.

That's in 363.

And we don't have it in 13.

Not yet.

We didn't have hosting platforms when this code was originally done.

I don't care whether that gets added or not.

Yeah, no, I what would be think it needs to be in there.

Why need to refer to it?

I think the only time we reference anything like that in this code, it says something about uh let me find it.

About an internet if it's listed on an internet site.

That's the only real um relevancy we would have.

Now I can't find it, of course.

Unless we add something in, right?

About the technology piece and if you do go about implementing radicus or decard or whatever you end up going with.

So this may be a good time to bring up that Simon has implement um says directly to me that the property tech is outside of the committee scope.

Well, point blank and it's an administrative thing, not uh engagemental committee.

So we can use whatever software we want.

We don't need the committee or the council control.

Um and and I think I there might have been somewhere in here where it said that the city may choose to use a software to manage it.

Yeah but was very vague just to not even come close to regulating how the city did that.

We should probably do we could just take that out.

Yeah, take that out because Simon has already said that's beyond our scope.

So to come back to here, can um I feel like we might be jumping around a little bit.

So does hosting platform sound like something that you want to implement?

Yeah, we want I don't know why is that important to define.

I just think it's a technical term.

Um it's something that people the other jurisdictions are using in their codes with their definitions, and it's language that people use when discussing vacation rentals, so I don't think it would be harmful to add it.

I don't know it'd be, yeah, no, I'm just trying to think of like the objection.

I'm trying to play devil's advocate because I'm not against it.

I think it's okay to define, but like I just like what's the difference between if I put it in the newspaper or on Craigslist while Craigslist is online.

Um like what if I put it in the newspaper to advertise.

Is that like it might am I skirting a skirting a there's really no I mean you'd still be required to have a license.

Yeah, so the hosting platform is just when we were talking about um when they're they need to have their license numbers and things on there, so that would be the hosting, and we could add four other media's outlets or media sources if you think it'd be an attention.

I'm I'll get to that.

I I would I almost be like any anywhere where you advertise your your VRBO or your vacation rental, you need to post your license.

Yes.

That would be a good idea.

I I yeah, just that it's uh simple and like anywhere you advertise it, it shows that you're have gone through and got your business license.

Perfect.

Okay, so we will look at adding hosting platform and the committee can circle back on that if they'd like.

Okay, let's see.

Are there any other ones that you guys were looking at?

I think the only other one I didn't see that I thought we might need to is transient lodging, or does that is that just other vacation home rental?

Is that basically the same thing?

Well, let's see here.

I think we have it defined somewhere.

Uh yeah.

I don't want to see that.

So I think we just have that the vacation home rental is a dwelling that's rented for the purpose of overnight lodging for not less than two days, but not more than 27.

So that's pretty much our transient lodging definition there.

So it's just called vacation home rental.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um and then I don't know if this matters, but in the city what it's called an operator.

Yes.

We called it a qualified local operator.

I don't know that we other than just a so you're talking about like the person who's the person who's supposed to be in charge of the light.

In charge of it, a local contact person.

Yeah, so we have that separate.

Yeah, so that maybe that's the one that I was wanting to say.

Like if we change instead of it being a local contact person being a qualified local operator.

Okay.

Um and and again, it might just be semantics in this in the sense of but it's clear.

Um, and then there's there's some other other points on that later on that I think when we talk about what a qualified local operator is.

Okay, um just uh um instead of just having your cleaner be your local contact person, right?

Being like a qual like the defining it as we have a qualified person property management or somebody that knows what they're what they're getting into, yeah.

Okay, perfect.

I can scrap uh change that on local contact.

And we could even leave it still as operator uh possibly if we define in the definition itself that it says you know the person who is a qualified like put in there that it needs to be qualification in the definition itself, but I I'm comfortable either way.

I just didn't know what might be easier for Jesus.

I like the qualified local operator.

I think it sounds a little more professional.

Yeah, and I think the other one that we might have changed a little bit there is just instead of saying operator, it's like the authorized holder or licensed operator.

Licensed operator?

Yeah, I like that too.

If you get um more professional and our resident quite read through there, it often gives them a little like reassuring uh qualifying.

Perfect.

Okay.

Okay, great.

Anything else on definitions, Dave?

This is where I wish we had like a lawyer here.

If we do say licensed operator, could somebody come back to the code and say, well, I'm an unlicensed operator, so we do we do define it as they have to have a license.

So yeah, they have to have a license, so they should find just trying to make sure that nobody's gonna back door and try and find a way around the code.

Yeah, no, I don't know anybody that would try to do that.

No, I don't think you're gonna have problems with that.

So if I understand this correctly, we're keeping 13 as it is what we're doing now is we're taking stuff from Dave's and adding so maybe 33 is gonna be there.

Yes, but we're just adding stuff.

So we have to add okay with a lot of things.

And then picking and choosing what we want to put here and then three.

Yes.

Okay.

Oh one quick thing.

So I know David um or Dave, sorry, has verified complaint um on there.

Did you already discuss that?

So I think that's we deal with that in 213-12.

I don't think we actually need that um in there.

And 213-12, it says um all complaints must be substantiated before penalties will be invoked.

So and then it says supporting documentation must be presented, such as police records, reports by other city employees or sworn affidavits from third parties.

Yeah.

So I think that we don't really need to have that one there.

Okay.

If you guys agree.

I agree.

I am not leading this, I'm just making my suggestions available to you.

No, that's a staff recommendation.

No, I know I think it was the Don.

Sorry, the um gentleman that spoke, he did say that he really liked that, I think.

Um so maybe if we can just once we get to that section, maybe we can take some of the things that Dave has from that verified complaint.

And I also have a couple additional things that I would like to add, but maybe we'll do that in that section if that seems like the better place for um discussing that.

That sounds good.

Yep.

Okay.

So good to move on to 213-5?

Yes.

Okay, 213-5 is vacation home rental license requirements.

I think these are pretty straightforward.

Um you guys have anything you want to add, take away, discuss.

So we'd have to change that date in there as well that the from 27 to 28.

28, yep.

Yeah.

Yeah, these are basically just saying you have to have a license for each one you operate.

So pretty basic.

Okay, two thirteen dash six.

Um this is the agency.

They may um may retain an agent representative or local contact person to comply with their requirements.

Um the license only issued to the owner, the owner's responsible for compliance and the of the provisions of the chapter, etc.

etc.

So just basically gives them permission to hire someone to help with their stuff.

You guys have any forms of is that qualify is that person they're hiring defined, we defined it in yes, we do have uh we have managing agent or agency is defined.

Okay.

Um of the uh um I mean I think that it's a good idea that for two thirty.

We're on two thirteen-six, right?

Yes, to add in the um to be available 20 hours a day.

So we have a section for local contact person under 213-12.

And I think that would be the perfect spa perfect disregard for that.

I have to kind of keep it.

I'm good to move on to 13-7.

Okay.

Vanessa, are you good to move on to 213-7?

Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.

Okay.

So 2-13-7.

I think some of uh what they have under Dave and your old one, or your other one, the 213-4, you have it under eligibility.

Yeah.

Um, I think this would be a good point to merge some of those in.

If you guys were would like to look at that.

So is this what was changed?

Is that where this conditional use was added kind of recently?

That's in a totally different chapter.

Totally different title.

This just says they have to be um in compliance with that code, basically.

If it's not permitted or conditional, we can't allow it there.

Oh, okay.

But that's detailed out in the planning zoning code.

So you probably said it's right.

You think this on Dave's all this stuff can fit into where did you say later this number four section here?

Yeah, like the vacation home must be uh located in a zoning district where a use is permitted or conditional use.

We have that already.

Um if it's within a common interest community, the governing documents must expressly authorize the vacation rentals.

I think that'd be a good thing to add in here if you guys were looking at that.

Um minimum life safety.

I don't think we have to put that in here because we kind of go over it in another spot.

And there was something in the city one where it talks about that, like even at the purpose or something like that, safety and stuff like that.

So we could mix that, but if you guys wanted to add the C C and R language there, um I think that would be a good spot for that.

Yes, I would I think so, and also D.

I think I don't, I mean, maybe that's in there, but I don't think it is.

The only problem I have with D is how are they in good standing if they're a new applicant?

Right, that's the only time I said the only problem with I have with D the authorization holder must be in good standing with the city tax and licensing requirements.

If they have never applied with us, they can't be in good standing.

Could could though they come back to this, and if they are not in good standing, use that to revoke.

So when you say not in good standing, what do you mean?

Because that opens it up for stuff too.

Like, well, maybe not with that property, but I'm a changed man now, and I'm gonna run things right.

So I have to kind of base it off the current situation, not the what if you do wrong.

No, no, but I was like, well, what if they're what if they're behind on their hotel tax?

Then we can revoke their license.

And that's already and that would just apply to that one property.

But that and that's already in here?

Yes.

Okay.

No, okay.

Yeah, I'm good.

Not having that.

Okay.

So let's see, I'm gonna go.

Um, what if they've actually violated like so they operated without a license prior to being approved, instead of them just being issued that fine can be um like have to have a six-month waiting period or something with that being under eligibility?

It would depend on the violation process, how many violations they've had, how many notices, because then we do have that um pause that's currently in there with the six months and a 12-month period for those periods.

So yes, we do have that in there as well.

Yep.

Okay, I and maybe then we'll inject it there, but I don't know.

It also seems like under eligibility that that might be a good spot to bring that up.

But if they're they've already violated like so they already operated without a life it, they can't be issued a license for at least a certain amount of time.

Or I mean, I don't know that's my thought, and I feel like that would be a fair consequence or whatever you want to call it, but I I don't know, maybe just so I'm I don't know how the other committee members feel about that.

As long as it's in here, doesn't really matter the chronological number it's at as long as long as it's in here, that's what's the most important part is and Vanessa, you guys are welcome to recommend that to council.

Um I'm not sure how that will be received because that gives us a very business on friendly type of attitude.

Um, but it's something you guys can recommend.

Yeah.

Okay.

Ready to move on.

It's 213-8.

We're not gonna add D C or A, right?

Just B.

Just B.

Yeah, that's what I have.

Okay.

Okay.

Everybody good to move on?

Yes.

Perfect.

So 2-13-8 application for a vacation home rental license.

Okay.

So we have A is the name, address, and telephone number of the owner.

They have to have the number, name, address, and telephone number of the managing agent, the local contact, uh for the owner of the unit.

They also have to have a landline and twice B.

So can we like who has a landline anymore?

Is that is that I do.

No, I don't know.

And I but like I get it, yeah.

I could we take that.

So you can you can recommend it.

Um, Simon's probably going to protest that to council because it is a safety issue.

If the cell phones go down, they still have a way to reach out to um emergency operators on a line line.

Okay, no, that's I'm not sure.

Yeah.

I would like to recommend it be removed.

Okay.

Um yeah, I just do.

I think if all cell phones go down with I think the end of the world might happen.

Yeah.

Um so no, I I'm a little indifferent on that.

I it makes sense.

Like I can see where the landline work at the power scale.

I don't know.

I don't have to do that.

I think they need they still need a uh so I my guess is if everything's going down and cell phones aren't working, we're well like think about how many outages we've had over the last two years.

We actually had power overton out our office meeting the other day, and it's like the longest one we've had in the last three years is 14 hours.

Um and that was one time most outages are a few minutes here and there.

Right, but I mean cell phone outages, not necessarily.

Oh, yeah, but I see mobile goes down or Verizon goes down, they can't reach out to anybody if there's a fire.

Yeah, when would you do you have to kind of depend on somebody else, but so that's the reason it's there, but I'm happy to remove it.

That's the committee's wish.

I would like to recommend to remove okay, but I I am kind of with Dave on this one.

Like I'm indifferent.

I but obviously um if there's like a safety thing, then there's a reason for it, and it maybe makes a difference with insurance for the city or with overall just being able to point back that there was something that we do recommend land, like if there's a reason and it's overall beneficial for the city for their like liability and protection safety aspect, then you know I I think that we should keep it.

But um if that has changed, I don't know if there's been changes since you know Simon's had a chance to fully review this, because I don't think other cities have that in their ordinance, maybe they do, but I don't think recall seeing that anywhere.

So you know, I'm comfortable also removing it if things have changed.

I'll put it in there as a removal, and then obviously the committee has to review also too.

So you guys have that.

Okay.

What would be your reason?

Like why would it be important to get rid of it?

Well, I just it's just it's kind of archaic.

So one is in my entire lifetime.

Um so I had to go.

No, I I get it.

I'm just trying to make sure I hear well.

So I had to go out and go get an actual landline and go buy the phone and go get the landline, and then you have to pay for it every single month, and on top of that, if they make a call on any of it, then they get at least the plan I got, but we get charged every single minute, and so we've already had bills where they call and we get charged every single minute.

Uh well, we've had one instance.

But I get it.

And that was the maintenance guy making a phone call.

And so we haven't had him on the user sites, but we got charged for the minutes.

Yeah.

Um, so it just is just archaic and no one ever uses it.

And no, I get it.

Okay.

No, I'm just here hearing it all.

Yeah, yeah, here and all sides.

Okay.

Okay, C is proof of homeowners and liability insurance.

Now, AB 363 does discuss um the minimum liability coverage the holder of an authorization must maintain.

We do not have a minimum in here.

Is that something the committee would like to explore?

Okay, implementing.

I'm so sorry, I was where you at uh still 213-8 letter C.

Proof of Homeowners liability insurance.

Uh yeah, I think that's a good one.

Yeah, I think we should recommend whatever AB363's requirements are.

Yeah, the other requirement.

Is that what you're saying?

Or it doesn't have a remote.

It doesn't have one, it just says you need to establish the minimum liability.

If we want to, we can do that now.

We'll eventually probably need to.

But this committee doesn't have to be.

I think we can do it now then.

Um to create a like little previsions as possible for you guys in the future.

I I don't know.

I think the clear I've seen that is it like 500,000 or a million between then.

So if they don't have a city minimum, but they if we just say they have to be insured.

That's what we do currently.

Um and they are insured, but they're not insured enough.

Does that come like in they get sued?

Would they ever come back at the city?

I don't think so.

I could run that by legal, but we I mean we showed we provide uh took in proof that they had coverage.

So if it's not enough, that their insurance would have an issue with that, first of all, and then second, yeah, I don't think it would ever come back.

So as long as as long as it doesn't come back on the city that the the somebody's gonna sue the city, then I would say don't establish a minimum because that's on them and their responsibility, and then the city is again kind of that same business friendly mentality.

We're not making you have higher expenses on your property that you want.

It'd be smart to have better insurance, but it's not the city then dictating where it is, as long as it doesn't come back on the city.

Like if the city could get sued because they didn't have good enough insurance, then I would say there should be something there, but as long as the city's protected, then the city just leaves it in the individual, let them take a beaten if they're gonna get sued.

But as long as the city's protected, then the city just leaves it in the individual, let them take a beaten if they're gonna get sued.

Okay, right.

Vanessa, you does that make sense.

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

I I haven't done enough research on it to know, like um, just because it's so standard across everything I look at as far as other cities requiring a certain amount.

So um, like I like your you bring mentioning we should probably bring it up and see if somebody like has a reason why it needs to be there, like you said, for the city's purposes.

But outside of that, I I guess like I mean, it would it's really they're uh a loss.

I mean, it's beneficial for them.

So um if that makes sense from coming from, I truly don't know enough to know why all these other cities are are requiring a certain amount.

Yeah, well, Henderson requires a general liability policy limits of not less than a million dollars per occurrence, and I think Clark County is the same.

Um I'd just be curious as to why they're establishing um if the city isn't in danger of being sued.

I could see it if the city's in danger of being sued, then yeah, we we're protecting the city as well.

But if they're not, then I'd say let me run that by leading.

I guess if they sorry, go ahead.

I can run that by legal if you guys want.

Yeah, that's my highlight.

Yeah, I mean, one thing though that I could see where it could be like an impact on um if they didn't have insurance to cover whatever happened, and then the the house is sitting there in a neighborhood and there's no money to fix it, it could have like a negative effect on like the neighborhood.

Um just that a regular house too.

Yeah, well with that, but that could happen on just a regular house too.

Yeah, and it can, but most like people will have insurance that meets whatever coverage that is because they have uh like a mortgage insurance required that a certain amount.

I mean I it can, but I often like we're talking about a short-term rental specifically, so to be clear, we're talking about liability if someone's like injured on the property or things like that.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

I don't know, run it by legal.

I agree with that.

I'm comfortable.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, letter D is a copy of the the C C and Rs or bylaws of the units community, um, showing that they can they can do it there.

Um if they don't have any, then the requirements laid and it reverse back to the planning code.

So I don't think there's much on that one.

So going back to where we have eligibility, doesn't is this redundant?

Um no, because I need a copy of those C C and Rs with their application.

Okay, so one is saying they have to be allowed, this one's saying you have to have a copy of it.

Yes.

Okay.

Letter E is an acknowledgement that all designated bedrooms contain a minimum of 70 square feet and meet all the requirements of the international residential code.

Questions with that.

No.

Okay, letter F is list the number of bedrooms, each containing a minimum of 70 square feet, the approximate total heated square footage and the vacation room home rental, and the maximum uh number of overnight occupants.

So they have to list that on their application.

It's on that front box.

Um International Building Code, I don't believe requires that there be a door on a bedroom.

Let me check with Ben on that.

Um beds could be put in dens and used as a toost the amount of occupants.

Um which again, I'm I'm just it's just as we look at the international building code, if that's a part of it.

I'm I don't know that a door is required on a on theirs, so just as a I know it has to have a closet and certain size windows to be considered a bedroom.

I don't think it has to have a closet.

It's for Clark County, it does.

Oh, Clark County.

Oh, they've changed it because I think uh I don't think uh the building code I don't know about the building code, but I know Clark County in court to be to clarify the bedroom has to have a closet.

Okay, so that that is I think more strict than the building code.

So what are we using though?

Because when I look I looked into this because I got yelled at one time as a realtor that I defined something as a bedroom and not a and not a den.

Um and I thought the building code did not require a closet or a door.

So let me check with Ben when he gets back next week, and I can circle back on that one.

Um so if we're gonna use which which definition of bedroom are we gonna use?

Okay, yeah, I'll check with Ben, because that changes every year what we adopt and so that's a good point.

Thank you.

That would be so great when you get the requirement door.

Yeah, so I understand how would that a bedroom is like 70 square foot, a ceiling height over seven feet, and two means of egress.

They have to have the call set.

I like that that's for sure.

And then I know for um somewhere in there, there's some sort of language of the windows have to be big enough.

So if there's a fire, they get it.

Yeah.

I know I've stated it before, like you can't sleep here in the windows not big enough.

Okay, sounds good.

Yep.

Okay, perfect.

Um anything else on the E or F is a diagram or photograph of the premises and Shelly and indicating the number and location of the designated on-site parking spaces and the maximum number of vehicles allowed for overnight occupants.

So they have to show us here's my my setup, here's how many spots I have, and here's how many people can stay park wise.

As long as it stays in the driveway.

Um they have to be able to be moved onto the driveway at night in overnight time, they have to be on those designated spots.

So if you have four spots, you can't have five five vehicles there.

Yeah.

So photograph of the premises showing the indicating the number of locations as needed on site parking spaces.

Um so how does like condos play into this where they don't have a driveway?

They're gonna have designated spots.

But in non-HOA where people are allowed to park on the street, can that be a designated parking spot?

Yep.

On street parking cannot be a designated spot.

You have to have the site on it has to be an on-site parking spot.

So you can have two in your garage and two in your driveway, those are on site.

The parking is not on site, or on the street is not on site.

So they can park there during the day, but at night time they need to put all their vehicles onto their on-site parking.

Um is that just a short-term rental rule?

They'll overnight parking on the streets, that's in the code.

Okay.

So we need to make sure you can have all of your guests if they're parked on the road.

They can park there during the day, but they have to be able to move on to this the site at the evening.

I want to just say why.

Like why can't what if if all other homeowners can park on the street, why can't the white can?

Yeah, I think that's a good question.

Um and again, I I want to make sure we protect the amount of people that are parking.

I think we should limit like it there's if we talk parking, like I I want to make sure homeowners aren't being blocked.

Right.

But if a if a resident is allowed to park on the street and a renter of a long-term rental is allowed to park on the street, why not them?

Why not them?

Like why I don't disagree.

We can look at the party.

But I but I want to make sure we look at that in such a way that it protects the residents around them from being locked in.

Sure.

Okay, so we can we can look at the I can tell you one reason that I think why, and it's a lot of the reasons why people have got up and complained.

It's just that if new vehicles in and out all the time, and the you know, just the transient business that it is.

So it's just one last thing.

But what but what is it?

But what does it matter if that new vehicle parks in the driveway or on the street?

It's still a new vehicle.

Yeah, like what is what what like if if somebody's there renting it and they park in front of the house, what's why does that why is that different than a person parking in the driveway?

Like it's still a it's still a different vehicle, it's still now.

I think there needs to be a parking diagram that says you can only park in front of the house or in the driveway or in the garage.

You can't park across the street, you can't park down the street.

So I parking diagram is uh, but that's referenced here, right?

Yeah, so I was gonna say let's let's put a pin in this and come back to it on the next down here on 2-11 because after we talk about the limiting the parking.

Okay.

This is just saying I need a diagram showing where the parking's allowed.

Okay.

So I I get that that's different to me, like if it's in front of their house versus like, you know, they can park anywhere on the street, and all of a sudden they're in front of their neighbor's house, and it's just different people, and they have a really big vehicle.

I mean, and I I understand also the whole like there's a long-term resident or long-term rental that'll cause problems, like there's homeowners that cause problems like that.

That is true, and I I get that part too.

Um, just to try to eliminate uh some of these complaints that we've had from residents, I think that if we do revisit that and allow on-street parking overnight, I think a parking diagram and making sure that there's still that designated area, and I don't think that should count when they submit to the thing.

Maybe like while they're there, they can use those parking spots, but as far as overnight, except maybe condos are an exception because they're so limited on parking.

I don't know.

It needs to be looked at a little more thoroughly for sure.

So we come back to that.

Yes, okay, let's pin it.

Perfect.

Next.

Okay, so then H is evidence of a valid transient occupancy tax remittance form issued by the city for the vacation rental.

I usually give them that once they obtain their license.

That's an easy one.

I is an acknowledgement that the owner, agent, or local contact person have read all the regulations pertaining to the operation of a vacation home rental uh on our application.

These are most of these are just the ones they have to initial on all of them.

So we have their signature that we have obtained that.

Uh let's see.

Go ahead.

So is acknowledgement that the owner agent local contact persons have read.

Um so is there a way to maybe make that there it's been suggested actually having almost like a little almost like a little separate form that the qualified local operator has to read and sign.

So I think we talked about a notarized affidavit for the local contact person.

I do have that under the local contact person to discuss.

Okay, but this just says they can't come back and say, Why didn't no?

I'm like, well, you initial that you didn't know, so this is on you.

Yeah, type of thing.

Okay, J is pretty much the same thing that they have read and received the good neighbor brochure, and that's one thing that I give to them when they get their license, they have to put that in the unit.

K is acknowledgement that they uh will post the vacation rental with a notice required in this chapter.

Okay, and then L is anything else that the development service director or doesn't mean says they have to do.

It's the catch-all.

Yes, so I wanted to ask you guys in this section.

I think this would be a good point to add in um the inspection requirement.

They obtain a valid certificate of occupancy prior to licensing.

We do that now, we do it under um L, but I think it would be a good one to add in separately.

Oh, so it's actually so an actual requirement.

You do it, yeah.

So having them uh um so we would take it out from where it's at right now, but it's not in the as other things.

Oh, gotcha, okay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so making it a standalone thing.

A valid certificate of occupancy must be issued from the building department.

Are you guys okay with that language?

Or do you have other thoughts?

Oh, that's fine.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, Vanessa, anything on that one?

Um, I can't quite hear exactly what you said.

Can you repeat it?

Yeah, sorry.

I just said I think this would be a good point to add in the inspection requirement that they must have a valid certificate of occupancy from the mesquite building department prior to obtaining their license.

Oh yeah, I think that's a good idea to have that in there for sure.

Okay.

Perfect.

Um, so in my section here, yes, like I think that is kind of mirroring this one.

It talks about the you know, kind of the steps having some the fire extinguisher.

Is that in the city one?

Um, it's in our building code.

Yeah, it's on it's in the IBC or IRC.

Okay, so having all of that stuff is yes, because the AB363 adds in there um uh sort of carbon oxide, which one's in my finding insure that the residential unit is equipped with a fire extinguisher, a smoke alarm or detector, and a carbon monoxide smoke detector.

Yeah, but I think that's in our IRC.

And I can double check with the will that be maybe not listed, but be part of the inspection, like when the inspector goes in there, there'll be a list of things that he's specifically looking for.

Yes, so I have a copy of that forty that can give you.

She's always a calling.

I'm trying to be ready for anything you guys have to ask.

There's those two.

And Vanessa, I will email you a copy of that if you pass that down.

And here you go, sir.

Okay.

Um if we're not I don't know if this would be this section that we would add it, and um whether you're good or not, but I'll bring it up now, and if there's a better spot, let me know.

But what do you guys have thoughts about like the outdoor decibel meters?

Like requiring the those for outside.

So that is a different section of the code, so we cannot touch it.

It's outside our scope.

Oh, okay, yeah, and I was gonna say I as I've researched that, like I think the maintenance and like I know that I don't know if it's the city or if the Casablanca already has one.

Um, and I have heard it's a nightmare trying to keep it calibrated and all of that.

So anyway, it's out of our scope.

Oh, it's under the PD section of the code.

Well, that's gonna be researched at least.

Yeah, I I just don't know that it could ever really be an effective means of enforcement because of the it could easily be shown that it didn't work properly if it wasn't like serviced regularly and calibrated regularly and all that.

So I don't know.

Anyway, it's out of our scope.

Easy enough.

Okay, is everybody ready to move on to two dash 13-9?

Um maybe I am that's application and renewal fees.

Um where in the city code does it talk about the or is there anything in there about the fees?

No, the it's giving a neighbor um the so yes, I have that further down.

Okay, that's all I under local contacts though.

Okay, perfect.

Moving on.

So application and renewal fees.

This just says we have to charge uh um an initial fee.

Fortunately, that is not covered in this title, so you cannot change that fee.

It is kind of your scope.

So that one there's really not much we can do on that one.

Deal.

Um these in general are outside of our scope.

Correct.

Yes, okay.

These are under Title II, chapter one, and this is your scope is limited to title two, chapter 13.

Don't even have to worry about that one.

Okay, room tax is two-13-10.

Um, that's also covered under another section of this code, so I don't think that we need to do much with this unless you want to reference um Clark County's definition for room tax.

But I don't I don't honestly think we need to.

Does the city already define it somewhere else?

Uh yes, I I think we do.

Okay.

So I think you're good there.

I made a note of it, but I think we're good.

As long as the city's getting their money.

Oh yeah.

Process plenty.

Okay, two dash 13-11 is standard license conditions and additional conditions.

Uh let's see.

This is where we're gonna talk about max occupancy.

AB 363 max is at 16 guests.

Currently, our code max is at 12 adults, and that excludes children under 12.

So this would be a good time for you guys to look at and review what you wanted to imagine.

Um why did we choose 12 over 16 if the house can there's enough bedrooms?

That's what the code just says.

So why is there on the other side of that?

Why is there an age, an occupant is an occupant?

Um, I think the children can share rooms with parents, and that's the oh yeah, and babies and stuff.

So, like when I go with I share a bed with my two, my twins.

So we make sure we have a king, and it's me, my husband and my two little girls.

Yeah, but my big girls are too big to share with us, so they have to have their own space.

Yeah.

I think that's why they put it under the 12 and under.

I would be um comfortable recommending the Chabolo AB363 with a max of 16 upping it, especially where we're going to be defining party and implementing some of those changes at least for those people that use their Airbnb to host like a little bit larger group to give them the ability to do that with as long as you know it still meets the number of bedrooms, however, we go about recommending that.

I think 16 is um, but I think that should include the children as well, instead of like as many children as as you want.

I think 16 max um would be something that that I would feel comfortable with.

I don't know about everyone else.

I would feel comfortable with that.

Yeah, it was 16 max, and I could include kids as well.

Sorry, we're not doing public comment right now.

Um define we I think you'd have to have an age on the like kids as being 12 and under.

I think you should go one way or the other.

You do max 12, max 16, or you leave it the way it is.

So that way this is defensible with the state.

I vote max 16.

And then it's but if you do it that way, you are gonna have to go through, so you can't say okay, you have a studio max 16.

You're gonna have to based on the bedrooms.

Yes.

So if it had so it would have to have eight bedrooms in order to it be sixteen.

Right.

You could say five bedrooms is twelve twelve adults and four children.

Okay, and that's 16 guests.

Got it, copy.

Because there are some bedrooms that are bigger, and I've seen like a single like bunk beds in our like two bunk beds, so four four people, four kids or four are sleeping in one room.

Um as far as like the bedrooms go, I think we can have a little flexibility, but they let a studio have four, and a one bedroom have four, so that's you know, and then it goes up by two with each bedroom that's added.

So maybe starting at bedroom four, we could do like bedroom four bedrooms could be twelve, and five bedrooms could be sixteen, five plus bedrooms.

Something along those lines, and then that way it's not children um an adult, it's just sixteen max, like including children, adults.

Okay, so you're saying if you if you start at the just add two, like at the two bedrooms, it could be eight, three bedrooms, it could be twelve, no ten.

Four is twelve and five is five I and I would say five plus.

Five plus.

I don't know that we have many six bedroom homes, but if we had a s you did five plus bedrooms still at sixteen.

So that gives you three people per room, basically.

Yeah.

And these taller though.

As far as the two bedrooms and three bedrooms go, I feel like those are just in general, like smaller homes too, like that keeping those at a six bedroom and eight bedroom max would reduce the traffic in those like smaller neighborhoods that don't have as much parking, maybe starting the to up the limit at the four and five bedroom home.

I mean, they maybe could speak on this little like with the real estate market since you see a lot of homes, but it seems like those three bedroom homes that are still only like twelve hundred or like a thousand square feet.

So it's still pretty small area to have ten people in there.

Yeah, but it on the other side of it, there's some really big three bedroom homes that uh um the you know, I I think if we're gonna go down that path, then it would be gets complicated because then you gotta start looking at square footage.

Um I I think the way you control what you're talking about is done in the parking, not in the square footage or the bedroom size.

So if you if we if we just upped everything by two, starting with two bedrooms going down, um, then once we get to our parking diagram, that's where we're gonna be like, you know what, you can have 16 people there, but you're still only gonna have two cars at the at or you're still only gonna be able to show up in two vehicles.

You're not gonna be able to bring eight vehicles to the to the site.

You're s you're still only gonna be limited in the parking.

So you can sleep 16 people there, but you better show up in a 12 passenger band.

Um, I'm comfortable with that then if we're gonna stick to being a little more, you know, like on the parking, we're not gonna have like a lot of like well, why is it different from you know, versus you know what I'm saying?

Like, if we're gonna make sure that parking doesn't kind of stretch beyond like just their area, then you know, I'm comfortable upping that uh to those smaller houses, but I just don't want it to be like three cars or four cars, because usually more people definitely brings in more vehicles and more parking, like you said.

So yeah, that's and that's why that's why I feel like the parking diagram is gonna be important.

Um to just show because again, if if the house is open, there's a three-car garage and you can park three cars in the garage and two in the driveway.

It's this is where code enforcement is gonna be our big thing.

Is like if they're uh if if the neighbor sees that they're parking outside of their area that was disclosed in the good neighbor thing that was handed around, then they can call and and they have their I think the parking is the is gonna be the area where the enforcement really has to come into play.

Okay, all right.

So just to reiterate, like so it'll be four bedroom for the studio, four, I mean not four bedrooms, four guests for the studio, four guests for one bedroom, and then we start upping it by by two, so then it goes eight, ten, twelve, and then we do our largest jump at five bedrooms, we jump up to sixteen.

Yep.

Correct.

Okay.

And so five plus bedrooms.

Five plus.

Okay, and then that's max guest at children included of all ages.

Yes, max.

Eight.

And guests, like so if they have visitors over, like we talked about for like a baseball event, they're all getting together, like 16 maps including their guests.

What I'm thinking.

It should be everybody on the reservation, is what we're talking about here, because it's impossible to manage guests without getting everybody out there every day.

So we're talking about how many people are able to stay in the house per reservation.

Yeah.

Okay, so when somebody called though the city and makes a complaint because there's more than 16 there.

I are the okay.

That's where we'll go into the defining party and gathering.

We're gonna we're gonna define that as well.

So just curiosity, 363, does it have does it or does it not include unlimited kids?

Um 363 just caps it at 16.

Okay, got it.

So we're basically bump here.

And I think Utah does something similar.

Um a lot of places do.

There's there's some rentals out in San Juan right now that there's we you can comfortably sleep 25 people in in one complex.

So I don't know what their rules are, but like their neighborhoods that are the design for short-term rentals.

Um, but they have like eight bunk beds in one room.

Yeah, and they have like three or four rooms.

It's designed for short-term rentals.

Like we've we've used it several times.

Have you seen the the hotel over here, the rising star or the new one?

Have you ever seen all their bunk beds set up?

I think they're getting rid of that now.

Okay, so those rising stars kind of okay.

So number two, owner to limit parking.

This is a good time to discuss what you guys were talking about earlier.

So this says the owner must by written agreement limit the number of vehicles of overnight occupants to the number designated in the permit, with the number of vehicles of overnight occupants not to exceed the number of designated on-site parking spaces.

Parking buses on site or on the street is strictly strictly prohibited.

So I have one suggestion.

Can we remove the overnight just the word overnight?

Okay, limit the number of vehicles of occupants to the number designated in the permit.

Okay, so it doesn't matter if they're guests or not, you're only allowed to have four cars, four cars.

Because that's that's trying to find that balance of where a lot of our complaints are coming from is during the during the hours where they're allowed to have groups and all of that.

That the hard part for me though is if uh as a homeowner I want to have 15 30 people come to my house and fill up the whole street, I'm allowed to.

Yeah, we're saying that these people can't, but these people aren't doing it every weekend.

Like when you have, I mean, yeah, we could as a homeowner have a party every single weekend at our house.

Like, yes, we could do that, but most people don't.

The nature of like the way that we use our home is not to have big parties, but a lot of these short-term rentals like have a lot of like at least two or three times a week.

I mean two or three times a month, especially during the busy time of year, like the the ninth or month, the street is full of their parking.

I I mean it just seems like uh that would we get some pushback on that from residents.

So just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, you're saying if there are four designated parking spaces, you can have four cars there at any given time, period.

No more.

So if I want to go pick someone up, I max out a cars.

There's someone else more, I gotta go get them, bring them back.

So you don't exceed that four car limit.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, I think if we have a max on um how many cars that that could work too.

I don't I think that I think that that could run into a problem right there because that could be easy to find if they're just coming over idling outside to get a ride.

I think there's a difference between idling outside and parking.

Yeah.

I would be okay with that, but I would I I don't know if this is the right time to do it or not, but what they had spoke about before on what I want to I'm okay with that with also adding in that I think if there's four spots in front of the house or a combination between driveway and front of the house, we should allow them to park on the street.

Let me double check that that's not in the zoning code.

It could be a zoning code issue for parking, and that's why it's on site.

Let me double check that.

So that'd be a question because like as a homeowner, like I can when I lived in a non-HOA, I could park on the street all day long as a homeowner, and I never got in trouble for that.

HOAs definitely have their limitation.

I'm just wondering why we can't allow short-term renters to park on the street in front of the house if homeowners are allowed to be able to do that.

What if we did like one um and no trailers?

Because I think trailers are a big like but picking up a bunch of that like one on street parking overnight.

But if it can fit in front of the house, I don't I don't see an issue with it.

I also wonder if this is a safety issue for fire to be able to have a lot of.

But again, if the homeowner can park on the street and but it's uh technically it's a business.

So they're yeah, no, I'm I'm curious what the code is.

That's yeah, I'll check into that.

Or long-term renters, they can park on the street.

I'm just saying if it's directly in front of the house.

Yeah, check on that, yeah.

Where where I see a uh glitch in this is if the short-term renter shows up and the homeowners around them have already parked in front of that house.

Um, how do you prevent that?

Because they're not guaranteed spots.

That's the other part.

There's a lot of things.

That's what I'm that's what I'm wondering about.

Is if we say that um they can park in the street, but then the neighbor has their friends over and they've already taken up those two spots because they can.

Yeah, now they're going to park across the street because they were told they had street parking as well.

I can see it getting messy.

I do.

That is a very good point.

And that could be why the way it is.

Um I I'd be curious what the city code is on that.

Um on street parking.

Because I I think if street parking is allowed and there's no rule against it, I think part of the designated parking plan should allow for street parking in front of the house.

That's where it's gonna get tricky, like you said, because we cannot say this is your spot to park in.

Yeah, this is only yours.

So that's where it's gonna get you plan for that, and then you oh can't have five cars of designated why I have to park over here, and that's not your designated spot.

Yeah, now you're out of compliance.

Yeah.

So then with that said, I'm okay with it just being in a driveway because that makes more sense.

But check into it.

I'll check into it.

Yeah.

Because then if you if a house, if the driveway can only fit two cars in a garage and driveway, but with the diagram, it could technically do three on the on-street parking.

Then all of a sudden they have three cars, but there's only two parking spots, and that person is go parking somewhere else on the street.

Um outside of their and then what is the what is the city rule for parking if like temporary RV parking?

I think it's 24 hours, but they can't block any driveways.

Yeah, so I'm like, I'm just wondering like if if a if somebody comes down, rents a home, they bring their side by side on a trailer.

Um do they have to back that trailer?

Is that one like is that one of their spots?

Um as long as it's attached to the vehicle.

Is it like is there rules that differentiate between a trailer hooked to a vehicle or let me check?

Um, and that just one of the one of the things to consider then is that trailer should count as one of the one of the spots.

Like if it's taking up a spot that you can't have a two vehicles and a trailer, like if you have here's your parking spots, that trailer counts as one of those vehicles that will fill one of those spots.

Okay.

And I I don't want to overcome that either though.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Anything else on that one?

I like those.

Those are good comments.

So let me get back with you guys on that.

Anything else on number two?

Um, owner to limit parking.

Yeah, I think that kind of just some clarification there.

I like that, you know, no bus parking, but um, I just want to know if if homeowners are allowed to technically allowed to park on the street.

Okay, perfect.

So, number three, best efforts of owner.

They must use their best efforts to assure that the occupants are the guests of the vacation home to not create unreasonable noise disturbances, uh, engage in disorderly conduct or violate provisions of this code or state law.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yes.

I think that's good.

Okay.

Uh number four.

Go ahead.

Just Vanessa, did you have any problems with three?

No, I think that's good.

Number four, owner response to complaints.

The owner must, upon notification that the guests or of his or her vacation rental have created unreasonable noise or disturbance, engaged in disorderly conduct, blah blah must probably use the best efforts to prevent a reoccurrence of such conduct by those noises by those occupants or guests.

So I know we're gonna have down here under local contact.

Um we're gonna have response times.

Yeah, I think that's a good spot to add that, but that's just additional there.

Okay.

Okay, Vanessa, are you good with that one?

Yeah, okay.

Number five is noise.

Uh basically uh no sound machines or anything that produces sounds sounds, shall we use outside or be audible from the outside of any vacation rental unit between 10 and p.m.

and 8 a.m.

That's just regular noise code, but you guys have any problems with that.

What is the daytime?

Is there a daytime noise noise code, or does that fit into three and four where it's talking about being disorderedly and disruptive?

Let's see, noise control.

So if there is one, I think it would go well under noise if you want to add that the same.

So but did you say I just want to make sure they didn't miss anything?

You didn't say yet that we talked about the local response requirements and implementing the end of days one yet, but not yet.

Not yet.

Okay.

Um so regular noise daytime hours per the city code is 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

So this is actually a little more restrictive, 8 a.m.

But what about when there isn't a noise code?

Like how can you have your karaoke machine out there and have a mariachi band going?

There are certain decibels within the noise code that you can reach before you get cited.

But please actually go up there and they have a decimal machine.

Yeah, so yeah, that's that one.

Okay, any questions?

No, okay.

Six.

The uh they must post a copy of their license and the conditions set forth in this section.

It must have them in a conspicuous place.

Uh let me see.

Number seven is notice to be posted.

Each vacation home rental shall have a clearly visible and legible notice posted within the unit or adjacent the front door contain the following information.

The name of the managing agent, agency, property manager, local contact or owner, a telephone number at which that party may be reached on a 24 hour basis, the max number of occupants permitted to stay in the unit, the max number of vehicles to be parked on the property, the number and location of on site parking spaces, uh let's see, emergency vehicle access if any single family dwellings have to have the trash pickup that information.

They have to have the notification that an occupant uh is responsible for it.

Okay, hold on.

Notification that an occupant as a person responsible for an event may be cited or fined for creating a disturbance.

So basically saying you can be held accountable too.

Um just going back one to the garbage one there.

I'm just reading it.

Um so it's it it pretty clearly says that there's a time it can go out the night before it has to be picked up within 24 hours.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, and they have to use the city's 90 gallon base.

Okay, so let's see.

G is notification that failure to conform to the parking and occupancy requires uh requirements are a violation of this chapter.

The occupants um must make must make the notice required by this section available for inspection by the development services, blah blah blah.

So we have to be able to go on and do the inspections.

Parking compliance, we already talked about that, disturbing the piece, the business license number on the advertising, the landline phone, the cleaning service, and that covers number seven.

Okay.

Questions on that one.

So you guys wanted to take out number eleven, right?

The landline phone.

Yeah.

I think it needs to be highlighted as a point of discussion.

Okay.

I because I go back and forth.

I get it, it's archaic.

Um I also get it that if your phone doesn't work and you need to call 911 because Verizon isn't working, you at least have the means, especially if there's a swimming pool on site or something like that.

Anyway, I'm just have you ever used a landline in the last five years?

Just curious.

But I think that like what game paying it it's it's like it.

I get it.

I'm just gonna be to use, but I I understand like if there was a reason because I mean maybe they require you know then other businesses to do something similar, like even though it's very archaic, it is but they might have certain things like a landline that they require of a business that has you know people that are coming and going, and be just one of those AP requirements.

Yeah, um can you break down what it costs to have a landline?

Not right not at the April 2nd meeting, because again, as we think about this and not being undue hardship to businesses.

Um but like like just the cost of like so uh that is accurate.

That is accurate as well.

Um so I'd be curious what your what your cost is um on uh on like kind of that because I didn't even think about if somebody starts making long distance phone calls from your house.

Uh yeah, and could you not just bill that too then?

That's something you're gonna get pushed back on top of it.

Anyway, as yeah, they bill everything Airbnbs.

You dig my wallet, you look out that window around.

That is a possibility.

I just it'd be a point of discussion.

Like I I think I think about like there's that story about you know, every single year you cut the butt off of the ham and you stick it in.

And then when they kid asked, like, why do you always cut it up?

Well, because grandma did it.

Why cheat it?

Because great grandma did it.

Well, why they do it because they're still so small.

Yeah, no, I can fix those.

Um, I and I I totally get it.

That's why I'm that's why I keep wavering, is because I I am curious.

Have you ever used a landline at your house in the last five years?

Probably not in the last 10 years.

Landlines will work in an electricity outage.

I'm looking it up.

That's right, making it up now.

Um it depends on the technology.

Yeah, so some of them will work proper wireland lines will work without internet or power.

But modern BOIP or digital landlines will not work with the internet's down unless they have a battery backup.

So anyway, like I no, I I'm I totally understand the landline thing.

Like it's like I haven't used one in forever.

Um and uh my kids wouldn't even know what a a landline looked like, other than the fact that we visited a hotel and they've seen them in there, but um so like doesn't reliance have and I don't know, maybe it's changed, but when I got reliance, I had a landline to get my internet, and then I was able to say I don't need that part of it.

It used to be that they required you had the landline to have the internet, they made you, and then finally like TDS and other people were coming in and being like, yeah, you don't really need that.

So reliance finally just uh caved and said no, you don't need it.

Yeah, I know it's not it's not the same, it's not performance for I'm just I'm totally game.

I don't carry it away, but I would like it to be questioned.

I should take an out, but okay, it's questioning.

Um but do other No, that's no, I just I agree with that, Sherry.

Like it's worth looking at and if they determine that it's not necessary anymore and it's not enough of a safety thing, then yeah, I get rid of that.

I'm poor.

I'm fine with recommending that.

Do they require like the daycares and in-house daycares to have the state board might or the city doesn't?

The city is but they're no state board for vacation rentals, it's just us.

Okay, no, I'd I'd be okay with putting it straight through it for now and passionate out.

This is where I think we should emerge.

Okay, so we're ready to move on to local contact person?

Yeah.

All right.

213-12, local contact person.

So if you guys want to add in having uh notarized affidavit from the local contact or qualified local operator, that they are available 24-7.

Um respond to any issues within what you guys say, 30 minutes.

Any of that language you want to add it in?

Probably here.

Um I'm game for the app, I think the affidavit's a little bit drawn, but I'm okay with adding it in there.

But I like the affidavit from the applicant standpoint or from the licensing standpoint because all they have to do is write someone down on their license.

If I have something from that person that had to be notarized saying, yes, I am who I am, and I say I'm taking responsibility for that, and that gives us another avenue to hold that person accountable if they're not doing it.

There's also no, I I think that's uh I think having some kind of affidavit to notarize that the qualified local operator is aware.

Um can we I'm just thinking I'm just wondering if I'm just wondering if we can have something where it's like if it's a property management company, does it have to be notarized?

Um like do they have to go get a notary on every single applicant if they're a property management company that does this and we know that they're available.

Like I could see like if you're gonna have your cleaner doing it, I want to know that they've been notified, but like should a property management company have to get every single one of those and notarized.

Um so typically how this would work is something just for food for thought.

The property management companies typically submit the application on behalf of that.

So if they had just they had a standard form, they had I don't need a what stamped or anything like that, but just with the application saying, you know, hey, we are the property management company, somebody will be available 24 seven.

For sure.

I'm just wondering if they had to go and get a notary every single time.

I don't think so.

But but I do think that it's one with the application, yeah.

Yeah, I and I just think that the you know the average Joe that's doing it um and gonna manage it themselves.

I want to know that their local person is aware of what they're doing.

Yeah, but I don't think the property management company obviously they know what they're doing.

They don't, you know, they're yeah, the only people currently doing that are Premier.

No, so if Premier just submits it with it saying, Yep, here's our number, you call them, we will be there.

So I think that would be something.

No.

Okay, so require exact data.

One thing was that um sorry, is everybody done?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, sorry, sometimes it's hard to hear.

Um, but one thing, what if that local contact I didn't think of you should like I mean is there a backup option?

Like can they put in there that it is person that also if I'm not available, like I have a second person?

Like, or is that like I I feel like business friendly would be we want because that's not perfect to be able to address the problem and if they happen to be a normal person.

Like since it's not an agency and it's one person, is that like a second contract, or how did that work?

That makes sense.

Um I would think that if they want to create a tree within the organization, they should be able to do that on their own.

Um, it's still their responsibility, but they can designate whoever they want to fix it.

Correct.

I think that would be sufficient if you guys feel so.

Yeah, that kind of takes it off us having to say, okay, well, they're on vacation.

Well, they're on vacation.

Okay, well now I have to call this person.

No, you call the local contact, and if they have someone else that can come out and take care of it, they'll they'll designate that out.

That sounds good.

That's fair.

So basically I'll just kind of um implement everything that Dave has under 213-6, the local response requirements, into that section and add in that they have to have uh no rise affidavit stating the following.

Hi Simon.

Hi.

One of the things with 2136 um is the question has been like the response time answering the call within 30 minutes.

Um I I think maybe responding within 60 minutes is reasonable, but you should be able to answer a call faster than 30 minutes, right?

Well, yes, I mean it should be immediate, but the thing is what happens if they're driving through the gorge.

I mean, that's like 20 minutes and no service.

So I think 10 minutes is a little bit too tight.

I can't see any as long as the problem is fixed within 60 minutes.

I don't I think that will fix, because I was thinking that too, but what happens is off chance they're driving through the gorge.

Who knows what?

Yeah, I just don't want to set people up for violations if it's even because if it's fixed within 60 minutes, does it really matter whether they get called in 20 minutes or 10 minutes?

If it's fixed, other than the general public knowing that somebody is working on it, like just that peace of mind, okay.

I called somebody, they answered, they're working on it.

Um that's that's the bigger thing.

Like if you make a complaint and you don't know for 45 minutes whether even somebody knows that it's being dealt with.

Like I that's why I don't think the changing the 60 minute thing is as important.

I heard even lowering that to 30 minutes, but I you know, but the the answer to for the general public's peace of mind to know that they filed a complaint and within 15 minutes I'm 20 minutes, like 30 minutes seems like a long time to sit there and wonder if anybody even knows that you've complained.

That makes sense so I like that's that's the only reason I so you feel like with 25 minutes make you feel better?

Or is it 20 year old?

No, it's like 14.

What if we highlight that as a conversation point for the thing?

I'm no, I'm I'm joking.

I just uh I don't know that there's a number that I care.

Um I just uh kind of as I listen to people talk and stuff like that.

That was one of the things is wondering if if answering your call, if you have 30 minutes to answer your call, like is it could could we really answer our calls faster?

I would be I think the most important a random chance it went through the St.

George thing.

So I would think 20 minutes is a reasonable if you really want to cut down because I'd rather identify as many of these so we don't have so much back and forth with everybody.

So I would be down for lowering that down to 20 minutes if that was felt good.

We can talk about it.

I'd like as as we once we get there that just if there's other thoughts on that.

Um isn't now the ton of isn't it?

I mean, one thought I have is that if we didn't do something like 10 minutes, then if you the operator was in the gorge, the other person could still contact whoever go down the next step to try it.

Mean that they're in violation, you still could have 60 minutes to resolve it, but maybe it just allowed that the homeowner, whoever made the complaint to call the next person and make sure it does get resolved within maybe 60 minutes, but I don't think it automatically means if you don't answer your phone that that would be like a violation or anything.

If it's written in here and we don't do it, then it is a violation.

I I would be comfortable with the 20 minutes versus the 30.

Would you be comfortable with that, Vanessa and Dave?

Yeah.

So you guys definitely change it to 20.

I don't think tell them to drive fast gorgeous.

Just because it's in um just because it's in here, if it's still resolved, like that why did that make it an automatic violation?

I was gonna say that's gonna be really hard to enforce on the city standpoint.

Like I called they didn't answer within 30 minutes.

What if you just said within a timely banner?

Within timely manner, and then still in half 60 than 60 minutes.

Yes.

I would like that because you're right, we can't enforce that.

So it it I know it does say here respond on site within 60 minutes when needed.

Um could shit could it even say have the complaint resolved within 60 minutes?

I think that would be something like that.

Yeah.

That that way, like this here doesn't make them have to be there respond if it's not needed, but this way, you know, it doesn't even meet them, maybe they need to fix it.

We if we could it just say with complaint res, but what if you have a person that's complaining and complaining and complaining on the and the resolution doesn't meet their then I think we allow them to call non emergency PD.

Yeah, and then if it is an unverified complaint, then there's multiple of those from that person, then we have the authority to then talk to that person.

Answer calls within 20 minutes, resolved complaints within 60 minutes.

Okay.

Hold on.

Hold on.

I think I have a I have a hang I I like the idea of better to not have to answer the calls within a time frame.

A time frame, it should be a timely manner.

Answer calls within a timely manner.

And then it's resolved within 60.

And and I I do think having a specific time limit on the resolution, because I think timely could be defined differently for different people.

Totally, so resolved within 60 minutes.

I think it's recommended.

And um Yeah, I mean it's definitely recommended, and I mean, I think we could do it that way, but is there any time limits in the city?

Like for this?

Uh no, there's no time limits right now as far as how quickly something has to be addressed.

Um, but if you guys have the section you've been discussing um about the NOBER sorry, neighbor information notice, and you do have in there this is the complaint procedure.

So if someone's repeatedly skipping that process, if council adopts that and makes that ordinance and they're repeatedly skipping that process, that's something we didn't talk to them about too.

Okay.

Okay.

So can we do that?

The answer within a timely manner and the resolve within 60.

Are you guys all on board with that?

I like that.

Okay.

Vanessa, are you good with that answer called within a timely manner?

Yeah.

Okay, I'll put that in, and of course it's going back to the committee too.

So okay.

So anything else on 213-12.

What does it mean, Dave, in here where you said have authority to immediately cure violations?

Local response or have the authority to so you okay, got it, understood.

Never mind.

Just have to talk it out.

Yep.

That's your that's your qualified local operator has the authority to do that.

Yep, yeah.

I got it.

Yep.

And then um A is just the complaints we talked about earlier, you know, verifying, and then B is the just the false complaints, and what we have the ability to do if there are multiple unverified complaints.

So after this section, I think if you guys wanted to add in 213-7 on Dave's rewrite, I think that would be a good time to merge that in if that is something you're still looking at doing.

The neighborhood information notice.

Put that in two-13-2 after the local contact.

Seems like a good flow there.

Okay, cool.

But that was up to you guys.

Yeah.

I like that.

Yep.

Yeah, I like that.

I really like that actually.

Okay.

I think um upping it to from 300 feet up a little bit wouldn't be a bad idea.

Well, okay, so let's say somebody then they land within that case.

How are they going to know who how to get a hold of the qualified local operator?

Is that information going to be easily accessible online?

Uh what's the likelihood of them having a noise complaint or a parking issue if they're without outside that 300 feet?

That would be my question back.

What's the thing for conditional uses?

300?

What's the noticing where this is for 500 for conditional uses?

So you could up it to 500, so when we have to do a conditional use permit in a non-HOA area, we have to notify everybody within 500 feet.

Yeah, I think if you did 500 and um a little bit more, I mean, I don't know what the likelihood is, death line.

Um I just didn't asking what I'm saying.

I'm just trying to envision five minutes feed.

How many how many poses?

I can show you, Dave.

Let me find my uh public notifier link.

And I can show you what that would look like.

Like in some of those places there, they're notifying about eight to nine houses.

Okay, 500 feet is eight to nine houses, so okay.

Okay, correct.

Seems it seems like there would be more than that.

Because you got what is the frontage 60 to 74?

The requirements is in the city, it's uh 60.

So you find 500 60 is that it's uh and it's just a thing to say, hey, here's our information.

That's all that this is.

I'm just trying to make it so that they don't have to canvas three, four, five blocks of houses where I think it would be good to be consistent from my personal licensing standpoint, because if some of these are in non-HOA areas, I have to send that notice out to the C UPs, and then those same people are gonna get that same information for the local contact, just to be consistent.

So they're not saying, well, now I don't know who to call or whatever.

So there's a point to that side.

Yes, if this maintains thing in a CUP, which is not our responsibility.

Right.

That would be I'm saying to be consistent with that.

Yeah.

I'm up to you guys though.

Do you want to highlight it and bring it back to the committee for interest of time?

If it's already just the distance, um I I further but I don't I don't think I don't think 500 feet on I have heartburn with that, but I'm not the one out there walking around handing those out either.

Well, could the city provide like the STR contact with a list of addresses and then they pre-stamp them and give them to the city, and then the city mailed them?

Or they're not hand delivering them, right?

Well, we would do um we do this for neighborhood meeting notices for the planning process.

We provide a list of the addresses, but it's on the applicant to mail those out.

And then I would like to know, Vanessa, because I I'm kind of the same, I don't really 300 or 500, I what is the what is the purpose of somebody s um 500 feet away, or not within the 300 feet, what would be the purpose of them needing that information if they're far enough away that we're parking doesn't matter to them or the noise doesn't matter to them.

Well, um Doug actually brought it up when he came in and addressed like that was one thing that he asked if it could be higher.

So I mean he's a resident and he he asked for that.

But I also was just wondering, like if it like I guess I don't get what the down like if it if you're hand delivering and it's a lot of extra work that way, but it just is that many more people that have the information if they need to get a hold of or they notice anything going on, they can a lot of times you drive right past the house because you might live uh 500 feet down the road, but you drive past the short-term rental every day and you notice there's a parking issue, or you notice whatever it's still in your neighborhood, so then they could get a hold of you instead of having to contact a non-emergency clean line or I don't know, I just thought it might help broaden the region a little bit more if there is an issue they can get a hold of you easier.

I just yeah, I just why don't we highlight it and bring it back so to the committee?

I'm just I'm just messing with a little map right here and measuring.

So in like the Cherokee, Blackfoot, Bannock Street area.

Like if somebody's on Blackfoot and they have to notify within 500 feet, they're they're almost at the post office.

Um so they're they're they're having to go to a neighbor.

I that's really way outside of their their range there.

Um it would be 500 feet is a really it's gonna come, it's gonna be more than eight eight homes.

Like if they do a 500 foot radius around that home, there's there's a lot, and then there's a lot of homes that are gonna be on a different street that's not even in the same neighborhood, depending on again, depending on where the house is.

Um I think I would lean towards just keeping it at that 300 for now.

Just because again, if you if you actually pull out the measurements and start measuring, 500 feet is a lot of homes.

Homes that won't even be affected by parking, and it would be a crazy, crazy noise violation if uh if that home was affected by the noise, like PD's gonna be there if the noise is bothering them.

That's that's a full city block away.

Anyway, so I'm I'm kind of leaning towards the 300 now that I'm looking at a measurement.

You guys wanna just put that in?

I'll highlight it as a point of discussion, and I can bring the public modifier to show the committee what that would look like.

I I would like to stick with the 300.

Okay.

I'll put it in the case.

Yeah, I think that if you could do that, Jacqueline, that would be nice just to see it.

Maybe depending on how they just decide to determine that 300 feet or 500 feet, that'll make a different because I know there's different ways to measure um maybe we just require a different way to measure that.

It's in okay.

Uh the next thing I want to talk about this one on this, you have prior to initial issuance of the authorization.

So let's say these do all this work, they send them all out and then they don't get approved.

They can't get their inspection passed.

So Vanessa right now both Sherry and I are would prefer to just leave it at the 300 and make that the recommendation to the committee um and by in instead of having the instead of having the April 2nd meeting longer by well I think it's worth noting you're gonna have to go through every single thing we change with the committee.

This is not gonna be uh hey this is what we recommend you like it it's gonna be hey this is what we did on this part this is what we do on this part yeah how about this this this so it's gonna be a discussion on every single point Vanessa could we just leave it at 300 for now and then when it comes up on April 2nd it'll it'll be a point of discussion I guess I don't get what the problem is with having more information from from Jaspline about like what it would look like how it would work.

I think I can have it ready for you guys yeah I get that it might take a little more time but I don't think it would take that much more time no also I'm I'm not like it's not a huge deal to me um there's other ways that they need to make the complaint and if it causes just a tremendous amount of more work for short-term rental home to be able to do then yeah I mean I'm not saying it absolutely has to be done I just also done you know in the beginning made a suggestion of just trying to also include um the people in the seat and their voice in this as well yep.

So what I'm hearing is two of the three want to keep it 300 for the the rewrites take back to the committee and then it can be a point of discussion there.

Yeah okay perfect okay so prior to the initial issuance of the license you guys want these things to go out.

I have heartburn with that as a staff member because I don't know the approval times of the licenses and you have it here seven days before issuance sometimes we don't know when that's gonna be they might have their inspection scheduled and fail it and then we have to go back and do it again.

So those are some things from a staff standpoint that I have issues with.

No I so can the license be issued um or approved but not issued until those are sent out I don't have a problem with it being issued because then they can't change anything.

They've got it on with me on record notarized this is who my contact person is and that has to be the same person on this notice if that's what gets done.

Yeah I'm just I'm just trying to make sure that they actually go out and do that last requirement.

Yeah um that and I think that's the I think that's the the question there is like if you give them their license and say go ahead how do how do you enforce that they actually went and finished the last step of how do I enforce it anyway you don't give them a license until you verify how do I know they sent it yeah unless I go walk with them or I stand while they send them in the mail.

You need to do do you need more work trust me I that's a good point either way.

How so how how do you I mean go ahead zoning changes like with zoning changes how it to like I had to do something in Mojave County where I sent in like a pre my envelope was pre-addressed the Mojave County meet county provided me with their addresses and then I put a stamp on it and then they actually put the information in and sent it out.

I mean because it was really pretty simple after that it was already done like I did everything uh and then that way you know for sure because it was a city worker who went and put them in the mail.

So that's something we could explore um one thing I want to avoid as a staff member is well I don't want it there.

I don't want it there it's not issued yet don't issue it like going to council getting counsel rolled up over something that's completely outside their realm and just saying oh alright issued here's your information wait until it's issued can you wait until it's issued because it really doesn't matter like what at that point like yeah we can go to city council and we can continue people continue to raise their voice about certain things they don't like and they're welcome to do that during public comment but at the same time the city is going to issue a license regardless if they meet whatever is in this chapter they're not going to discriminate and say no you meet the requirements but sorry we had too many people complain.

So I stick them in the post office box, that's it.

How do you feel about that?

Do you have heartburn on that?

I I can issue the license right after that.

Well, and just something to kind of think about is if you actually think about in real like application, why the home the operator would want to have these cards already sent out because fast forward they don't they want to be the first point of contact.

And if it finds out that they do get a violation or they just or the city finds out about it, it's actually something legitimate, and then they realize that these people weren't notified scheduled.

Like if there's no benefit to the operator not handing out these cards, so I don't see that we need to put in place violations or or whatever that they hand out these cards because they they would hand out these cards.

You would hand out the cards.

You would hand out those cards.

But if they don't get those cards handed out, then on the back end, they'll get strikes and they'll get penalized and they'll get taken out of the system.

Yeah, but then that creates more work for code enforcement.

Yeah.

Okay.

No, and I agree, like you're gonna do the right thing.

Property management's gonna go and do the right thing and make sure all that stuff is handled correctly.

Um, but there's so many people that are just gonna be have good intentions.

Oh, I'll get to it, I'll get to it.

Oh, I I'm not in town, I'll get to it.

You know, it's not that they're malicious and not handing it out, but I think it would be like something if they have their license and can start operating, um their their good intention, like I think it's important to know that that stuff was done before they can operate.

But still on the back end, they would still get in trouble for it.

But now you have this this well that's right, the code enforcement we just finished talking about that.

Yeah, so now you have this period of time where the neighbors don't know, they don't know how, and we kind of have that mess.

This just kind of eliminates that.

So, what you're saying is if there's five houses or 500 houses, right?

Whatever it is, the numbers, the operator will need to send you five separate blank envelopes and five types of stamps and five separate little cards already for you to send it out.

Correct.

I think the operator needs to have them stamped, addressed, ready to go.

So that's even more reason why the 300 versus the 500.

No, that's why I'm I it just there's a lot of work that even 300 sounds like a lot, but so okay.

What I'm hearing that you guys want to add is we can take out the prior.

Uh well, we can leave prior to initial issuance because I won't do it until I have them.

So they have to bring envelopes.

The city will provide a list of the people within the determined area.

They have to bring the envelope stamped sealed, ready to go to be mailed out.

Um, we can actually even get a copy of that with their application.

And then once I have I the city staff has mailed those out, then we can issue the business.

I would even though I want to go back and go visit the 300 now.

Let's do that later.

We it is 4:30.

So we have a lot of stuff that drop through if you don't mind.

Continue.

Okay, so carry on.

Back receipt and how um yes, I think that's good.

Okay.

Um the only other thing I wanted to discuss on this one is letter C under number three, document criminal behavior for law enforcement.

I do not want to put our publics in harm's way trying to document things that may be happening with short-term rentals.

I will document criminal behavior for law enforcement.

I think law enforcement should document that and we should just take that one out.

Okay, yeah, okay.

That's just for a public safety.

Okay, so I will move that one out.

Okay, perfect.

We are going strong here.

Anything else on that one before we move on to so now we'll be on two 1313 in our current code, but I will merge that above this section.

So we're on violations and penalties.

Violation and penalties.

Okay, got it.

I do want to suggest that we implement the spacing from AB 363.

I don't know when um would be a good time to talk about that, but I would like that added to the updated chapter 13.

I know it still needs to be a discussion among the committee members, but yeah, so that's something I want to Simon and I talked about this last week about implementing the 660 in non-HOA areas.

We do believe that's something that could be accomplished if that's something the committee wanted to entertain.

So can we can we save all of like the capping the amount of business license, the the distancing from that?

Can we save that for like one specific section?

Because I think that's gonna be our biggest holdup on everything.

Is that's that's probably gonna be our biggest contention within the committee is the distancing.

If if we can save that for its own special section, um I think that's great.

So that way that way we can we can at least approve everything and get it all all organized and then have a section that talks about capping, distancing, hotel resorts, all that stuff in in one section, so it's that it's a point of discussion, but I agree that we need to discuss it.

I agree.

Yeah, I mean, and I agree to an extent, but I also feel like you know, we're willing to up the bedroom um to make sure we're in compliance with AB 353.

We're willing to do like to make it so they can have even more people there.

So it's like I feel like there's some compromise going on here, but at the same time, it doesn't seem like you anybody wants to even give an inch on facing, and at some point, like just seems like we're willing to nitpick AB 353 to benefit short-term rental homeowners, and we really need to address the facing.

So I didn't I guess if it needs to be done separately, but yeah, I didn't say anything about not addressing it.

I just thought that if we if we because I do know that it is the biggest point of contention, if we put it in its if we talk about it in one section, so that it's all there, that I think will help us get through all the other things faster.

Yeah, okay.

Um I guess one other thing that we I want to make sure.

So what happened if somebody doesn't feel comfortable contacting the short-term rental homeowner, like then they want to just contact the non-emergent deline and put in a complaint and then it like do they have to contact a local um a local operator, like otherwise it doesn't get committed, especially with like the environment that's going on, a lot of these short-term rental homeowners and neighbors are not getting along very well.

Is there any way that it could be suggested that they start with this point of contact, but if they would prefer to contact the non-emergent fee to put in their complaint, they can do that, or that they have to do that for I think that'd be up to council to decide that procedure and confirm this is what should be followed, and then go for because if they're not resolving their issues, then they're gonna be in violation as well.

So the not the local qualified person.

So I think that would be up to council to decide.

Okay.

Okay, are you guys ready to move on to the violations and penalty section?

Yes.

Okay, so we have half an hour and we're almost done.

So let's see if we can get there.

Okay, so I will let you guys uh lead on this one.

I know you have different thoughts and opinions on different things, so take it away.

Whoever wants it.

So basically, this one is just going to um go through that they failed to comply with the sections of this chapter or any additional conditions that were imposed upon them.

The local contact didn't um respond, the owner violated the provisions of the chapter, they didn't resubmit their room tax.

Um they have submitted false or misleading information on their business license application, um, and then there's the penalties listed.

So, right now the first violation within a 12-month period is a warning courtesy notice.

Second violation within a 12-month period is a notice of violation or an administrative fine not to exceed $500 or both the notice and the fine.

Um I know we have to consider the the caps.

Um, there's some law we can't just find them a ridiculous amount.

Yes, so they they do have an AB 363 if that's what you're referencing.

Yeah, um, they may not exceed a thousand dollars for a single violation or the nightly rental value of the residential room or unit, whichever's greater.

Okay.

Um so in B2.

Um of the things I've heard is considering that one to be a just a thousand dollars.

So just doubling it, just doubling it on your sec on your second violation.

I've also heard some talk about not even giving a warning, um, and just going straight to if you if you have a violation you get fined.

I'm not I'm I'm a big proponent of a little grace.

Um, and to if the to have somebody that is a great business person and has a great clean record, and they have one violation to just all of a sudden bam, you get a thousand dollar fine.

Um I think somewhere in there it also gives the city maybe it's in mine, gives them the direction that you they can skip the warning and go straight to the fine if it's egregious.

But I don't I'm not sure if that was just something I thought of or whether that's something that actually got written down.

But uh I I think having a a warning and then a thousand dollar fine and then another one and then a revoking.

Um the question would be if you have a fourth violation, your business license gets revoked and you're within the distance.

Are you just that means you can no longer ever have a short-term with that basically you're you're you're done?

I would think so.

Okay.

Do you know what you call me they can be up and lie?

But uh city council can't eject it on the basis of past uh signals.

But if it's within the if they do the distancing and that the one is a little bit of a case.

Oh, if it is done saying then that just automatically makes it go away.

So that's where I think happened again.

If you're we're if we're hitting a fourth violation, then it's obviously there's a there's a problem there, but I I do I would lean towards giving them the written warning before fining.

But if if somebody wanted to jump it up to a thousand dollars, the second one, third one, fourth one.

Um if you're done, I want to make sure in here uh that if somebody was operating without a license, that they can't be issued a license just with a warning.

I feel like that is like what would stop somebody from operating their a short-term rental prior to receiving a license.

Like a lot maybe they'll just wait until they get caught, or maybe they'll eventually go and apply, but they still all they were all the consequence was was a warning.

Like I don't feel like that's enough to stop somebody just doing it without a license.

I think it the consequence needs to reflect something that would really make them question whether or not they want to take that rent.

I well, what happens if they just don't know about it?

Because in other states, like in Wyoming, we don't require a short-term rental license, and so they just don't know, and so they start one here and then they find out about it, and then they immediately go get a license because there's there's a badge of people that just don't know.

There are people that do it intentionally and they're just renegades, but I think it's worth noting that for the code enforcement procedure, it's one case.

So if you get a letter and you have a certain amount of time to comply, you don't comply, you go on to the second one.

You're getting a notice of violation.

You still don't comply with them that time, then you're getting fined.

And it's a thousand dollars per day per occurrence.

Wow.

So if it's lifts listed every day for a week, you're up to a seven thousand dollar fine.

So it's it's perfect, and that's for the in there.

That's for our regular code enforcement process.

Okay, so that's in a different outside of us.

Okay.

But this one would, yeah, if they don't have a license to be revoked, I would think it would fall under the regular code enforcement procedure.

It is, but the debt section uh the AP363 has kind of some other languages in it.

And um it's more severe.

Yes, they do have um, if they if they have don't have a license, it can be not less than a five thousand dollars or more than ten thousand for no license.

But it says um you can take into account the severity of the violation, whether they acted in good faith, if they have a history of previous um violations and things like that.

So AB363 does have language for people that don't have licenses.

So they immediately get the fine when they get discovered.

Let's see, as long as they want to.

It says you may, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, establish the schedule.

So you don't have to, but you may I'm fine punishing or not punishing.

I I can see both sides.

What are you talking about?

Um yeah, I uh you know, as a business owner, I have to follow all the rules, and at the state level, the federal level, the city level, and if I don't, it's a penalty, probably harsher than a short-term rental guy not following the rules, so I'm okay.

If if you're not following the rules, um I'm okay with the stiff penalty.

Um because we all have to follow the rules, and I I really struggle with people who skirt the rules.

Um so like if you're a handyman and aren't licensed, I'm probably gonna be the guy that wants to call you in because I have to follow the business rules as well.

So yeah, I'm good with a penalty.

What so we could then maybe add an 8363.

I was gonna say, do you guys want to add a letter C here?

Um or maybe push B down and add a um add a section under A for if you're operating without a license, or I think actually probably be better to just add a C and say anyone with operating without a license could be subject to these fines.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, that would be what's the what's the city code for not operating with the license?

Um up to a thousand dollars.

So I would I'd maybe even reference that if you're reference that city code, like if you're if you're operating a business without a business license, you're subject to these fines plus city code, blah blah blah.

Yeah.

Okay.

And you can quote me on that.

Blah blah.

Blah blah blah.

Well, set two inches or one.

Are you guys okay with the other existing violation um penalties under B, the second, third, and fourth.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So is it within our scope to also at some point talk about how like how they get a sign, like so if they if an issue is resolved within 60 minutes, um and then that goes in as one like is there a formal documentation so that if it becomes a trend or something that they could be like, oh, we've had to call.

Yeah, it was resolved every 60 minutes, but it was like every other week we had to call the operator to let them know.

Is that something that like how will it be assigned a number or something so that eventually it can come back and be a violation or a warning?

That's the hard part because if they're just going to the local contact, we're not getting it at all.

Um, but if their local contacts able to resolve it within 60 minutes, is it a verifiable complaint?

Is it something that's easily remedied?

That's gonna be that's gonna be a tough part.

Yeah, yeah.

Normally once on the happening is uh people don't actually call the property manager, they may need to call the police.

So I should I suppose dispatches they identify the issues don't collect case directly.

And the police will um they're gonna uh uh decide you pay on a contact and a property manager, and then uh don't clutch talks like they're gonna be.

So that's one thing the committee's looking at changing, is having them call the local contact first, and then if it's not resolved within 60 minutes, then call local meeting.

So what's your recommendation on that?

That that that footage has cannot enjoy the manual.

Um it can do uh individuals.

So if they can prove that uh I I code according to my call uh record, I call them like 11 o'clock at night, and then it didn't resolve until midnight.

And then if they have that record, and then some minute.

Uh but the before that they also need to call the police and their call.

So police need to get in bar, and the police need to pull the manager.

So another 60.

But if it's if it's the garbage can that was left out past six o'clock and they call the property manager and the property managers, I'm on my way, I'll get it resolved.

Are you gonna call the police right then and also get them involved so that the clock stuck stops sticking or start sticking so that a garbage can be put away?

So there's always a gray area.

Yeah, no, it's uh so I I'm not giving you're not talking about every individual uh real citizen shape C.

So uh there can be some people really have what you uh might be and uh one I should be uh do the vet you know against other person.

So in the case of who knows so what is the 16 minutes?

So you could be the six minutes or even three minutes, so nobody knows.

So in that part is a private issues that uh we can hardly uh prove.

So I I hope you can actually it is a good thing.

I mean if you guys can uh make people resolve everything within 60 minutes and uh everything will be peaceful and police and city will not invoke in that's by me does, but uh our portion.

If you are expecting us to work on it, then our preference would be make them call the police every time.

So everything will be equal to and the hour would be equal to the code.

But is this where there's a spot on the city, like can they make the city website that has that complaint section or the police department where there's a com uh section there?

Like there's gotta be some kind of reasonable differential between a noise complaint and a and that so RPD isn't necessarily going out there on a call that could be easily resolved with property management or the person there.

Like and I I get it, there's a gray area, there's gonna be those that but um well, maybe we put some of that back on the property management company and say you need to compile a weekly report and submit to the city for any calls you received from neighbors.

Yeah, yeah, and if it goes to extreme, it's so easy to see when they actually called the property manager because they just screenshot, they can just send a text, they can do whatever, like I that's if someone has gone to the point where they're mad enough to contact the police department because it's happened so many times, I guarantee they're gonna be tracking that they how many times that they called and the the exact minutes how long it took for the text messages.

Yeah, so maybe that's well the thing is though, it's still it's still the fact that if they have to call, like as a somebody that lives in the speed, if I have an STR next to me and I have to call every single weekend the STR host to let them know, hey, your residents are here doing this again.

Thanks for resolving it within 60 minutes, but guess what?

I don't want to have to be the one calling every every two weeks to give you know you a heads up that they're violating something, like that's not my responsibility, and that's not the residents' responsibility to be code enforcing and calling all of these in without some sort of consequence if they do it over and over again.

I understand if they resolve it one time and it's only like once a month, yeah.

I probably wouldn't even call, I wouldn't want to put anything in.

But if I got to a point where I was frustrated and I wanted to make sure that it was documented, I I would prefer to not have to call the police.

Like they said it would be nice if it was online, like they can just go on there and submit a request and it gets time stamped.

I don't think that having the uh property managers or the post report it back is going to give the residents reassurance that they need.

I think that it needs to be they can submit it through either the city website or if it's a non-emergency police line just to make sure that it's documented every single time.

So what's your guys' goal here?

Is it to tax PD and code enforcement less and put more responsibility on the property managers, or is it to have it documented for their car was in the wrong spot, they came, they moved it.

What what's the goal that you guys are trying to achieve?

I think put it more back on the property manager.

I think once these are actually in place, then we're gonna actually see the results that it gets taken care of.

I think a lot in the meetings, a lot of the common complaints was they just didn't even with Vanessa's dad, he just didn't know exactly who to call.

So Vanessa, what would you say your goal is?

I just want to make sure I know um that it has to be in order for the city to be able to respond and hold somebody accountable and take it back to this chapter 13 that there was a violation going on, it has to be documented.

And I'm concerned that calling the local contact person won't result in any sort of documentation.

If there is a business, if there's a listing on a host software without a business license, and somebody wants to report that listing, how do they report that listing?

Like regardless, there has to be somewhere that you can report a listing so that it is documented and it's not uh case number or whatever you need to be able to reference it back if you have to revoke somebody's license.

So I'm hearing I'm hearing two things from you, Vanessa, and correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm hearing it's not the resident's job to do the code enforcement and report everything.

And then I'm hearing we want somewhere to report it.

So which way are we going with that?

So uh I think I think uh you guys are actually thinking, uh right, but the there is a two uh uh issues.

So um I wasn't here from the start to sell you about this uh reporting uh the procedures, procedures, but uh reporting and the uh getting into the resolution between private residencies and homeowners, uh the uh STR owners should be the option or is not the uh actually shouldn't be the actually in the in the proper procedure that that is included in the reporting.

So what I'm saying is we can keep it an option to resort if you change the register, which it has nothing wrong with the you you guys know somebody or but the STR owner knows the neighbors and the neighbors talk to the SDR owners and resolve it and his school.

We don't need to know, right?

So it's it's gotta be option.

But there is other cases that doesn't resolve it definitely.

The neighbors doesn't like the SPR, SDR doesn't like neighbor, and they try to resolve it but never resolved it.

In the case, they they should be able to go through the uh police as soon as possible rather than they just to talk to each other, you know, just ask them like everything to the worst.

So I'm uh recommending is a whatever you're you're intelligent that uh dispute the uh resolution uh between the residents and the uh SDR owners be an option.

Is the straightforward to us.

Well, and then we also have the online we we will, yeah.

We can have the online option.

And that's like I I like the idea of like two neighbors being able to figure it out first, yeah, and that not necessarily count against them as a violation, because they figured it out.

But Vanessa's right, if you're calling every weekend or several times on a weekend to report something, obviously there's a problem that isn't really being resolved, it's being resolved temporarily.

So there's gotta be a little give and take in that.

I don't like the idea of our police department having to go out um because of you know uh the little things.

Um so if there's a it the online, like if there's an o on an online option to report, it's anonymous.

Um so that way it takes away the uncomfortableness of reporting and uh and then it timestamps it.

So here's that.

But it's also being evaluated because if it's a nuisance, like if it's somebody just complaining because they don't like the fact that there's a short-term rental beside them, but everything about the short-term rental is legal, you know, then it it's also being documented that they're the ones that are kind of being the nuisance as well.

So both both sides uh I I really like the the idea of a website where they can go and and report it and not necessarily be a the police department has to respond.

That's what I'm I'm trying to find that balance.

I don't want our police department to have to go out there and constantly be running on calls.

I don't even want our code enforcement to necessarily have to be going out there all the time.

Um but Vanessa's right, there comes a point where if somebody is constantly being a true problem, it has to be resolved, and that's where police and code enforcement get involved.

Well, I don't think we've given the chance to ever yet to where it's a standard to where you contact the person in charge.

We haven't had that experience, so we can't take whether it's gonna work or not gonna work because we haven't ever had that, and that just is a common thread where people keep saying they know who we didn't call, then they would just call.

And I cannot see for a second.

But we'll find out maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm totally wrong.

But I think that once we actually rule this out and people know exactly who to call, Mary's gonna want to take care of it right away.

Yeah.

She isn't wanting Bob to go call 15 different times.

Yeah.

So we'll put in the um the section where um the notice information, you know, preferred or suggested to contact the qualified local operator first, and then if it's not resolved, put call within 60 minutes.

If you don't feel comfortable doing that, call them on emergency PD or file here.

But it's important to know that if it's filed on the website, it's not gonna be dealt with right away.

So that's something.

But it it's it's documenting that is not a way, I think the important thing there that yeah.

The problem is they if someone calls uh and then we cannot prove that is true.

Well, you can with the you they can you can stake your phone and show it text, take a screenshot, unless you're dialing with the landline.

Yeah, with our with our cell phone.

If there is there is uh uh there are some evidences that that's right.

Yeah, that and if it is a kind of uh traffic issues and parking issues and uh all those cases, it is fine, but uh the neighbors can actually hear the situation.

But uh don I I I wouldn't actually think that uh uh the reporting to the police who would bother them, that's their job and job security.

I had a discussion with them, and they actually prefers uh people notifying them and they go out there, they prefer that's actually nothing than something big, so they have to handle it.

But uh so do not shy about talking to the police as their job.

And uh if they can be there, uh they can identify if it is a violation or not to.

For sure.

Sounds like you guys have a pretty good idea on what you want for this violations part.

Okay, if you all feel pretty comfortable with that, I'll draft it up and send it out for your review.

And I think if you guys are comfortable skipping 213-14 and 15 uh through 18, I think it's all pretty basic, and we can discuss that later with the actual committee.

If you feel like we need to review that further.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um Marco, that's all of that.

What do you need as far as action just um well there's a I think still a couple of things that we need to um that it that we said we would talk about?

Um one is the so my recommendation is that we add a section in here for the city that says at some point um with the US census that the city's gonna follow state law.

So Simon has recommended that's out of our scope.

Oh, okay.

So we don't need to do it.

It's the law.

So if it hit the 2030 uh census, then if 2020 census says we are over 25,000, um we gotta have to above the 363.

That's all they need to figure out what they want to do with that.

We don't have to worry about it.

So are you hearing that, Vanessa?

Yeah.

Um, but that doesn't take place in the spacing discussion, right?

That we're going to have, but you're saying we need to have that with the whole committee.

That would have that with the whole committee on April 2nd.

Okay.

Yeah.

Can't we do a recommendation towards the committee?

I would prefer you don't.

I prefer you talk to it with everybody.

Yeah.

That's gonna be another hour conversation.

Yeah, so the recommendation, Vanessa, is that we did we kind of has uh the the spacing um and all of that on April 2nd when we uh when we get together as a group.

Okay, so these are just basic things that I'll go through and um compile, merge into the codes together, send for you guys to look at, and then we'll take it to the committee on April 2nd.

Okay.

Um do we need to add something in there that well again that might be I'm just one of the things that was brought up is just do we need to have something in the code that says that once spacing occupancy rules are adopted, those that currently have it will be grandfathered in.

Nope, we don't need to have any of that in there right now.

Um because of all we don't have any distancing in here right now, so that's something to do with the committee, and then if you guys decide to implement that, we can add that at that time.

And if you're talking about AB 363 coming into the whole, the city will have to redo the whole ordinance anyway, so it won't matter.

What we do with it.

Do not worry about that part grandfather, any issues or those unless you decide to do that.

So as you finish those details, then uh we gonna put it in and those details details in and make it okay.

So do you need an action item on that?

Um I would say to direct staff to do the presentation for the committee.

So I make a motion to direct city staff to compile the notes that we have all put together tonight and get ready for our April 2nd meeting.

Okay, I do have that perfect call for the vote.

All in favor, say aye.

Okay, 3.2 discussion and possible action on extending committee meeting dates.

Um any public comment on 3.2 only seeing oh coming.

I have some comments, but I don't know exactly which one.

Is it about extending our committee meeting dates?

Just this.

Okay, so let's do that one next.

So closing seeing that we'll move on.

Um I don't think we need any more meetings.

We have one for the April.

Oh, the subcommittee?

Yes, oh yeah, no, I don't want to.

Okay, so you want to make a motion.

If you want to make a motion, as much fun as this has been I it's your turn to make a motion.

I motion that we didn't extend it, we can't extend it.

Okay, Vanessa, the motion was made that we do not extend any more subcommittee meetings.

Okay, yeah.

Um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, item 4.1 is committee comments and reports.

Anyone have anything?

Just us three, Vanessa Dave or Sherry.

Nope.

Okay.

Uh 5.1 is public comment.

See if we have public comments make.

I think we'll step up and say you're name for the record, please.

Um, I just wanted to see if they put it on the agenda for this second, and I know I'm not the person that tell you that, but I have the president of the shortcut for rental uh association that would like to explain the injunction that is one on part county and what they've been going through there, and um if they can you guys can ask questions to her and she can explain some things.

I think it might be helpful to see what current lawsuits are in the mix right now and what we might not want to get into or not to if that's um and then um I don't think we talked about it, but there was in that in your thing, Dave, that the license holder is limited to five homes, and I don't know if that got in that or was I didn't hear you guys talk about it, so that's the thing you guys want to talk about.

Um and I don't know why.

I don't know why it would be if one guy owns a property here with three other people and then another couple and this couple same person.

I think that was 363, right?

I think that's where it came from.

So just the one thing that uh somebody comes in here and explain about the comedy case, which it is not determined yet from the one side, they wouldn't be that one because uh if our um the attorney is uh there, then maybe uh we can have that discussion, but uh there is no judge, there is ongoing discussion, and uh that we cannot actually after listening to that person's statement, we cannot honestly determine which is which.

And our decision could be wrong.

In the last meeting, there was talk, and you would say something, you would say something member thought it was something different, and I wanted to clarify.

Yeah, the clarification will be uh done by the judge later when that is concluded.

And uh right now it is an ongoing issue, so we cannot actually discuss about it.

There was a some uh assumptions and that there was a some talk, but that wasn't based on anything.

What we talked about was we know that what's going on out there, and uh I actually uh told that the uh committee uh that the uh date uh in my knowledge they uh they are actually uh suing the cleft colony for the studies of issues.

That was it, and we didn't actually didn't think that.

No, no, the the thing is uh we don't need to know not right now uh about the details because it judge didn't say and uh the your manager or somebody come here and talk about uh why they they may uh sue the collect county, the reason why cannot actually become the port.

It was a facts in the case, she wants to go with the facts of the case to tell you guys.

Oh no, and she would be allowed to do the three minutes because she's public, she's allowed to do three minutes, we couldn't prevent that.

Well, three minutes that they can talk uh for the three minutes, whatever that person could be.

Uh but uh I don't think the legal issues shouldn't be discussed at the end there when that is actually under discussion at the court.

I just thought it would be educational for people to hear what we're doing.

Yeah, I understand it.

I cannot nobody can educate to somebody else without proven uh she if it is not approved.

So to get her, but she could on public comments.

Yeah, they they can talk, yeah, uh for three minutes.

Well, we could three minutes, but we could I remember um that during one of the meetings that there was extra time given.

If it is the city attorney talking about that case, and the what uh attorneys think about it, then that isn't something we need to listen to.

But if it is somebody else who has a private knowledge about the case and talk about the ongoing court cases, I wouldn't make a recommendation.

However, if it is the personal option, personal opinion, and she he or she can come to the meeting and they can talk for three minutes.

It is a private opinion.

Okay, it is not the educational opportunity, it cannot be so she cannot publicly do it, but she can meet with she can maybe not be agenda, cannot be can't be on the agenda, but she comes in.

It's not recommended to come talk to you guys individually.

No, she can come talk at the meeting or individually just trying to keep it in the scope.

Yeah, I think that's all Simon's trying to achieve.

Okay.

Um let's see.

The um the city code, I I looked it up and I know that for the parking it's confirmed you're gonna confirm, but it's 24 hours and then have to be moved for a normal homeowner and whatnot.

Um and I don't know why we would but we talked about you guys I'll talk about that.

Um the other thing is we have talked about maybe a notice or something going out to the people around the STR.

It should be a uniform form or something that should say, here's the police phone number, here's the police website, here's the city website.

If here's the main property manager to call, and there's a ton of calls sometimes that we get that are just like, hey, the bathroom light is on and it's bothering me.

You know, that's non-police call.

You know, it's it's it'll could be resolved super easy by just calling the manager.

And there's a lot of the little things that I hope that would help you too.

That like throughout your issues with them, the property manager, the person, whoever it is, can get to this and solve the problem right away instead of having the police or code enforcement first frivolous things.

If it's parking, if it's noise, we understand everything.

Um and then um the unlicensed operators, I want them to go away too.

I want you guys to get them and get rid of them, make them do their thing.

However, is that part of the spokes scope of work that we are doing right now?

We're doing licensing for the STRs.

So is that something that your code inform or your city code is the one that goes and gets them?

Like you're your 100,000 dollars a day and all that.

I in my mind I'm thinking that's what that is, and they don't know these rules because they don't have a license to know the rules.

So I think I don't know, I've just wanted to point that out.

Um and then the time frame, and I think I really thank you for telling it like in a timely manner.

Ten seconds.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, okay.

Go ahead.

State your name for the record.

Good counsel.

One just comment.

I know the majority here doesn't think a landline's important.

I think it might be important.

So if I had a problem with the neighbor, I could call up and say, you know, your kids are splashing at 10 30, cut it out, and not have to call the police.

What's wrong with calling the person in the house?

You can get a line with no outgoing calls allowed, so you don't have to worry about running up a phone bill.

But I think it could help if we could everyone wants to be a good neighbor.

Let's talk to the neighbor.

And not even the neighbor.

Surely you know I had a really bloody battle with my neighbor for two or three months over a license.

But he's turned out he had six people yesterday or this past weekend, two cars and a van parked in the driveway.

Another guy on the corner had six people.

They parked two Rangers in the garage and parked four trucks and three trailers in the street overnight, every night, Fridays, Thursday, Friday, Saturday.

I think if we talk to each other, which is everybody saying, Oh, let's get along, kumbaya, get a hammock, then let us contact them.

That's all I would say.

Thank you.

You know, my guy wanted to play by the rules, and I'm playing by the rules now.

He is as far as I know the bump beds thing has been taken care of.

I believe okay.

But there are other people who just don't want to play by the rules.

It's the same quote, property agent manager, local contact for both properties.

So he's not unaware of what's going on.

So I'll shut them out.

But we ought to get along before we clash.

That's my biggest problem.

Um some of this uh could get really, really unpleasant if if we don't work it out as a as a city and a group of honest people.

All right, any other public comment?

Seeing none, this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, Vanessa.

Thanks, Vanessa.

Okay.

You too.

Thank you, voice in the