Well, good afternoon, everyone.

Come on in and find a place.

So we have a large audience today, and we welcome all of you here to our meeting.

Just as a historical summary, our committee has met four times over the past couple of months, and our subcommittee met once uh to draft the ordinance, which is the subject of today's meeting.

All of our meetings have been excellent, in my opinion, as we have taken a great deal of input from the public, and we have met separately with lots of uh community experts from our police department, from our real estate community, our city attorney, our community development staff, and lots of residents who have felt comfortable sharing their individual views with us.

Collectively, this is this committee has invested probably at least 150 hours or more to fully understand every aspect uh of the short-term rental issue.

Along all along this is that this has been going on, uh, we've been really most proud of this of our city residents uh who have been cordial, accepting, and very respectful of each other, and we are expecting more of that today.

We really do appreciate the input we've been getting and the wide ranging respect that we have had for each other, and thank you everybody for being like that.

It is Thursday, April the 2nd, 2026.

It is two o'clock, and we have a quorum as all of our committee members are in attendance.

Uh Amy Gardner is not physically here, but she's with us on the phone.

Can she hear us?

Amy, are you there?

Oh, you're okay.

Amy, can you hear us?

Amy, can you hear us?

Well, with Amy, when she gets on here, we will we we certainly have a quorum even without her, but she'll be joining us remotely.

So, our first uh agenda item is for open public comment.

Um, I'd like to remind everyone that there will be open public comment periods for each and every item on the agenda today, and there are several.

Uh sounds like Amy's here.

Is Amy with us?

No, it's just a comment.

I am.

Can you hear me now?

Uh I can hear you now.

Thanks, Amy.

Okay.

Thanks, Amy, for joining us.

We just did a little introductory thing, and we're getting started now.

So thank you.

I could hear you, thank you.

Okay.

Um, so I'd like to just remind everybody there's an opening open public comment time that I'm gonna open the meeting with now.

Uh, but there is public comment time in front of every agenda item, and there are many.

And so you're welcome to come and comment on the individual items, of course, and you're also, of course, welcome to come and uh comment now.

It would be certainly helpful if you wanted to save your comments for uh the items that you have a specific interest in.

That would be helpful to all of us, I think.

Um with that, I'll open up the meeting for our first day, our first agenda item, which is sorry.

Yeah, it's public comment time.

So this is uh an opportunity to step forward and address.

You have three minutes.

Um I luckily, at least luckily for me, don't have a dog in this fight.

I live in Sun City where our C C and Rs prohibit short-term rentals.

So I'm not gonna hang around for the meeting, but I would like to thank each and every one of you on this committee for all the hard work you've put in.

I know this is an incredibly contentious topic with many aspects to it.

And I even though this doesn't in one sense affect me, it does because the happiness of our town, the how our citizens feel, affects all of us, and I appreciate all the hard work ever each and every one of you has put into this.

Thank you, Carrie.

Good afternoon.

Umreas, and I'm the president and founder of the Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association.

Chair and members of the planning committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um we represent hundreds of property owners across the state of Nevada, including property owners here in the city of Mesquite.

We strongly support smart, effective regulation that protects neighborhoods and keeps families safe.

That is why we come today with a friendly but serious warning.

Last week uh or earlier this week, we send each and every one of you uh a certified mail, an email, uh a formal notice of personal liability liability under 42 USC 1983.

A federal court in this district has already ruled that enforcement mechanisms nearly identical to the key parts of the proposed chapter 2-13 amendments violate the 14th amendment's due process clause.

Specifically, the penalty escalation scheme, the distance restriction, uh the 60-minute response among other things.

If these provisions are adopted and enforced, each of you who votes for them recommends them or carries them out, could face personal legal exposure.

The city and its taxpayers could also be pulled into costly federal litigation.

We are not here to fight you.

We are here to help you avoid uh that fight.

The simplest and most responsible action you can take today is to vote to table this ordinance.

The federal court is deciding these exact constitutional questions right now.

Waiting costs nothing and gives you clear biding guidance that protects both the city and every individual official.

We remain eager to work hand in hand with you to build a strong constitutional framework once the court has spoken.

Thank you again for your service.

Thank you, Jackie.

Okay, very good.

Seeing no further uh public comment coming up, but there is someone.

Sorry.

Oh, someone's getting up first.

Corporate Van Este quell run.

Um I downloaded the packet on Tuesday, and yet this afternoon I found some more attachments to it.

I don't know if they're gonna be read the letters, but it included the young lady that just spoke.

Um, personally, I find that to be nothing more than a threat to intimidate everybody.

That's a bunch of hogwash.

Um I believe maybe Adam can address that, but people in the function of the government working in good faith are not liable unless they do something really strange.

So I did have some addresses to the other letters that I thought were gonna be read, but I can save that for later.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We did receive a number of letters from uh members of the public, and uh they were quite a few, and so we've included them in the uh packet.

And so rather than read them all, we've included them in the packet as a public as part of the public document, and they are a part of the public record.

Sir Hello, Clark Strong, Mesquite.

Uh the comment from the young lady.

I also consider that like a threat to all of you on the panel, no matter which way you go.

If that's the case, if this is in court, why not keep the mandate in a mandate until the court decides if that's the attitude of this commission?

Thank you, Clark.

Okay, seeing none others will go to the consent agenda.

Uh I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as well as minutes from March 17th, 2026 and March 5th, 2026.

Uh, we'll take public comment at this point.

Anyone have any comment on this one?

Thank you.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda and the minutes?

I'll make a motion to approve the agenda in the minutes.

Okay, moved and seconded to approve the agenda and the minutes from March 5th, 2026 and March 17th, 2026.

All those in favor say aye.

Is there any opposed?

Thank you.

Aye.

Oh, that's Amy.

Yep.

Thank you, Amy.

We got you.

Okay.

Okay, now we're gonna move into the uh meat of the agenda here.

Administrative items, which are item 3.1, discussion and possible action on title, chapter 13, section one.

Uh, is there any public comment on this item?

Very good.

Uh any discussion?

Okay, entertain a motion to uh uh I'll tell you what, I'll all move that we uh recommend the language as written in section two-13-1 to the city council.

I'll second it.

Okay, moved and seconded to uh approve or or recommend that language to the city council.

All in favor say aye.

Are there any opposed?

Thank you.

Item 3.2 discussion and possible action on title two, chapter 13, purpose of the chapter.

Is there any public comment?

My only comment is under 213 2A assist the owners to make revenue to upgrade their properties.

It's not the city's job to allow a homeowner to improve their home, or is it I may be misspeaking, but I think because they have a city business license and they're letting I'm sorry, it's I I maybe was misspeaking, but I think because they obtained a city business license and they're operating as a business that the city is requiring them to upgrade or be held to um standards and compliances with building codes and so forth.

But it says you will help the owners maintain and upgrade their properties.

So is it the city's job to help them improve their homes?

And the way I yeah, the way I understand it is the they'll when they obtain the permit, then the city does an inspection on the home.

And so that's and then there's the city has them do these.

They're required to do these from what I understand, required to do these prior to being able to um have vacant or have the people occupy the homes.

So we typically, and this is for the rest of the meeting.

We typically don't do a QA here.

What we do is take public comment, and so tell us what you think, and we're all ears good.

Okay, thank you, Doug.

Any other public comment on item 3.2, yes, sir.

Nick Alphonse.

Uh, I would request that these be read.

Okay, some of us don't have the paperwork, we're not provided at the door with it, have no idea what you're voting on.

And if that becomes the law, we are uninformed.

I know it was put on the web, but there again, some of us don't have that, so I would recommend that you read that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Okay, seeing none, um I'll entertain a motion to approve title two, chapter 13, section two, purpose of the chapter.

Oh, sorry.

Is there any council discussion?

Sorry, any committee discussion.

Well, I just like to address the question.

Um can the city attorney, I know this this language was already in the previous chapter.

Is there is there anything to what he said that we should be aware of?

Is it the responsibility of the city to provide revenue, which may be used for maintenance upgrades and deferred costs?

So I think it might help everyone involved to just kind of understand the purpose of the committee and what what it does.

And this committee is going to provide a recommendation to the city council at some point on what to do about these short-term rental ordinances.

So this committee doesn't have any authority to change the ordinances.

Anything that they do is still gonna be subject to council review, and so just to kind of clarify that like the their advisory, there's no they're playing a very important role that's very appreciated, but they they're not the final decision makers.

So a lot of this is gonna it'll go to the council.

The council can say thank you very much, we'll accept all of this, or no, we disagree, we won't accept any of it, or something in between.

Um, and so as far as a lot of the uh the way I view my role here is to kind of view and see what's going on, and if questions come up, I can try to answer them the best that I can.

Um, but to try to answer the specific question.

This is just a preamble part of the statute, right?

There's not it kind of gives the introduct introductory of what this is all about.

We have rentals in the town, this is what they do.

Um, you know, the specific language says that it's not talking about the city's responsibilities, it's talking about just what kind of vacation home rentals do in general, right?

They're a community benefit by expanding the number and type of lodging facilities available.

They assist owners on vacation home rentals by providing revenue, which they can use to maintain their own properties.

And so the way I view this introductory paragraph, it's it's doesn't it's important, it doesn't have a lot of meat as far as regulations and what is gonna be restricted or allowed.

It's just kind of giving some background introduction information before you get into the meet.

So does that kind of help answer that?

Yeah, I think that helps a lot.

And um, you know, it's great that you took the time to explain all that.

I think that's important as we go throughout the rest of this um chapter.

Okay, any other comment.

Okay, and I'll entertain a motion to approve uh 3.2 of the agenda.

I'll make a motion.

Okay, moved and seconded to uh approve 3.2, which is to move the recommended language as written in section 2-13-2 to the city council.

All is in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, 3.3 discussion and possible action on title two, chapter 13, section three, applicability.

Um this one's kind of short.

I'll well, I better not start doing that.

I uh if I start doing that, we're it will be here a long time.

So I apologize for not reading the actual content, but we're looking at the applicability uh section that was published online.

Is there any public comment regarding that?

David Gibink, uh Mesquite.

So I I agree a little bit earlier with the guy.

I what if do you guys even know what's going on?

Because I'm I don't know what these are where we look at them.

Uh I think everybody here is probably wondering what you're talking about.

Is there did we miss the vote?

Is there is there nothing we should have got that we know what you're voting for?

I I'm just confused.

I know one says distancing, that's why I'm here.

The only reason I know is because it says it on there, but the rest of the stuff is just numbers.

So I'm just I think it should be done a little bit better.

We don't know what you're voting for.

Maybe I can jump in too here.

Just um, I see Justlin kind of making some motions.

She does have on the projector up above everybody the language that's being addressed.

And so I know I know they they referenced that.

They referenced the letter from the the gray, okay.

Yeah, try to hey, that's over the middle.

So I I think you know there's some of it, right?

We're trying, they're trying to help you the best that they can.

Um read that and we can all be happy.

Yeah, the the problem.

The well, the difficulty here is that we have a very large agenda.

And if I start reading each one of these, we're gonna be here a long time.

I'm trying this was all published online, and it's in front of you there.

Um, hoping that's acceptable.

Okay, any other uh or uh we're on public uh comment time for discussion on 3.3 applicability.

Okay, seeing none, uh committee members.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve uh chapter two, section third, or chapter sorry, title two, chapter 13, section three applicability.

I make a motion okay, okay.

It's been moved and seconded for that.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye, aye.

Are there any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, item 3.4 discussion and action on Title Two, Chapter 13, Section 4 definitions.

Public comment.

And I'll just make a a comment if I can.

These these first few items, there weren't any changes made.

These have stayed as they were.

Correct.

Okay.

And then things that were struck out, you can see in there, there were a couple of changes made.

Hi, Doug.

Maybe need time to read through.

In the last meeting where there was just two or three of you guys.

I know you discussed the 60 minute response time.

You can go anywhere in this town in 60 minutes.

The response time in my opinion should be much shorter.

30 minutes.

Should be adequate for any local property manager to get to the property to deal with the problem.

And not have to deal with it otherwise.

Okay.

Thank you, Doug.

Okay, item 3.4.

Any public discussion that's apparently it's up.

We've got it up there, Beness.

Maybe it would be beneficial to just add it, read the ones that we added or amended.

There are very few.

So there's a there were uh okay.

Do you want to the one in blue?

Is that what you're talking about?

Would you like me to do that?

Change.

So the things that have been changed or have added a proposal change.

Or is proposed for change, right?

Is a hosting platform, a person who for a fee or other charge provides on an internet website an online platform that facilitates the rental of a residential unit or a room within a residential unit by an owner or lessee of the residential unit or a room within a residential unit for the purpose purposes of transient lodging.

And what else was added?

Let's see.

They they changed the name to a qualified local operator conduct.

Right, and that's kind of consistent throughout the document, correct?

Instead of using local contact person, we've changed all of that to be qualified local operator.

You'll see that throughout the minor corrections just to define that a little differently.

Can I ask a question?

Of course.

Okay, on the qualified local operator.

So all that is really uh that you guys did on the um subcommittee was you made an umbrella that we could use that term for for the uh local response person for the person that is uh you know uh doing any anything in Mesquite that has to do with the property, is that right?

That just keep the confusion down.

Yeah, that's so the that calling it a local qualified operator encompasses the property management companies or an individual.

We did try to change some language in there that made it a little stronger in the sense that it wasn't just a neighbor or stranger or house housekeeper's name put on the application, but it's actually that's why we said qualified, it's actually somebody that knows it, understands what they're getting, what they're signing up for.

Okay, I really like that change.

And then we've added the word license to operator, so that we're defining an operator as a licensed operator, and there's a little bit of language at the end there that we removed.

Um having to do in and okay, so this uh the whole section is vacation rental or home rental license, a license issued by the city that permits the use of a privately owned residential dwelling as a vacant as a vacation rental unit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, and we've struck out and which incorporates by consolidation a transient occupancy license and a home occupation permit, otherwise uh required by Title IX, Chapter 8, Article A of this code.

Okay, is there any other public any public comment?

Okay, seeing none, is there any other uh comments from the committee?

Okay, then I'll entertain a motion to approve uh item 3.4.

I make a motion.

And Rick, I would just clarify too that the the motion is to approve recommending these items to the council, right?

Just to clarify to the to the group, we're approving recommendations to the council, not the actual changes to the ordinance.

So we are we are moving to a the motion is to approve to move the and recommend the language as written in section two-one three-four to the city council.

Okay, it's been moved.

Did we get a second on that?

Well second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to do that.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, on item three point uh five.

This is um title two, chapter 13, section five, vacation home rental license requirements.

The license requirements are highlighted in gray above me.

And I don't know, Dave, do you want to point out any particular changes to this?

I think we changed the amount of days, right?

Did we change the day?

We discussed that on the subcommittee, but it was my impression of the committee after I went back and listened to it again that you wanted to include February as a month.

So being less than, so I left it at the 27th to keep that consistent.

Yeah.

Okay, is there any public comment on item 3.5?

I do have a question on this.

Um is this public comment?

I'm sorry.

Yeah, it is public comment.

Okay, sorry.

Can you see it?

They're wanting large.

We'll take just a minute if you'd like and read through this.

And if there's any public comment, please step forward.

My name is Ron Bartleman.

I live at 175.

All I want to know is everybody to rent isn't the same.

You can have five of them and they're great.

Then you come there and they're all parking and things go out in the desert all over the place on the street.

And if there's a pool in the backyard, they're having a party, they wake everybody.

My neighbor who lives across the street's got one on each side.

Some are good, some are bad.

Who do you go with?

The good ones or the bad ones.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Okay, seeing none.

Committee.

I just have a question, and Jesselyn, tell me this might not be the right place for this.

Um, I have a concern for the whole application process.

Um, I I believe this is correct that an owner has to have the title in their hand in order for uh to be able to apply for a license, correct?

Yes, I have to have proof of ownership.

Okay.

So it I would like to address that at some point, but I don't know if it goes uh here or a little bit later on 213.

I think 213.9 would be the best spot for that.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll entertain a motion to approve uh item 3.5.

Make a motion.

They're a second.

I'll second it.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve item 3.5, which is um to move the recommended language as written in section 2-13-5 to the city council.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Are there any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay.

This may be why most of us are here.

Item 3.6, discussion and possible action on Title II, Chapter 13, Section 6, which is uh distancing.

So we'll take public comment on this item.

Uh actually, there's the what happened was here the subcommittee that the subcommittee that met uh couldn't come to a an uh a complete agreement.

There was a consensus of two people that that thought uh we should leave the language about distancing out completely.

Uh one felt differently, and they asked to bring it back to the full committee to have that discussion here, and that's what we're doing now.

So the conversation about this is about whether or not we are going to uh insert language similar to or the same as uh AB 363 language into the uh recommended ordinance to the council at the moment.

The subcommittee thinks not, but not by a majority, and so we're gonna consider that now as a full committee.

So is there public comment regarding this?

Hi, I'm Loretta Corp.

I live at 170 Quill Run, and I want to thank all of you for the job you're doing.

It is a big job.

Obviously, I'm in my longevity journey, so I'm speaking for myself and those that are coming after me.

These vacation homes are something that is being taken under consideration in almost every city, from what I understand from friends in other states.

I live in the middle of the the bed and breakfast or motels or whatever we call them.

I don't like it.

I I have a beautiful home in a neighborhood that I thought was a family family owned um area and was zoned for that, not for motels, but I understand that it's going to happen.

I'm okay with that.

But please don't put one across the street from me and behind me.

So if this distancing has to do with that, please consider neighborhoods.

That brings in more cars, more traffic, more people, and we don't want that in our neighborhoods.

I know I don't, and I hope you'll consider just put space.

There's two right there next to me, and I just don't think it's fair to me.

I love my home.

My husband and I bought it in 2003, and we tend to live there forever.

We're not trying to make money on it, and I understand why people do it.

They have that right, I guess, but please give consideration for what it's like for the people that are living there on that street in that little area.

I know my neighbors across the street don't like it behind me, but who knows what they'll do if the price is right.

So thank you, and I do appreciate what you're doing.

Thank you, Loretta.

Hello, committee.

My name is Michelle West.

I'm a resident of Mesquite.

I've actually been here for about 25 years, and in that time I have managed long-term rentals.

This is something I actually know quite a bit about.

As far as short-term rentals, I personally use them for my family.

And we've discussed this at length at city councils that this is needed in this town.

We are a town where there are many youth sports groups that come here.

We also have golf that comes here a lot, and our hotels are not sufficient to support this need.

This is something that is needed, and so I'm glad we have a committee to make sure that there are rules and there are guidelines.

There's a lot of concerns out here that I agree with.

I agree that we do not want parties.

I agree that we do not want all of these problems with parking and traffic, which is why you have a lot of the rules written in already.

I would like to point out that whether something is a short-term rental, a long-term rental, or a homeowner does not change the fact that you are going to have problems.

As a matter of fact, if you have problems with a long-term rental, it's a lot longer to get them out.

It's a lot harder to deal with the issue.

So I'm glad that there are rules in here.

One of the rules that I would like you to strongly avoid is putting in the distancing.

The reason being is Mesquite, Nevada has a lot of HOAs.

There are already many areas where we cannot have short-term rentals.

If you put in these regulations, it is going to make it nearly impossible to have the amount of short-term rentals that we need for our economy.

We require these people to come here and support our economy.

So please avoid putting in any more stipulations that the HOAs have already avoided.

A lot of these people are saying, yes, I would like this, but not in my backyard.

That is why we have HOAs.

If that is your opinion, please go to one.

I, in fact, am in an HOA where short-term rentals are not allowed.

However, I have four neighbors within 500 feet of me that are snowbirds.

Their place is sat empty for months and months on end.

Your regulations let short-term rentals be cleaned once a week.

Maintenance kept up.

So again, I would like you to look at the problems and the facts, and not just people's personal opinions.

And when it comes to the distancing, it will be a hardship in our town.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Michelle.

I want to put these up to the camera.

So I'm not sure if you can tell me where that happened.

This way.

Perfect.

And all the audiences.

Okay.

So we wanted to point out right currently the license.

Sorry.

Hi, I'm Colleen Gleedon.

I'll show you some descriptions on the maps here.

So on this map over here, there's 230 licensed short-term rentals in the areas that can be short-term rental.

It's a very small area that we have right now.

In the HOAs, there's only seven percent of HOAs that allow short-term rentals.

So you can see from this map all the orange that's crossed out.

You cannot have short-term rentals in.

That could be townhomes, that could be apartments, that could be HOAs.

The areas that the distancing would compromise where you can have a short-term rental is 2500 2500 feet from any resort hotel.

You can see on the black where that would take out all the Hawkridge and a lot of different communities that allow short-term rentals.

Then in the non HOAs, there's about 1600 of them out of the 13,000 homes in Mesquite.

It's about 15%.

And those are allowing short-term rentals.

So there's also with condos and townhomes, there is only about 18% of the homes.

There's 15 properties.

There is only five that allow it.

We already at a very small amount that allow short-term rental.

Overall, out of 13,000 homes, just guessing because I've been looking at a lot of different websites, how many we're at right now, but that's 20% of all homes that can have short-term rentals.

So we're this here shows that if you put distancing in, you will now make the restriction after grandfathered in homes have been taken out, you will only have a total of about 35 short-term rental locations in all of mesquite.

There is not that many hotel rooms.

There is people that like to have their families together.

There's golf groups that like to get together and rent a hotel.

I'm sorry, rent a STR and not be in a hotel.

There are kids, we are building tournaments that are we're having soccer fields, baseball fields, all these things to bring people into mesquite to spend money, to go to the casinos, to go to the restaurants, to go to the uh other places, the local businesses.

And what we're we're trying to say is why are you trying to stifle them?

We were we have really strict rules, and if everyone follows these rules and we enforce them, we will be okay.

We've been doing this for over 15 years, and we haven't had a problem yet.

As of certain things come up, we understand we need to do a few things, but I just wanted to point that out.

Thank you, Colleen.

I normally have the clock shown here.

Do I would you guys back with behind?

Mind just turning that around for just a minute so we can see it because we weren't able to see that.

Sorry, the camera switched as soon as you went up to the mic.

What's that?

What oh I just wanted to take a peek at what they showed us.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

These are the ones I had before.

It's not that one.

And the black is all the areas where they cannot have a STR.

You cannot have any short-term rentals in, and only this will all be blacked out.

Circles represent 660 feet in the areas that the red represents the 35 or whatever the number was, STRs.

Okay.

I'm good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Colleen.

Dominic Oliveto, citizen of Mesquite for 10 years.

I moved here, didn't want to be in an HOA.

I don't like people telling me what color my door could be.

I wanted to be in a single family residence.

I am zoned single family residence.

To me, single family residence doesn't mean short-term rentals.

Now everybody gets up here and says we need short-term rentals.

Well, you can have short-term rentals, but I guess you don't want us people living here.

You'd rather have us turn into short-term rentals.

I think we have some rights, and they're not being addressed.

I mean, I keep looking up and Googling because I must not be very smart, which zone short single family resident doesn't say I can come in and put a car dealership, short-term rentals, apartments, or whatever.

It should be that I'm single family, and that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dominic.

Uh Miles, Resident Mesquite, three years.

Um I was looking at the and it looks like the distancing would make it so those large black marks are where we wouldn't be able to have these.

Um that just seems antithetical to the way to make it work.

It seems like instead to restrict them to those zones, then these short-term housings are in areas where people are already being prod in for sport vacation, and it keeps people from putting these in the neighborhoods that it sounds like people don't want them.

Why isn't the distancing being opposite to restrict them to within those resort spaces so they can be part of the resort economy?

Yeah.

That just seems like the easier solution to me, I guess.

I don't know.

Thank you, Miles.

And I'm back.

Good.

Clark Strong.

I am so tired of hearing the comment.

If you don't want to live next to an STR, move to an HOA.

Well, I've got a better idea.

How about all the investors and the STRs move put start putting their properties in like Scenic or Beaver Dam where no one has any regulations?

Would that be great?

Would that be feasible for those that do short-term rentals?

No.

And it's not feasible to hear move to an HOA.

There needs to be some amount of spacing because I live in a beautiful neighborhood for over 20 years.

Right now I have a short-term rental behind me on the corner, two houses down, across the street on the corner, one block on or one block on each corner.

That is enough.

How much do we need to talk about spacing?

So that really needs to be considered.

Thank you, Clerk.

Hello there.

Hi.

Doug Reith, Citizen of Mesquite.

I had an observation recently.

I'm highly involved in this.

I have got short-term rentals on each side behind me every which way.

I have no problem with these folks.

What's interesting is the snowbirds that come in, they own their home, and they bring probably three or four families with them and rip it up and have a party, and there's no regulations for them.

So do we need to put a cap on snowbirds?

Do we need to put distancing on snowbirders?

They seem to be a big problem.

Snowbirders are half of our population.

Thank you, Doug.

Jacqueline Flores again.

Um, like many neighbors, SDR owners want good rules that keep neighborhoods peaceful and safe.

But we're asking you to please remove the distance restrictions from the proposed ordinance.

They are simply not fair.

Most importantly, they're not constitutional.

And they punish property owners for something that has nothing to do with them.

Here's what it really does in plain language.

This distance rules treat one owner differently from another based only on where their contact uh person lives or where the property is.

It has nothing to do with fixing real problems like noise or other nuisance.

And right now, there are no definite standards yet for how these restrictions would even work or what distance would apply.

I know some people worry about noise parking, trash, or other issues from short-term rental guests.

We get it.

Nobody wants problems in their neighborhood, but we don't need new distance restrictions to fix that.

The city already has strong regulations on the books for every single one of these issues.

If the problem is noise, enforce the existing noise ordinance.

If it's parking, enforce the parking restrictions we already have.

If the trash is left out, enforce that regulation.

If it's any other nuisance, use the tools you already have to hold the bad actors accountable.

What these distance restrictions do instead is penalize every property owner, even the responsible ones, just in case some guests somewhere might cause the problem.

That's like saying we'll take away everyone's right to rent their home because of the actions of a few strangers, or like saying that we're gonna take everyone's driver's licenses just because we have drunk drivers.

It's just not fair and it's not necessary.

Everyone wants the same thing.

A clean, quiet, welcoming neighborhood.

Let's keep the good rules we already have and adopt the distance restrictions that treat owners differently, creates unfair penalties and invite lawsuits out.

I'm happy to work again uh with giving you more guidance if necessary.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jackie.

Scott Wayne Wright, and uh I just want to thank everybody for taking the time to be here and all the work that this committee's uh putting in, really appreciate it.

And it shows uh how much people care by how many people have shown up here.

And uh I I personally I love mesquite, and I think the city planners have done a fantastic job of in the growth and uh inviting opportunities and businesses and and uh a way for mesquite to to thrive and prosper and grow, and I think we need to continue to encourage that.

And people love to come to Mesquite.

I know I do, and um and just enjoy the amenities and the cities and the golf.

And uh I believe the distancing will become an issue.

I know in Vegas they tried to institute this, and it's in a lawsuit now.

And uh, I just I feel like the decisions that have been made to put certain regulations in place are fantastic, and uh, in order to just help with the concerns of of some of the neighbors and citizens, and it would I just think it'd be too bad to see uh mesquite get into a lawsuit and a federal uh lawsuit and uh have our dollars and and uh be spent on on something like that that seems really unnecessary.

And I think there's other things we can do to help keep mesquite great and encourage uh its growth in a in a really wise smart way that benefits everyone, and so that's um yeah, just appreciate all of you.

Thank you, Scotty Horn, Citizen Mesquite.

Um ever there's a problem that lands on my desk, I'm very solution oriented with the vacation rentals that are operating now.

The distancing wouldn't necessarily solve the complaints, the noise, the parking because their grandfather did.

So they they don't change the location.

To me, it's more of an enforcement issue and leaning more into the enforcement rather than the distancing because it doesn't necessarily solve the problem at hand.

Thank you.

Thank you, Christine.

David Giving, Mesquite.

So spacing's already being used.

I think probably a lot of you know that.

In uh Clark County, it's a thousand feet, Henderson, a thousand feet, Las Vegas, 660, North Vegas, 660, and even Ely, a little tiny town has 660.

So it shows spacing's already being used.

So when we talk about lawsuits, that's the big scare everybody's hearing.

Let's talk about the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is against Clark County because they went more than a 660 feet.

That's my recommendation of 660.

They went to a thousand, so now that's getting looked at.

It has nothing to do with what what I'm wanting.

What I'd like is 660.

I think that's a fair thing.

And if it's so hard for everybody to uh grasp this thought, maybe we should say these HOAs that already allow this, let them.

You know, let's can we do this just for the non-HOA areas?

Would that could we find a balance?

I'm not against, I'm not against STRs at all.

I just don't like what it's done to my mom.

I I that's why I'm here is because I see her stuck between two.

Since I have time speaking to her too, I've been complaining about her too for five months.

160, 170, 180.

Well, guess what?

160 is illegal.

Yeah, it went to court and they got bam.

They shut it down, and they're still there, people, they're still there.

I made a complaint to the city, which was a little challenging, but I made it.

And so I'm talking to code enforcement.

You know what he says?

Well, send it to me.

Okay, so I'm like on the phone.

I get back with them.

I said, Well, how do I do it?

He says, Let me get back with you.

There's not even a place to do it.

He says, Okay, just send it directly to my email.

I said, perfect.

And I said, he goes, You know any other people that want to complain about it?

So I said, I got all the neighbors, we all complained.

But think about that.

For five months, I've complained about this.

It's been illegal for five months.

How what do you what can the city do to know when these things are being done illegal?

It's been on Airbnb, it's been on VRBO.

So there's a lot going on.

I didn't mean to throw this in there, but I wanted to get it out because it's just mind-boggling.

So now mom has one next to her.

That's exciting.

What I don't want is I don't want this to come back and say, oh, good.

Let's now she can have another one.

She feels like she's won this battle.

I hope that we can look at some common sense spacing.

You guys can get together some of these premiering stuff.

I don't want to fight these guys.

I'm not, I know better.

Let them have what they have.

Let them build areas for this.

It sounds like we need it.

Let's build it.

I think everybody in here is cool with putting them out in certain spots.

So you know you're buying into them.

But these people that bought residential areas, they didn't come in to buy that.

They bought because they thought it was a good eight non-HOA, they're excited, they get to do their own thing.

Well, that isn't how it is.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dave.

Nick Elvin Setti, Mesquite.

I've got an HOA right next door to me, obviously, 906.

Uh I've referred to it many times here, and some of the problems that come up with it.

Uh in the recent past uh last fall, started again already.

Uh it seems that when it's not a uh short-term rental, using the proper term, it's now become a daycare center for pool activities, screaming kids all day long and into the night.

Now, I don't know if you can have dual licenses to a this type of a situation, but that's what it seems to be.

Where we've got 10, 12 kids that are in there yelling and screaming at a pool, and of course, you know, try to get outside to enjoy a little peace and quiet.

There is none.

Uh, you close the doors, you turn the AC on, and here you are, and you're gonna stay in there all night long.

And that's what's going on now.

So I say, you know, if you want to address some things, that's one of them.

Uh last uh last year, hot water tub boiled over, came across, uh, took the uh the stucco off the wall.

I haven't said anything yet, but that's going on uh year before that when the people first moved in.

Next thing you know, my driveway got flooded, and I had a huge sinkhole in my driveway because it's not paved.

So these kind of things, and there's no way to get a hold of anybody.

If I call the city, what do you what's gonna happen?

Is there someone to answer those calls?

We don't have anybody.

Oh, call the police.

So you call the police, and what's the response time?

You're saying an hour?

Well, in the course of an hour, what could happen to that house?

You see what I'm saying?

The neighbors, and we're talking a wall that's eight foot high between them, but now we got things, other things to contend with.

Before when it was a single family home, and the person was as you call a snowbird, what happened there was I'd pick up the phone.

Hey, you got a problem over here?

No problem.

Calls down, gets his person right there within 10 minutes, things are solved.

Okay, they got a hold of a landscaper, took care of everything.

No problem.

Now it's a completely different story.

Been there 20 years, enjoyed the first, probably uh I would say the last uh seven years have been nothing but a nightmare.

And it's just getting worse and worse and worse.

You know, I used to enjoy going to Las Vegas, but when the crowd changed, it's not the same.

And that's the crowd that we seem to be getting in here that are renting your properties, it's putting a ton of money in your pocket.

But the problem is is what's the afterthought that's coming with it?

And that's what us as as residents are dealing with day to day, night to night, every day.

I don't have a problem with people making money, but come on, have some consideration for the neighborhood and the people.

My old neighbor across the street can hear them, and he's got a pool.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nick.

Thank you, Colin.

Yell at me.

Corbin Van Ost again.

First, I court, I'm sorry, court Corbin.

Corbin.

I'm the same guy who's been here to all but one meeting.

So I I could I never did quite get your whole name there.

Corbin.

Thank you, Corbin.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead.

Sorry.

Well, first I want to reiterate um right now this audience we have this evening is by far much larger than we've had at any of these meetings.

Um, I think part of that is to is due to the lack of public awareness.

Um, one side or the other, I'm glad people are here to express their their views.

Um, having meetings at this time of the afternoon, I've had to take time off work every time to attend these, and trying to do that and be prepared to follow on with uh my concerns and so on is pretty taxing.

It's kind of hard to stay involved in these kind of governmental events when it's it's not that convenient.

Um really want everybody in the audience to realize as well, is that right now there is a grandfather clause.

So anybody who has a rental right now is not going to lose it.

Um I think that's an important thing to consider.

And I also want to say that the short-term rental association of Greater Las Vegas does not get it.

It's not the noise and the parking.

Yes, those are nuisance uh nuisances, those are annoying, but uh as Mr.

Gabin pointed out, we've had a rental on that street for I believe it's been like two years that this has gone on, and they were being serviced by somebody here in the town that needs to be looked into, but that's not under the purview of this committee, but they were being serviced by somebody, and it didn't uh didn't get noticed, didn't get looked at.

Um what we're really looking at is our neighborhoods.

When I purchased my house over 20 years ago, I I don't believe the zoning included the short-term rentals.

I believe that's been a change.

And I never received any mail or notices or came to meetings or had a chance to vote on that.

So I will be looking back on that.

And then I am getting very irritated of everybody wants to talk about lawsuits.

It's like if you like to gamble, gamble in a lawsuit and see which way it's gonna go.

It's gonna depend on attorneys, judges, time, public opinion.

Um, if we wait for that dust to settle, it's never gonna happen.

There's gonna be lawsuits one way or the other, and I appreciate everybody's efforts here.

And I know it's a little bit thankless that no matter which way or what you recommend, and again, these are recommendations.

This is not a final vote yet, but I know that that's gonna be a little bit thankless because you're going to have about 50% or 40, I don't know, but you're you're gonna have a large amount upset one way or the other.

And in saying that, I'll also say that your recommendation, if it does not include something to deal with the distancing, that I don't think this issue is gonna go away.

The city council is still going to have to deal with this down the road.

Thank you.

Thank you, Corbin.

Sean Judd, I own property here.

I am from Mesquite.

Uh I have property here, and I also have a I'm uh uh owner right now of some property.

Um I'm not for distancing.

I think that um most of my renters are either golfers, uh, families with high school students or something coming to uh play sports, or people that want to get out of the the cold into the warmth.

Um as an owner, I want to know when something's going wrong.

I know my neighbors currently in Val Vista, and I talk to them and I stay there at times, so we keep community.

There shouldn't be parking.

I don't want my place trashed, you know what I mean?

So I think it's a communication problem.

I think you can't set down a rule and say this is it.

If there's parties, I'm I'm gonna kind of lean from my history.

They're going to Vegas, they're not coming to my place.

Um I think it's a huge deal.

We want mesquite to grow, we want it to grow right.

That's your job.

I think this is bringing money in for groceries, restaurants, we need more restaurants.

I think the casinos, everything, it's helping the whole thing come.

I think the distancing is bad because we're limiting it where we're gonna be.

Now I do believe in being smart about it, just my two cents.

Thank you, Sean.

I'm Sandra, and I am a snowbirder.

I love mesquite.

I came down here, like the last guy said, to get out of the cold weather.

And I think mesquite is a beautiful city.

Um, I unfortunately I've weren't born with rose-colored glasses, so therefore I see the good in everything, including the beautiful mesquite.

Um I think whatever the lady said earlier, that this might be an enforcement problem, you know, not a distancing problem, not a you know, anything.

Uh because uh, you know, if I have trouble back home, I just call the uh person enforcing the neighborhood.

Uh this is also one of them things that uh it's nice to hear that the ones that are already set up like this gentleman back here that are grandfathered in, that's great.

But I don't really see an issue here as far as if there is parties going on, if there is loud noise, um get those business cars made up.

You can do that free on pretty much free, used to be free, on Vista print and pass those out to the neighbors around you, have a bundle of them so that people can actually go, you know, if there's a problem, noisy kids, parties, whatever, pass them out.

They can call the individual.

And I think an hour is great because a lot of times with me having a 30-minute window, I might be a doctor's office.

I might be, you know, with kids, grocery shopping.

But I don't see an issue here as far as the distancing.

I do hear see an issue here as far as enforcing things need to be enforced, you know.

Even though in my rose colored glasses, I realize there's things that's got to be you know, handled, and they got to be handled the right way, and not just shutting things down just because anyway, that's my say so.

Okay, thank you, Sandra.

My name's Brad Rouse.

I own a rental here, and my daughter owns a renter.

She manages it for me, and I believe the city has rules about how many people you can have at those rentals.

I know my rental can have nine nine occupants, and uh we have groups come in, they want to have the whole ball team over and swim.

She says no, because I think the city has regulations of how many people can be at that house outside.

We have nine inside, but for a party, I think another four or five.

I don't know.

So the city does have regulations for that.

She also she has cameras outside at her place.

I have cameras outside of my place.

If I watch them, if there's a problem, I go down there and they will either leave or they will straighten up.

So, you know, if these the owners would just take a little responsibility, there wouldn't be a problem.

And I'm grandfathered in, so it doesn't really bother me right now.

But this is the thing, you know.

I just think people need to be aware of the rules and regulations.

That I know there's a lot of illegal ones running in town.

They need we need to get on to that because I'm paying quite a bit of taxes every year to this city, and they're pocketing that money.

That's not fair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brad.

Sorry, I said a little too long now.

Take your time.

Uh my name is uh Mike Hollenbach, and uh I guess one of my primary concerns is we should be heading towards in general with government, less regulations.

Uh the more we regulate, I fear this might move into other businesses also.

We have the daycares, we have nail salons, we have in-house hair salons, uh seamstresses, etc.

Uh I fear if we keep uh if we keep moving towards more regulation, we'll find other people that are going to be disadvantaged by the mere fact that they have businesses in their homes.

Uh I have watched what's going on in uh Las Vegas, it is concerning and I don't know, legal activity can get pretty expensive pretty fast for the city and for individuals that are uh engaged in various businesses.

So I would I would like you to uh definitely reconsider any sort of a spacing recommendation, and uh probably just focus on the regulations we have in place without adding too many more, if any perhaps maybe move a few regulations back, but anyway, that's about as concise as I can get.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Wow, okay, very good.

Um it it appears there's no other uh public comment at this time, and so we'll uh turn it over to the committee for their uh conversation and comment.

Do you want to you want to take us in order or do you want to go first or let's just go down the row here and well, first of all, thank you all for being here today.

Um it was great to hear from a variety of voices today.

Um so I have a question, I think, for the attorney to begin.

And my question is, and this is and I've asked this before, but I want to ask this so um everybody that's here can also hear it.

Does the city have the authority under its zoning powers and general police powers under Nevada law to adopt an ordinance requiring requiring that no vacation home rental or short-term residential rental may be located closer than 660 feet to any other such use?

I would say yes, they'd have that ability.

Okay.

Yeah, so to clarify too, I think the kind of the elephant in the room is there's this litigation going on down in in Las Vegas federal court.

It's kind of like, well, what does that mean?

And how does that affect everything?

And there was one commenter who said, well, this jurisdiction says so many feet, this other one says so many feet, and Clark County has a thousand feet.

And and my advice or kind of my input on this doesn't change from when I was here the first time, you know, that there's that lawsuit pending.

The the focus of the court's order in that lawsuit was um they it I'll try to explain again.

What they issued is a preliminary injunction.

And what that means is the court has looking taking an initial look at it and saying, hey, looks like there's a problem here, and it looks like you're probably gonna win, but it's not it's not the final decision, right?

But but a party can go into court and say, hey, look, something really bad is happening, and I'm probably gonna win, so we need to get something in place right now to put everything on pause so that more bad things don't happen before this lawsuit gets totally resolved.

And so that's what's happened in this case.

The judge has looked at it and said, hey, based on Clark County's ordinance, and really the if you read the the opinion, the focus is a lot on the licensing process and procedure and how the county is actually carried out issuing licenses.

Um we all read the opinion, you know, try to decipher and try to find guidance from it.

Um the as far as the distance requirement, the judge in the case did highlight that Clark County's ordinance says a thousand feet.

The judge didn't say a thousand feet is inappropriate or six hundred is okay or two hundred is okay, or you know, there wasn't more explanation on that, but it did it did reference um I brought my copy again with me.

It says uh under Clark County's ordinance adopted in 2022.

I'm I'm skipping a little bit of here.

It says property owners must obtain an annual and annually renew both a business license and a short-term rental license to operate a short-term rental within the county.

And it says, for example, homeowners in certain townships or within 1,000 feet of other short-term rental units are barred from obtaining a license.

Likewise, it says there's a 1% cap on the number of short-term licenses that may be issued per year.

And then the court went on further and talked about how you know it was very difficult to, you know, they've they're not processing the license applications and it's hard to get them through, and and it looking at that all as a whole in the licensing process a whole, the the court saying, hey, looks like like there might be some constitutional issues going on here.

But I as far as that case is involved, I can't I can't say a thousand is okay or it's not, or less is okay or it's not, because the court hasn't really told us.

You know, they they mentioned it, which is instructive for everybody because if they thought, you know, at least the way I read it, they mentioned a thousand feet and that there's potential problems with all of this.

And so in my mind, I think, okay, if this we don't know how it'll fully play out, but it sounds like a thousand feet at least caught the attention of this one judge.

All right.

Um, and then to clarify in what I addressed last time that this has been appealed now, it's up in the Ninth Circuit, and um that's ongoing, and so there's a process that's gonna be followed on that preliminary injunction.

Um, and so we don't know the final outcome of all of this yet.

So that's the nature of the law sometimes.

You know, when when all of us were little, there were no there was no Airbnb.

And then this came to be.

And then now we have all these new interactions between people.

Now we've got to figure out and create new law on how to balance the different interests that are involved.

And then that gets challenged and it goes up to court, and it's just long kind of slow process.

But to categorically say yes, a certain feat is gonna be okay or not, I really don't know yet.

Right.

Well, maybe when the Ninth Circuit gives us an opinion, we'll see, and then that could get appealed up to the Supreme Court.

You don't, you know, we don't know.

But okay, so I feel like you answered the question that we have the authority.

Now, do you believe as the city attorney that a 660-foot spacing standard would be a valid exercise of local land use authority to protect public health, safety, welfare, neighborhood character, and residential quality of life.

So my the way I view my role, I'm not gonna insert my beliefs into this process.

And so if I in especially this is an advisory committee, and I serve the council, and I don't want to influence what this committee does inappropriately.

If you if you came up and said, let's have a 2,000-foot restriction, I'd say, hey, that might not be a good idea, but you could still pass it, right?

And it could still go through, but that doesn't change the law on mesquite, that goes to the city council.

They would have to, and then I'd I'd have a more stronger opinion because in my role is advising them.

Um, but I'm not gonna offer opinion, my belief on if one distance is good or not or okay or not, or legal.

Well, if I felt that it was illegal.

That would be well appreciated.

Same thing, I'm not going there.

That that's the job of this well-informed and hardworking committee based on all the input from the public.

That's how this whole process works.

And I and I've thought too well, if I was on the committee, what would I do?

And my next thought was I haven't put in all these hours and listened to all these comments and studied and thought, and right, because that's not my role.

That's that's this committee's role.

So I wish you the best of luck.

All right, in making this good recommendation, whatever you come up with, right?

And then as it moves along, I'll probably have more opinions as my role becomes more direct with the council.

Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate your um professional opinion where you were able to add in.

Sorry for answering and not answering at the same time.

No, that's okay.

I I think um you made some good points, and it is really important that we listen to everybody out here.

And so I think the people that live in those neighborhoods that are surrounded by short-term rentals are the ones that came up and expressed that distancing was a concern and something they'd like to see us address.

We had one gentleman who lives around short-term rentals that said it isn't a problem for him, but the majority of the people that live in those neighborhoods said it directly affected them.

It affected their quality of life, in my opinion, which is something we just approved that we are going to recommend to the city council in our the purpose of this chapter is quality of life.

So for those reasons, I definitely think distancing needs to be addressed.

Now, I also think that we had an important um, you know, we had an influx of people come up and discuss why short-term rentals are beneficial to the city of Mesquite, and they are beneficial.

There's no doubt there's beneficial, um, a benefit to these um short-term rentals.

A lot of us like to stay there.

I like to stay in a short-term rental with my family.

I just think that spacing is something that we can be implemented, and maybe 660 feet, although I would like to recommend that because that would be aligning with um AB 363, which will eventually be mandated, um, assuming you know, nothing changes.

But if we were to do something less, um, you know, the the map that was brought up that would that would look different.

There wouldn't be um as many areas that were affected by short-term rentals not being able to go in.

So we can maybe discuss how far that distancing or what that distancing should be, but in my opinion, I really think um, and through my research, and I have done a lot of research on this, there are several cities out there, and they are implementing um distancing, and it's for a lot of these reasons, and less regulation isn't always a good thing.

In fact, we have to listen to our constituents, our constituents are up here.

Um, and they're expressing their concerns.

We also had um a really good point that this isn't gonna go away.

Um, I don't think it's gonna go away.

The people in these uh neighborhoods are gonna continue to be affected, and what they're gonna do is they're gonna continue to show up and be you know, raise their voice and and use their ability to um bring up you know what it is about these short-term rentals that is causing them issues and affecting their quality of life.

So I think that if we don't address it now, it's just going to come back over and over again and be an issue for city council.

So that would be my comment so far.

Thank you.

Dave?

Um again, thank you, everyone, for your involvement.

Um it's uh a very yeah, very delicate, very um divisive subject.

Um my hope was that we could have put this one off till the very end and then kind of left after it was discussed.

But uh I've tried to do as much research as possible on this.

Um, a lot of investigating, listening to different people that are involved in and uh in this in so many different areas.

Um and uh so to just say it simply, my recommendation is that we wait to put spacing in, um, not because I don't think it's gonna happen.

Um, if AB363 or whatever um becomes law, um we hit the 25,000 threshold and the state requires it of us.

Um we we don't get to recommend something different, and it's it's going to be there.

But I I do think it would be uh irresponsible of me making a recommendation to the city that could potentially put the city in a spot where they could get roped into a lawsuit.

And I know, you know, it's easy to sit out out there.

It's easy for me to sit here and say, don't worry about the lawsuit, but my city taxes go to paying for those lawsuits as well.

And so if I can say let's wait, I'm not saying don't, I'm not saying do, I'm being the perfect politician.

Um let's just wait.

We don't know what's gonna happen.

We don't know what the lobby groups that are trying to fight this law at the state level are going to do.

We don't know what the lawsuits are gonna uh bring about.

We don't know the investors that have properties in here or want that are sitting on the sidelines right now wanting to get a property in Mesquite and get an investment going here that are waiting until this is kind of resolved at the city level.

So I'm not in a position where I want to recommend to the city that we put something in here that could potentially bring up uh a lawsuit when and again, we could play the what we could play the what if.

Um everything that we say and do could potentially bring a lawsuit towards the city, but this one we know is a specific subject that is getting uh lawsuits.

What I would like to recommend to the city is that this very topic go before the master plan committee.

And I've mentioned this a couple of times.

Um it's been brought up.

We have very, very limited areas where short-term rentals are allowed to operate, and that's why they're congested into very specific areas.

There are several HOAs that allow for it and non-HOAs that allow for these, and so because of that, they've become congested in very specific areas.

I get that.

Um, I I feel for those that have parties going on on either side of their home every weekend.

Um, I wouldn't want to live in that situation there.

And so I'm I'm not trying to just be unsympathetic and say, you know, I I don't feel for you, but I am trying to take a very bigger picture of what's going on here.

And I do believe that the master plan committee needs to address this issue of where do short-term rentals go if distancing happens, um, because it's very limited.

And so um, probably again, like a good politician.

I want to kick it over to a different committee, let somebody else deal with it.

But I do think it's an important issue.

I do think it needs to be addressed.

Um, and there needs to be areas in Mesquite that allow for short-term rentals in a congested area, not too close to a hotel if there has to be 2,500 feet spacing and all that.

There's like there's a big picture here that I want to see um addressed before I make a recommendation to the city that they put spacing um in there.

Um, and so those are my reasons why um at this point I would I would recommend that the city wait on distancing.

Thank you, Sherry.

So my opinion of this is that distancing is not the problem, and it's never been the problem.

And in fact, I want to go even as far as as we actually started doing the investigation, is the short-term rentals have know this have not even been the real issue.

And whenever we actually started investing, and that's why I've been such an honor to be on this and honor to get listen to every single one of you guys come in here and speak what's on your heart.

Whenever we started looking into the stories that was said as far as for all these police calls coming in, all these disservices happening and the police not responding, et cetera.

We actually took the time, every single one of us on the board took the time to go interview many people in the community, including um the police department.

And I just keep going back in my head.

The very conversation we had with the sergeant whenever we asked them directly, how many vacation how many calls have you had on disturbances with vacation or short-term rentals?

And the call was directly, and they have the way to actually because they log every single time it's related to vacation home rental property.

And they said a point to five.

That's also one percent.

And then of that, they said even last year was even less.

And then my next question was okay.

So out of that point two five, how many is actually substantiated?

Like how many is actually violating something?

And it was so meaningful.

I he never even said number.

And so the issue is the distancing is net.

For the problem that we do have, because there, if the if you guys are talking about there is some sort of issue, and the issue is neighbors need to just talk to neighbors.

And the fix on this, what I firmly believe, and what I've heard over and over from both sides, including the parties that don't like short-term rentals, is they just don't know who to call.

And that's not their problem.

That's the problem with the operators.

And so the fix is just to let the short-term rentals, the operators go let their neighbors know who they are.

Get them their name, get them their phone number.

And if there's an issue, you call your neighbors and you work it out that way.

And so, as far as for me, I do not stand behind any sort of distancing.

I the language has not been in there this whole entire time.

We've never had an issue.

Go back to the numbers of the police department, is a 0.25% of all the calls was related to short-term rentals.

So I I um of the opinion that I don't want to add any distancing uh to this.

Okay, I did have my thoughts written down before this.

I could keep them all together, then a lot of the um comments that brought up other things.

Um, so just to start off with people say, and I brought this up before, and somebody says, well, if you don't want to have any short-term rentals, don't live in an HOA.

That's not how it works.

I've been in real estate for 32 years now, and I have property management.

I understand how this works.

A lot of people can't qualify and don't because of other reasons to live in an HOA.

A lot of people may have pets.

Yeah, the city has regulations, but your pet might weigh too much to belong in an HOA.

And I would never give up one of my pets, I'd give up with my kid first.

Um and then another thing is too is um let's see, we have the the pets, and sometimes you know these are the 55 and older communities, they don't, you know, we let the children move in.

Um people have what we call toys, you know, you have your RVs, your your ATVs, and all these things, you can't park them next to you in a lot of these HOAs, you have to pay, you know, to rent the space or for a permit and so forth.

Another thing is too is when people were out showing them homes, they have a qualifying letter, they qualify for so much, they get to the lender, and lo and behold, oh, this three or four hundred dollar HOA payment or even more throws you over the threshold.

You don't qualify for that.

So they don't can't live in some of these HOAs.

So just you know, everybody like, oh, just go live in an HOA, that's not gonna work, and there's reasons there are and aren't HOAs.

So I I find that offending that people just kind of throw that out there.

Another um thing is too is um lawsuits can go both ways.

I look at my house when I built here, the other side of town didn't, you know.

I moved here in 88 and moved into my house in 93.

That the other side of town didn't even exist.

There were no short-term rentals.

I moved into a single family um uh zoning, and all of a sudden I can have businesses next to me as I call them.

Um when you look at this, a homeowner, especially with loans and stuff, a homeowner's owner occupied in the rental business.

We call the people that you know, the landlords and owners that bring us their business, they're called investors, not homeowners.

So I, you know, so if you're gonna occupy your home, your homeowner, I'd be keeping saying, I have a right to do this with my home, my home, my home.

When you have three or four or five, which one is your home?

A home is different than a house.

So you have to think about that.

I think um we're getting away from every keep we can put you know 4,000 regulations on these places, and that's fine.

And like I said, my neighbors could cause noise, they could do this or that, and they're gonna do that.

And so you know, short-term people do too.

You can have all these regulations, and you can have the best property management company in the world, but it's up to the people that are there that are gonna, you know, either obey those laws or not.

I think what the law that people are missing is not all these rules and regulations that we're concerned about and how quiet the people are next door, it's the transient traffic.

And Sherry just brought it up great.

She said, Um, let the neighbors talk to neighbors.

What's Dave's mom gonna do?

She's got two short-term rentals on each side of her, those aren't neighbors.

You lose your your neighborhood, your sense of community when you start doing this.

When you talk about distancing, okay, you have all these HOAs, so that distance is amount.

If you look at those maps, everybody's coagulated into one area, and that's the ones that don't have HOAs and these single family homeowners that thought we weren't gonna do that.

At what point did my single family zoning turn into a business?

And it's a business because you have to get a business license for this, and it's regulated.

That was happy, you know, who could regulate and tell you what to do in the home.

The city is because you have a business.

It's not a home, it's an investment.

You're an investor.

Yes, I know sometimes you're going to leave and take off, and you might need that income for the home to help.

And that's fine with me.

I do not oppose short-term rentals.

We do need spacing.

How much, how far?

That's another determination.

So maybe way too far.

People say, Oh, we'll never be able to have any you know short-term rentals because of what we have right now.

The city is growing.

We have land, there's a master plan.

I'm on that committee.

There's more things coming.

And so we aren't always going to be this size.

Um, so just what I had written before, what I wanted to say, and this is to the committee, and we were a committee, it's hard because we're talking to you guys, we're supposed to talk to each other as a committee.

Um, as we continue to work on revising our chapter um 213 and vacation home rentals, I believe is important to clearly define where we stand as a committee.

Um we're legally aligned on all operational and regulatory provisions related to homeowners, landlords, and property management companies.

The purpose of the purpose proposed ordinance provides strong clear standards for reasonable operation, accountability, and enforcement.

It is also important to emphasize that no one on this committee is opposed to short-term rentals.

The goal is not to eliminate them, but to ensure they are properly regulated.

We must recognize that many of these properties are not owner-occupied residents, but rather investment properties operating as a business, and they should be regulated accordingly.

The only remaining point of disagreement is the inclusion of spacing requirements between short-term rental units.

Well, I respect a few members.

Um, I respect that a few members have concerns about adding spacing.

This issue should not be viewed as optional discretionary.

Spacing is the only tool that directly addresses over concentration, and without it, no number of additional rules or enforcement will resolve the underlying impact on neighborhoods.

This is not a new or untested concept.

Space requirements are widely adopted in the cities of all sizes across the country and are now reflected at the state level on AB 363.

These policies exist because they work, they preserve the neighborhood balance, protect residential integrity, and provide fairness across communities.

We must also remain clear and consistent on how we approach zoning and um distinctions.

A hotel is not a permitted zoning overlay within residential areas.

A short-term rental overlay may be permitted when clearly defined and properly regulated.

Residential hosting, owner-occupied use is permitted and should remain distinct from investor-driven short-term rentals.

Our most important responsibility is to protect our constituency, the residents, the property owners, the neighborhoods that make up the fabric of this community.

These decisions should not be driven by individual preferences or isolated concerns by what is proven to serve the community as a whole and long-term.

For these reasons, I strongly recommend we include space requirements as part of our provision, our proposed revisions to the chapter 213.

And adding this now ensures that we bring forward a complete and thoughtful and defensible recommendation to city council for their consideration.

If we send this forward without spacing, we are sending an incomplete recommendation, and we all know it.

And that's that's my thoughts and opinions.

Thank you, Natalie.

Amy, are you out there?

I am.

Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am, go right ahead.

Okay.

Um, again, like everybody else has said, thank you for participating.

Um, thank you for the subcommittee for the additional work uh that they have put in on this, but and thank you so much, Jessel, for your guidance on everything.

Um my husband and I have been um a hands hands-on operators uh working through a co-hosting business um for the last seven, eight years, and we have had it up close and personal for right now, 28 different properties.

And I'm not going to sit here and say we've never gotten calls from neighbors.

I'm not going to sit here and say uh there haven't been bad actors as far as guests are concerned.

But I will say because we run a really tight ship, and because we communicate with our neighbors, um, we are able to um remove and control as quite a bit of what's happening with any bad guest actors.

And um, when we first started this, there was not a lot of city involvement that I could see in the short-term rentals, other than if a neighbor had an issue, they would be directed to call the police.

And we also have we've had our current uh chapter 213, um, that is you know, our city code, but you know, as we operated, I saw that a lot of those things weren't necessarily being monitored, and probably because we didn't have the manpower to do it.

Um, recently, the city has uh hired a code enforcement person.

We have uh we're working really hard to look at the any weaknesses and or changes that we feel need to be um incorporated or or just tweaked in this uh in these chapters of the city code, and I guess um I I was an educator for many many years, and when I saw central administration change um change procedure in five to ten different areas, it was never you could never um pinpoint where the change was actually which which change was actually making a difference, and I guess I'm I'm thinking of it this way.

I'm I'm thinking of our code in this manner.

We have our city uh our city code enforcement now.

I think the subcommittee and the regular committee has come up with some really great things to not only rewrite, but uh an avenue in which to enforce it.

Um I would like to trust that process right now and see how many changes we can make with those changes in city code, including talking to our neighbors and notifying as many of those neighbors as you know, the city council seems to think is necessary and deal with it ourselves.

And the reason I don't know if distancing will work or not work.

I I don't like a lot of regulation, um, especially on a city this size.

Um we're not Vegas, um, we're mesquite.

I don't uh I don't like a lot of you know um mandating what doesn't have to be mandated, and I would like to see our city council um adopt this 213 without distancing, without capping, and see if we can make positive changes for our community members that have been, and I you know, I see that you've been your lifestyle and your your peace of mind has been um you know interrupted in many cases, and I think what we've written here can really address that.

I have a huge concern about adding distancing and capping.

Um the first time um our city uh attorney spoke to us, and I re-listened to this again on the uh the archived meeting audio, and he did caution us.

He didn't say his opinion, he didn't say whether we should, he didn't say whether we shouldn't, but to me, there was a real clear caution there in adding capping or distancing, and um I'm sure our uh city attorney um knows this stuff, and so I would like to um listen to that caution.

Um, and I know it wasn't a recommendation or anything else, but I did hear a caution there, and I would like to table the capping and the distancing, so we can number one see if our new code attention to it, our new application process without distancing, our city code enforcement.

I would like to give that a chance to see some improvement at that at that rate in you know, whatever time we have until 2030 until the uh official US Census comes out, we would have time to see if there were real changes made from just revising what wasn't working in the city code, and we could see how it was sifting out with uh Greater Las Vegas uh short-term rental association lawsuit and what's happening in the Ninth Circuit.

I do not want to see mesquite be one of the first to adopt these major things, and I know other other towns have have some distancing, but I would hate to be the first guinea pig city if if that's a an appropriate term to take this on and let the chips fall where they may.

I would rather put it on a shelf, see what we are doing, go to work, see if it creates some improvement, and then give it time to see what's going on with sifting out uh what happens in the Ninth Circuit.

So right now I do not uh I do not want to have distancing because I would rather move at a slower pace and make individual changes, give them a chance uh to make improvements.

Okay, Amy, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

I think the to our audience members here today, you you can get a sense of the amount of time and effort and thought that has gone into these this this topic, but the entire issue.

Uh all of our members of this committee, I'm quite pleased to be their friend and to know how much work they've uh put into this.

I mean, it's it's been a lot, and I appreciate all of that.

My uh drafted this about two weeks ago, and I've modified it several times just because I keep talking to people and getting more and more ideas and opinions.

But I'd like to read you uh what I think about distancing.

The topic of distancing is clearly a highly contentious one, one with passionate representation on both sides of the issue.

And in my considered opinion, everyone is making valid arguments.

When this happens, I typically turn to settled legal and defensible standards to decide on what would be best for the city of Mesquite.

In this case, those legally defensible standards have not yet been established.

We have taken cogent advice from our city attorney.

I have debated with and taken counsel from other informed city staff members, and the conclusion reached seems logical and very clear to me.

Let me ask you or pose this one question for everyone's consideration.

Given that all things are equal, if you have the right, the legal right to use your property as a short-term rental, should your neighbor have that same right.

I have posed this question to 31 different people.

I kept track of everyone.

On both sides of the issue, and after careful consideration, they all believe that if one has a legal right, so should their neighbor.

Sorry, uh Judge uh federal judge Miranda M.

Dew of the United States District Court of the District of Nevada has already issued, as you've heard before, a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of key provisions of Clark County's short-term rental ordinance, AB 363, including, among other things, distancing rules because of quote, serious legal concerns.

That should give us pause.

If our committee recommends moving forward with similar distancing requirements, we risk adopting regulations that may soon be found unconstitutional or at least unenforceable.

That creates uncertainty for our property owners.

It creates unnecessary legal exposure for the city and potential unnecessary costs for taxpayers.

Recommending adoption of no distancing standards seems to be the prudent path.

It allows our city council members to benefit from the guidance of a final court decision rather than guessing and possibly uh getting it wrong.

This is not kicking the can down the road.

It is just being logical and prudent.

My position on this issue is about doing it right the first time based on settled law, not ongoing litigation.

I am suggesting that we take the prudent path and wait until the courts have provided clear direction before recommending the enactment of any distancing standards.

When the Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association versus Clark County federal lawsuit is fully resolved through all appeals, that would be the time to decide about distancing regulation.

Okay, you've heard from us all.

And uh, did you want to did you want to rebut anything?

Well, um, I took notes, and there's a couple of things.

I know um we have committee members that own short-term rentals on this committee, and um it definitely seemed like there that that would have distancing, I'd imagine could affect their their business a little bit.

So that's just something I wanted to put on for the record.

Um, and we wouldn't be the first city to take something like this on.

Amy, you mentioned we'd be the first city.

If you're not aware that we're not the first city, then you haven't done research because we are absolutely not the first city.

The Henderson has done this, Ely's done this, Las Vegas done has done this.

Distancing is out there, so we're we're nowhere near the first city to do something like this.

And then I just like to ask the attorney for a chance to clarify.

Did you would you are you cautioning us against distancing?

She's still trying, I know.

Um well, she said that you cautioned us, so I just want to clarify because if if you are cautioning us, that's something that I think is important that I know in order to make my decision.

I think the the devil's in the details, right?

Um, and so I don't I wouldn't at this point with what I know from the the lawsuit and the status of the lawsuit, it's not a categorical cautioning against all distancing.

It's more of if you're gonna consider distancing, you might want to be careful on what it is.

Um, because right now, again, it's just one sentence in an opinion that says that the judge pointed out 1,000 feet.

Okay, and so you know, you need to take that into account.

It's not a hey, don't do any distancing at all, it's just there's there's a balance.

But I agree a lot with what um with what Rick was saying, where this is all it's a lot of it's up in the air.

We don't know how this is gonna play out.

Um, and so uh, but no, I wouldn't say that I'm saying you know, you can't do distancing at all, right?

Okay.

Um, but again, it's it's this gray area where I'm curious to see what you're gonna say.

And if I felt like it was again that the extreme example I use, if you said 2,000 feet, I'd say, well, there might be an issue with that.

Okay.

If you said 10 feet, well, you know, there's this sliding scale, right?

Yeah, so yeah, no, I understand.

Thank you for clarifying.

And also, it was mentioned that distance is not the issue.

Well, it is the issue.

We just had several people up here tell us how it's their issue.

We can't just change what they came up and told us and tell them it's not an issue.

They came up here and told us the distancing is an issue for them.

Having two STRs on both sides of them, having one in front of them, one behind them is an issue for them.

So they're allowed to say that, and it is an issue.

Um, it may not be an issue for some of the people on the committee, but it is an issue for them.

And I don't think that the basis for our recommendation on distancing based off of a lawsuit is the only thing we should be thinking about.

Um, we can do this smart, we can recommend a shorter distance, perhaps um 400 feet.

You know, I think we can have some negotiation and a discussion here, but it I'm feeling like we're not going to have that discussion at all.

Um, it's either we're for distancing on this committee or we're completely against it 100%.

So I won't have much more to say after this, if um, but I would like to if anybody would be open to some negotiation on distancing.

I would love the opportunity to be able to discuss that as a committee.

Um yeah, that that would be my comments off of what I listened to on um from the committee.

So thank you.

May I respond?

Thank you.

Uh I'm sorry.

May I respond to Vanessa?

Yes, of course.

Hi, hi Vanessa.

Um, if I made it sound like I didn't think that other people's concerns about distancing weren't real concerns, I apologize.

What I am saying is in eight years of handling what we now have 28 properties.

What I am trying to tell you is that distancing has not been the problem with the problems that we have had to go and address it how at different people's homes.

When they have called us, it hasn't been about distancing.

And I and I know that because we have duo properties and triple properties that are right beside each other, and then in a cluster, and none of the calls we have ever had from owners had to do with anything about where the property was located, it was about what the guests were doing, and we were able to handle it.

And what I'm trying to explain is that even if there is homes that are closer, uh in closer in proximity than what you would like or neighbors would like, what I'm trying to say is that problems can be resolved at that home, regardless of where they are.

So if somebody in the back is making noise one night, and another night somebody on a side two doors down is making noise, what I'm trying to say is those problems can be solved in or you know, individually in regardless of what the distancing is.

That's what I was trying to say.

And I also um wasn't saying that um the city attorney was telling us no, we shouldn't, or no, yes, we should.

What I'm saying is that it's an unknown, and we heard caution from him, and that's what I was trying to say.

The other thing I forgot to mention was that I strongly agree with Dave that the distancing and the capping issue should be given to the master plan committee.

I think that's I think that's huge.

Thank you, Amy.

Uh Natalie.

Okay, I had a couple more, a few more comments.

Um, so so to address um Amy, I mean, people aren't gonna call the property manager or the people in charge and say, hey, come over here.

This house next door and this one behind me and the one across the street are too close.

What are you gonna do?

Obviously, you're not gonna get those calls.

That's zoning and city pro, you know, that's why you've never had a call saying this house is too close.

That would be not a concern or a legitimate call for trouble.

And um, so I just wanted to kind of bring that up.

That that's not going to be a call anybody's gonna get, and then let's see.

I want to know.

Um one of the one of the things too is um on these on the illegal, and this would be first um probably city code city on these people that are operating illegal and have been like on Quail Run for quite a while, and I know there's one behind me.

Um when they when they are told to cease and desist, is there a citation or fine for those taxes that they should have been paying to the city, the room taxes and everything?

What happens?

Uh, this will be my first case dealing with that with this one we're dealing with on quail run, so I don't have an answer for you on that one.

Okay, thanks because I I would think that they should have to come up with those taxes, and um another thing too is so this distancing, I think a lot of it is because of the transient traffic because all the all this distancing because everything's getting thrown into these single family homes, not in HOAs, and so there's not a lot of distancing.

Um so I'm looking at it from me as a homeowner when I bought in a single family residence, you know, there was no, you know, no, you know, short-term rentals allowed, no hotel type stuff, and now it all sudden it's legal without any ordinance change or zoning change or public notice or anything, all of a sudden I just have to accept it and take it as it is.

Um, shouldn't there have been something to say that this was changed, you know, or that's what I'd like to say because I think some of these single family homes that this didn't even exist and it wasn't in the zoning, and all of a sudden you have you have to put up with it.

So I'm thinking, do these people get together?

I you know, and then do something about that, or how does it should there have been something done with the zoning like on that?

You know, um it's hard to go back and look at that and try to see you know if there should have been something done or not.

So in other contexts, in other legal contexts, there's um like in nuisance law, there's issues where you know if you know about a problem and then you move into it, then there you can't complain about that.

But when it's the opposite, there could there could be more of an issue.

But a lot of these things are like as we know, they're very nuanced, they're being litigated as we speak, so it's hard to fully flex those up.

I'm just saying is like I said, people are you know, I don't think it's all these rules and regulations, whether the people are good and bad and the property managers of the are good or not, because I know these the property managers I know are all excellent, you know, they they take responsibility and take care of everything, but um, as far as as having the transient traffic, you know, you don't have the neighbors there, and I think that's the biggest thing is you know who lives across the street from me, who does, who doesn't may not be best friends, at least you know who's there.

But those those are my thoughts, and that's why I think a lot of people aren't, you know, a lot of people don't call in when they have problems, you know.

It's like well, maybe they'll move or go away.

And I think that's why there's not a lot of calls because some people just simply don't want to, you know, red flags or to bother with that, even though it's irritating them.

Thank you, Natalie.

Anything else from the committee?

All right.

Um, I would like to make a motion that item or I would like to make a motion that uh two-13-6, which was basically a placeholder for distancing, fair enough.

Uh be removed and that the committee not recommend distancing to the city council for adoption.

Can we can we talk about the motion?

Sure.

That like I just want to follow procedure.

Yes, that's I think that's been the hardest part of this whole thing, like Natalie said, we're trying to talk to each other, but we're out there and and like it just would be nice to have a have a discussion.

Um I uh I I don't know if I'm 100% in favor of removing the distancing.

Um the spot holder.

Um I'm in I I believe at some point something is going to come down with some kind of distancing.

I'm I'm more in favor of leaving it blank.

And I don't know if maybe that's not allowed, maybe that's not the right way to do it.

Um I I'm under the the belief that eventually some kind of distancing rules are going to happen.

Um, and I'm all for following state law when it happens, and it is what it is.

Um I'm just of the opinion that uh why why go there if there's all this litigation and stuff that's happening and that the city has thought through and and we haven't even got into enforcement.

Uh Sherry brought that up, but we're I've got lots to say about enforcement because I I think that's a a strong one as well.

But um I don't know if we can leave a point blank.

Um, Adam, I think that I would ask you, can I remove the distance language and just say reserve for future use?

Yeah, so sometimes you see in like contracts or even a statute where it'll have a number and then it'll just be bracketed and it says reserved.

That's it.

Yeah, because I oh sorry, I I was just thinking that the you know, if you leave that distancing in there, then the city council can address it.

And I have a question is if we um move forward with what Rick had in motion and just delete the word distancing, and later on the state, whatever happens, if that chance happens where there is distancing, can't we just add distancing back in there?

I mean, won't we be required just to add it back in there?

Yeah, and even at a I mean you could like if if there's a second to the motion and it passes, then the recommendation of the council, there'd be nothing there, right?

But the council could say, nope, I like distancing, I'm gonna add that back in.

Like they could do that.

Um so it could be done either way, either it's not in the recommended uh ordinance to the council, or you or you leave it in there with the title and it says reserved, and which would legally would have the same effect, right?

There would be no rule about it, but it just depends on what the committee wants to do.

Yep, thank you, Adam.

I'm not sure.

And I would be just a minute, Amy.

I would be happy to modify my my motion is to get the conversation going here.

So um I would be happy to modify it to do exactly as you've suggested because I think it accomplishes the same thing that I'm trying to accomplish.

So Amy, go ahead.

I was just gonna suggest the same thing that we just edit it, um, that we um you know, leave it for further discussion um as we watch.

And for me, I'd like to see, like I said, uh the codes that we're gonna put into place and and watch as what happens in the ninth district play out.

So however we could word that.

Yeah, fine.

So so I I would be happy to amend my motion uh to uh leave section 2.13-6 uh in as basically as a placeholder and call it reserved for future uh reference.

And that would be my motion, and and thereby make no uh recommendation to the council regarding uh distancing.

And Rick, just to clarify, do you look behind you?

Justlyn has it.

Is that what you're envisioning, or would it say distancing and then it would say reserved underneath it?

Is that I would just let it be reserved.

And I think that's well, what do you think, Adam?

Do you want you want distancing there?

Do you need it?

I would like distancing there, and me too.

That's what it is, yeah.

Yeah, so that so we could say reserve for possible distancing.

That's what it is yeah yeah so that so we could say reserve for possible distancing well I would say distancing and then just okay underneath it just in brackets not parentheses just brackets put reserved that's it let me ask another question too so there we know let's keep this reserved and see what we want to do or whatever but when 2030 comes and then we're you know 17,000 people the distancing's gonna have to go with ABR 363 at this at this point in day right yeah yeah who knows what'll happen over the next few years right but if it were today it would we would say whatever distancing you guys had forget it you're gonna go with this correct once once we reach that threshold and that formal census comes in and there hasn't been an exodus in mesquite and we're above the population then it'll all work out you'd be never we should adopt some do something or have the city council look at it seriously so they go ahead Amy we have three and a half years I think we have plenty of time to keep our eye on it.

I don't think we have to make a move right now on distancing okay uh Dave uh David and I have little different opinions about this we ought to make a bet of some kind of can you do that okay uh never mind don't answer that okay uh I think that based on the question I asked earlier uh the question I ask of a lot of people do you think if you have the right to do something with your home your neighbor should also have that same right and I think if you just answer that question you're gonna realize that this will not pass constitutional challenge that's my opinion and I might are I might argue a little bit with you on that one because city can send zonings and stuff like that and a business can operate in one area where another business can't operate exactly we're talking about it right next door so okay anyway it's it's it's all I just thought it would be fun to have that little comment no it's not fun it's it's I mean it is it is a zoning fact you know either zone hotel you know or or single family and that's where it's coming at very good okay so that's my motion is to what's that okay uh thank you very much uh so that's my motion uh for two one three dash six is six is to modify the recommendations as it is stated here that's that's it's been fixed that's my motion and I set I second that okay it's been moved and seconded to uh leave distancing as a placeholder in the or in the recommended uh ordinance to the council all those in favor say aye aye aye and those opposed aye aye okay so did you catch the vote okay very good okay listen uh that's gotta be the biggest issue in this entire thing and it's been a wonderful debate I really do sincerely appreciate virtually everybody's comments here it's it's not an easy uh issue to resolve and I and I appreciate all of the input that we've had from everybody thank you so much for doing that and being so good about it thank you for being respectful with everybody well no we're not done we have a lot more to go but but since distancing may have been the reason a lot of you are here uh this would be a good time to leave okay we're on to item 3.7 thank you hey chairman just a quick can we recess for a quick break wait would you guys have any sorry would you have any um up obligations you want us to take a break okay we're gonna take it we're just gonna take a little five minute recess and we're gonna come back and we're gonna try to move through the rest of these as quickly as we can five minutes we'll reconvene at uh 405 uh straight here to your left like right behind these walls would probably be up to his boss to tell them that yeah well

I know I have a lot of things.

Not at all.

I didn't mean to.

I didn't I I didn't mean to get it.

No, I was like, you know, let's see.

No, I was literally because I was very one mission to do this.

If if you felt like I took it on you, I didn't mean to.

No, and we and we still will.

Yeah, I just wanted to let you know.

Firstly, if it's if it would if you take it wrong, please don't.

Yeah.

Yeah, because we can't work through anything.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

And you know, I'm on this.

I think there's a lot of both sides.

I get that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I and I'm kind of glad this did that.

That helps.

I think you're a little more neutral.

I'm like, okay, it wasn't a full.

I think Dave did a good job of bringing that little team back in and you draw it.

That was nice.

Yeah, I'm gonna do that throughout the whole document.

Any changes and hopefully be done with that.

Yeah, and you never let them make that big decision.

Right now, I think I don't know what's going on.

So I would say one second.

Okay, we're gonna need re-reconvene here.

With um a little bit of luck.

We'll uh we'll move through the rest of these agenda items uh and of course take public comment when we get to one that you're interested in commenting about.

Um we we did expect that one to take quite a bit of time, and it did, and I'm glad we're uh I'm glad we came to some conclusion on it.

Um so Vanessa's gotta go.

And we're gonna be left with a quorum because we have one, two, three, four, five of us.

Yeah, maybe.

Amy, are you still there?

I am, but I have a concern because um I need to um check Jesse out of the hospital here pretty soon.

So I can't I can't stay on for another you know, two to three hours.

Oh no, good.

Okay, we're gonna okay.

Me either.

Okay, so let's see what we can get done here.

Okay.

Is there is if we do get into you know, if it's gonna be longer an hour, are we able to table table it or are we saying no more meetings?

We're gonna try to do it.

Let's do it.

Let's see where we end up.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, 3.7 discussion and possible action on chapter two, or sorry, title two, chapter 13, section seven, agency.

Public comment.

Do you have it up there?

Yeah.

So you can see what we've done here.

The blue is added, the red is strike, struck stricken, struck stricken.

Any pub?

Okay, Nick.

God thank you, Nick Alfonsetti.

This might fit, it may not.

I uh I was speaking to a couple of the uh people about this.

Um I respect all the work you're doing.

Don't think that I'm the enemy because I'm not.

I don't think that.

Okay, good.

Uh you guys have put in a lot of time, and women have put a lot of time into this, and it's well taken.

I would like to take it and make a little change to something, just an idea to go along with this.

Is instead of bringing all these laws, all these ordinances, all these changes, the limitations, you know, it's every time you do that, it's just gonna open the door for something else to happen.

It's not going to be part of it.

So, what I say is this create a clearing house of all the licensees.

Okay, what that clearing house does is that puts the responsibility of the licensee on a line.

Okay, broadcast that phone number out to people in those neighborhoods.

If you got a problem with one of these short-term rentals in your area, make a phone call.

But what does it do?

It notifies the licensee, it makes them independent from the person that's making the complaint.

Okay, keeps the police out of it, keeps all that out for right now.

The other thing is what I recommended was to make the visitor also work through that type of an operation.

What happens is I got 20 golfers that want to come in.

Uh, wait a minute.

Where were you last?

Well, we were up in Denver.

Uh, where did you stay?

Call up there, find out what's going on.

Is it somebody that you would want to put into your licensee person?

Would you want to put that in there with the damage they caused and the problems they caused up in Denver?

So, what it does is it becomes a clearinghouse for both.

And I understand uh Airbnb probably has the same thing based on places that you've stayed in the past that there's been a problem you're taking out.

All I'm saying is put the put everything back on the licensee, and what the problems could come out of it or the good part of it come out of it.

And I think it offers a lot more than all this other stuff that's going on because people have a way to take and say, look, there's a problem here, we need to solve the problem.

And I think that's probably the best thing that could happen.

You're not putting a lot of problems on the licensee.

If there's a problem, let the clearing house call them and let them know what's going on.

That's part of it.

Uh, there was one other piece that I had there that would also probably work, and I I've lost it now.

So, anyways, thank you for your work.

Thank you, Nick.

Okay, anything else on uh item 3.6.

Yes, it is.

You're this is public comment time on having to do with uh I'm sorry, did I say six?

I apologize, I mean I meant seven uh section seven, which has to do with agency.

Right, and I apologize.

I'm actually going to follow up on just a little bit.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but um it wasn't brought up in the last point of discussion, and I kind of didn't get to it in my comments, but the distance, and unfortunately we lost probably the majority of our audience that I was hoping to oh would hear this.

They're gonna go home and watch you on TV tonight.

I hope so.

But the uh the 660, the 660 feet was in fact uh presented by Simon as a defensive, legally defensible number.

It was not pulled out of a magician's hat, and I don't think that kind of got conveyed.

Uh they talked about a thousand feet and everything, and it was strained from that number that he had expressed, be it long or short, that made those other distances indefensible.

660 does sound like a considerable distance.

I totally agree, but that is a number that other cities have used, other agencies condoned by you know architectural associations and so on.

And he had named off that list.

So I will have some other things that I'm sticking around to comment on.

Okay.

Um, I did find that one member of the audience got up and said, like, I have no problem with the ones behind me next to me.

I thought that was a little disingenuous when that gentleman gets up and says that, and he owns a rental agency.

He should have at least informed the audience of that unique position.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it, Nick.

Rick, may I remain may I request that we remind everybody to uh in the public to comment on the agenda item we're on for the sake of time.

We can we can sure try to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go.

I'll try to make mine short and sweet.

My name is Roy Bunderson.

We're a four-year resident in Mesquite.

Uh, we're one of those dreaded uh summer bums, I guess you call whatever they name us.

Uh we're excited about being residents here.

I applaud you for all your work.

I give you just a little background.

I have 52 years of service and uh public entities.

Uh that wasn't my job.

That was something I didn't have any better judgment judgment than to do.

And most recently, I come from Idaho where I've been involved in a three-year, I guess you would call it a battle.

I like to call it a discussion.

We just got some STR regulation finalized in statute this year after three years of difficult battle.

Wow.

I just have one observation.

Most of the problems that we had in Idaho were no different than the problems that we have here.

I'm involved in our local homeowners association, and part of the reason I'm there is I felt like I could filter through some of the technicalities that we experience when we try to resolve these problems.

The overall overriding perception that I have is that most of the problems with short-term rentals are perceptual in nature.

When you get right to the detail, we went around our entire state.

We heard about the number of police calls, we heard about the number of ambulance calls.

When we got there and looked at the facts, they just didn't support the problem.

What we found to be most effective in what our legislation did was encouraged people.

The last gentleman, maybe he had or the gentleman before, uh, maybe had an idea with a clearinghouse.

If I could solve the problem, I would say just get people to talk to each other.

I've worked in my career and managed litigation most of my life, and I can tell you that the absolute worst negotiated settlement I ever saw beat the devil out of the best litigated one.

I would encourage you to keep up the battle.

I'm a big big believer that you don't solve problems by more government and more regulation, you solve it by less.

Make people stand up, be responsible, talk to each other, debate the facts, get out of the supposition, get out of the accusations, move forward.

Congratulations to you for your effort.

I don't know how you guys stay here for four hours.

I'm going home.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Roy.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Okay, uh committee members.

Okay.

I think this just uh to bring out the point.

This section here clarifies what uh a couple of those people just were talking about, like making sure that we have a good qualified local operator.

Um this is part of the enforcement issue.

So this kind of plays into what a couple of people have just said.

Thank you very much.

That is right.

So I'll make a motion that we uh I'll move that we recommend the language as written in section two-13-7 to the council city council.

I'll second it.

Moved and seconded to uh to do that.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Thank you.

We're on item 3.8, agenda item 3.8.

This is title two, section 13, section.

So I'm so sorry, I keep messing that up.

It is title two, chapter 13, section eight, zoning compliance.

Public comment.

Chris Arctanter.

And we're permanent residents, my wife and I.

And we live on a dead end street.

And I just want you to pitch our situation.

There are 14 homes on this street.

Four of them already are HOAs.

And our quality of life, I've heard several of you mentioned I applaud you for what you do and your concerned about quality of life.

Our quality of life is being destroyed because there are also rumors that more of those homes are gonna be turned into short-term rentals.

What I'm hoping for, and maybe it's because I'm ignorant of all of the laws, but I thought that if if uh a community is zoned as residential, commercial businesses are not allowed.

Is that true?

Because what I'm perceiving is somehow there's uh an application process process for rentals that somehow ignores the fact that it's a residential area and licenses are being issued, and I don't understand.

Am I wrong that we we we try not to do a question and answer thing?

We just want to hear what it's okay, but we want to hear your your okay, and I think I understand what you're saying very well.

So okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And and uh I don't want to take up more of your time, but I guess that's that's the biggest issue we have because we're permanent residents.

We moved here, we used to have a wonderful neighborhood, we've lived there for 10 years, and now my wife's afraid at night because of all these short-term rentals.

We're I like to say we're just being turned into motel alley, and and I just don't know if there's a solution, but thank you.

And I I know you understand we do.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Roy.

Or I'm sorry, Chris.

You're Chris, right?

Yeah, other uh public comment on this item.

Okay, seeing none, uh, we'll move to a discussion by the committee.

Any any discussion from the committee?

No, I think this is something for the city to look at, and like I said, the master plan or you know, as far as the zoning, because I think the zoning has a lot to do with this distancing is you know, a lot of this places I think where we are doing this isn't zoned in a single family, and all of a sudden, so but that's my only comment.

Okay, there happens to be three people that are here in the room uh that are serving on the master plan committee, and we we we we there's a lot of value in what you're saying, Dave, and we all hear it, so good for you.

Okay, uh I have I have yeah, I have a question.

Um, I've had a lot of um people ask me about the conditional use permit, and I mean I understand um which parts of town they need to get the conditional use permit and things like that, but I don't I don't know how to explain to other people exactly which houses get approved and which ones don't.

So if we if we don't talk about distancing, we don't talk about capping, and we're just talking about you know, taking a residential area and looking at a house for its conditional use permit.

Can you tell us, Jesselin or or anybody there, what exactly goes into consideration for the conditional use permit?

Yeah, so um conditional use permits are gonna vary house to house.

If you want to do a short-term rental and you have no wall, council can put conditions that you must um construct a six-foot wall for privacy purposes prior to obtaining your license.

They can put conditions.

We saw one where a gentleman had I believe two RV hookups, and they made him cap one.

So there's different things that vary house to house, and those conditions must be met prior to licensing.

Okay.

So if if a home, if a homeowner uh applies for one and they tick off all your boxes, they check off all your boxes, then it is they the council does give that permit.

That's the way it's supposed to work.

Okay, but right now, um, I know there's a moratorium, but uh when the moratorium goes off, and let's say we do not the city council doesn't adopt distancing it when we get on is it June 9th or 7th, and those conditional use permits start being applied for again if they meet the condition.

Will they be licensed or authorized?

Yes, and I want to make it clear too that even if there are distancing requirements, there can still be a conditional use permit that's needed as well.

So just because they mean a distance doesn't mean they're exempt from having to have a conditional use permit if it's in that area.

Okay, so this might be off the subject, and you can tell me not now, but so those three properties.

Uh the one on turtle, I can't turtle COVID, I can't remember the name, but there's three properties that were one was not allowed to apply, and the two were not allowed to be heard on the night of the moratorium.

Will those be up and ready to apply for the use conditional use permit when the moratorium goes off?

They will be able to resume their application, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other comment?

Okay, then uh I would make a motion that we move to recommend the language as written in section two-13-8 to the city council.

I'll second that.

Okay, it's moved and seconded uh to do that.

All favor say aye.

Are there any opposed?

Thank you.

Is there an unsure?

Is there anything?

I have one question.

You're unsure.

I just am sure you guys so this conditional use permit is like you said, oh, if we're telling them they need a wall or they need this or something, then the conditional use isn't um for zoning to change zoning, it's directly tied to the zoning uh language in our in our code.

There's all kinds of different business uses, not just sing uh short-term rentals, but certain types like this have to get a conditional use permit, and with that conditional use permit, the neighbors are notified the council has to approve it, their conditions set upon it, they must be met.

Right.

So I'm saying if it's zoned single family resident, then and not for businesses, then this conditional use permit would work that way.

So the zoning code would have to be changed in order for this for what you're talking about, right?

What the code currently says is see in the single family code, it says vacation rentals, conditional use period.

Very good.

3.9 discussion and possible action on title two.

Oh, sorry, did we vote?

Okay, abstain.

What are you doing?

I know Natalie got two.

We voted, right?

I abstained kind of.

I I was confused.

I mean, I wasn't confused, I was unsure.

Okay, okay.

Wait, what did Amy say?

Amy.

I was just saying that I didn't think Natalie got a chance to vote, but I guess she abstained.

Yeah, it was kind of yeah, it was it went through.

I mean, I didn't they didn't need my vote.

Okay, 3.9 discussion of title two, chapter 13, section nine application for vacation home rental license, public comment.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, this might be the place, it might not be the place.

Give it a shot.

Um I would think speaking to if you if you what could we have your name that's all right in your name, just pull that down to you a little bit there.

And what's your name?

Sandra, Sandra.

Uh-huh.

So I would think that uh when we started coming to Mesquite, it was like 18,000 people, and now the population has grown quite a bit, and all these vacation people that come in spend money.

I know we do, because we're snowbirds, uh, on restaurants on groceries on every little enjoyment they have in Mesquite.

You know, we love mesquite, it's nice and quiet.

I don't know where all the noise things come from.

I must live in the wrong area, but also remember my rose-colored glasses, you know.

So I don't notice any of the negative things.

If you live in the positive world, you always have positive things attract to you, you know.

You know, but I was just thinking that all these discussions against these short-term rentals, they bring money to mesquite to make them grow to enhance the economy.

You know, so that's one thing I wanted to add to that.

I didn't get to last time, just because I forgot.

You did a beautiful job, Sandra.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Very good.

Uh seeing none, the uh committee members.

Okay, seeing none there, then uh I have a I have a question.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Amy.

Um it's it's probably not an issue now because we haven't put any distancing or capping in yet.

But I see a problem, and I see it for realtors and um and homeowners.

That if and I think this is where the question comes in this section, but they have to have the deed, they have to have proof of ownership before they can apply.

My question is if if someone thinks that if they know it passes everything for the conditional use permit, can they be assured that if they do everything uh as the code is written now, they will get that so they can be confident in purchasing that property.

It's just it's a we've had a couple people, we have two of those people that run into it if we put that capping on.

So I just want to know right now if that's still the case and if it would remain if we were to add the distancing later.

Um, I think you're getting into planning requirements, which is outside the scope of this committee, but having said that, I don't see any reason if they apply for the conditional use permit, it was approved with conditions and those were met.

I see no reason for it to be denied, provided everything else was done appropriately.

Okay, so that the if it did become a problem, it would be the planning committee route that we would go share concerns with.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, any other committee members?

Okay, seeing none, I will move direct.

Oh, please do.

I'm sorry, I was trying to figure out which section it was.

Uh on this section, could you state your name, please just for the record?

Yeah.

Uh Jacqueline Flores with the Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association.

Uh on this section, we actually uh found a few issues um that we are recommending corrections.

Um I believe this section includes the uh certificate of occupancy.

Is that correct?

Um the certificate of occupancy is issued the um yeah, also it includes the um it triggers inspection without um uh warrant.

Uh then we have um uh punishment without uh adjudication.

Basically, that means like when somebody has a complaint, uh normally the city has to provide the property owner with notice so that they can correct the issue first before they get fine.

And there was none included in that section that provides um an opportunity for the property owner to correct the issue before they actually get a fine um on the certificate of occupancy.

Can you scroll down to L, please?

Thank you.

This is where you're this is okay.

Oh, so I'm I don't mean to I want to get it on the what you're talking about up on the screen here, is all thank you.

Um get one more time, I'll give you okay.

So on the certificate of occupancy, it's um the requirement the way structure raises some constitutional problems, like I said, under four different items, um, the Fourth Amendment, um, because that's considered, and we actually discussed this in our legal case and in the federal court that the city is basically coercing property owners to have it in inspection without a warrant in order for them to get a license.

So if you do not allow, if you do not let the government into your property to do this inspection, then you're not gonna get a business license.

And that actually raised a constitutional issue in our in our federal case.

Um this one says, for example, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine holds that the government may not condition the grant of a benefit or a license on the surrender of a constitutional right, even if the government could withhold that benefit entirely.

Uh here the city of Mesquita's conditioning the SCR license, a government benefit on the applicant's surrender of their Fourth Amendment right to refuse warrantless inspection of their home.

The government cannot accomplish indirectly what it cannot do directly, because the city could not simply dispatch a building inspector to enter and inspect every home in Mesquite without a warrant.

It could not compel the same inspection by denying an STI license to homeowners who decline to consent.

Um and then it goes to also to the substancy due process, uh, which is heavily used in our federal case, uh, that is overbred uh and disproportionate means, even accepting the city's stated uh safety rationale for the for the certificate of occupancy requirement, ensuring that SDR properties are safe for guests, the full uh certificate occupancy process as applied to existing already occupy homes is not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest, and it's not rationally related to the specific safety concern it purports to address.

A certificate of occupancy inspection for any an existing home requires not merely that the home be safe today, but it that it be retroactively brought into compliance with current building codes as to all prior improvements.

So, in other words, uh if a house was already got a certificate of occupancy before, but now codes have changed over the years.

What happens to those houses that did have a certificate of compliance but now don't comply with the current code?

Are they gonna be forced to pay this extra money to come into compliance under the new regulations or what's gonna happen?

Okay, that's the issue with that certificate of compliance.

And then I believe the other three minutes are up on this one, but just one more thing.

I did I did interrupt you, so and then one other thing that's important is that whenever somebody gets a fine and they want to appeal the fine or whatever enforcement that they have that they appealed in front of a neutral um a neutral person.

Right now they go in front of the city council, which is not a neutral um person.

I think they go in front of the city manager, don't they?

Right, it should be actually somebody that's not connected to the city.

I understand.

Understood.

Okay, good.

Thank you, Jackie.

Okay, other public comment.

Oh, sorry.

Hi, Colleen Gleadon.

Um, just on M, I'm not sure the written uh verification from the development service director or designate uh the property meets the distancing requirements set forth in this chapter.

Since you guys did not put any recommendations in, will you be taking that out?

And then also on N, um it kind of gives the developer service director or designee free realm to do anything to this chapter.

I think it should be somehow listed in there as the city council needs to approve any changes to the chapter 13.

Okay, yeah.

And and in another place in here, it does talk about substantive changes and that substantive changes have to be in front of the council, not uh right.

And this is this is just saying that reasonably um necessary to administer this chapter, it doesn't say anything about changing it.

Right, yeah.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Good good Colleen.

Okay, other public comment.

Okay, uh committee members.

I I would um I'm here, but I do like the idea of M being taken out.

And so if uh Mary, so sorry, not yes, as far as for written verification from the development service director or does name property meets distancing requirements of fourthness chapter.

Yeah, I would I would like to make a motion to just have that delete it out of there.

Oh, if you'd like, you can leave it like you did and let council decide.

Listen, you left it for distancing, leave this language there for council to discuss as well.

So so I had okay, along those lines, you made a motion here.

So let me uh let me just add or something.

Was it a motion?

Okay, I had thought that we could just simply put a comma after chapter and say if any and call it good.

That way it leaves it there, but without any, it doesn't happen.

So just thought it would they would say uh okay, it would say uh written verification with the development services or service director, or it designee the property meets distancing requirements set forth in this chapter, if any.

I'm happy with that.

Be open to as applicable.

As what?

As applicable.

Fine.

Okay, yeah, sure.

Well, I don't know.

What do you that's your motion?

Sorry.

Yeah, no, I'm I think it's a great idea.

Okay.

So uh can you amend your motion to that then?

I would like to make a motion to add a comma and the two words as applicable at the end of okay before you call for a second, Marco.

Do we need to clarify anything else for the rest of the language?

Yeah, I was gonna say we haven't had a chance to really review the whole thing.

We've be like before you make your motion.

I don't think the rest of the committee has been offered a chance to make changes on the next one.

You wrote it.

No, I'm just saying like uh just making sure that that uh before a motion was made, just that we all had a chance to uh we we have discussion now.

We have yeah, this is our discussion opportunity.

So please go ahead.

Okay, no, actually I just while while she was discussing, she threw a motion in there, and that kind of just okay.

I just removing okay.

Did you have anything in there?

Any comment?

No, I just saw the certificate of occupancy that um anytime you obtain a business license, the city has to go in and okay it.

So I've got another couple of businesses, and every time I do that, they have to go in and monitor me and tell me what I need, fire extinguishers, batteries, whatever, electrical stuff.

So I find that normal.

Yeah.

Okay.

Did I go ahead?

I would say on M.

I just feel like if we're gonna leave distancing out, or not leave it out, but leave it up for then that that same consistency should consistency should be on M.

If not, it just feels a little it feels off to me because it's we're we're acknowledging the distancing here, if it's putting place and in the other place, we've hardly given it a nod.

So I guess we're leaving it up.

In one, we're leaving it up to you know, council for their discretion or whatever future, and then an M or it's it's written differently, and I would just like to keep them consistent.

I kind of agree with Amy on that one.

Like if we could word that just as reserved for written verification distancing as applicable or make that as awkward as possible.

Um so it's it's I'd like like what Amy said, it's consistent with the rest of what we've already done.

It's it's a placeholder.

Um yeah, I think if we don't, it sends mixed messages.

Does that uh well, Sherry?

Does that is that still so um the other one all we did was just distancing and said reserved, and so this one um I just feel like this should be completely.

I don't know what word we could put in there, but all of this is I don't feel like that should all be in there.

So yeah, right there reserved.

I like that.

I would like to make a motion.

I still have a I have a another kind of a follow-up question to what Jacqueline was saying on the certificate of occupancy, because um in regards to inspecting, is this treated like a business or like a residence?

Because I agree, I don't want without a warrant, nobody's walking into my house without permission, but if I'm gonna reuse that property as a business, does that change?

And again, Adam's not here anymore legally.

That's it's now a place of business, not a place of residence, and how does that kind of change?

I'd like your legal opinion on that, just I cannot speak on the legality of it, of course.

I'm not an attorney or fair legal or any other judge or anything of the sort.

I can tell you some of the things we look for in these um vacation home inspections, and I think it's important to point out that uh a lot of the times we think about short-term rentals, we think about new homes.

Well, that's not always the case.

Sometimes we have homes that are 30 years old, 40 years old, even more.

Can fire get to you if there's an emergency, can PD locate you?

Um emergency egress and rescue openings.

Are they using bedrooms that are not appropriate to be bedrooms that they can't escape from if there's an emergency?

Um exterior illumination at the landing, smoke alarms and all the bedrooms, um, CO detectors if necessary.

Is the stove anti-tip?

So these are just kind of safety issues for if you're gonna have the public there and they're not up to code, the city could be held liable.

So that's my understanding of it.

Yeah, see, that's the difference.

You know, it's not just your family.

You've opened up to the public and with the with the business license, and therefore you're gonna have to make sure you're maintaining that properly.

Right.

And the city, the city is saying if they give a business license, they're saying this business is ready for operation.

And if they don't go in and inspect it, they're they're allowing that without you know, proper safety.

Knowledge that is safe.

Exactly.

I I think they're wrong on the on the lawsuit on fighting that.

Well, okay, she's just making a I think she's making an argument for warrantless searches, and you know that that's what yeah, and and for and for the record here, you know, we're gonna make recommendations to the council that is is gonna be considered greatly by our city attorney before he makes recommendations and and to Jackie's comments, you know, a lot of these things will be taken up with with a lawyer and his and his appropriate role in all of this to rec make those types of recommendations or adjustments to uh recommend to the council.

So even though we may not make a change here, it it may end up being changed when the final uh determination is made.

Dave.

Can the city do an inspection on a short-term rental willy-nilly?

Like, do they have to have cause or can they just show up and inspect it whenever they want?

I don't think I've never had I've never experienced that.

I think there would have to be a cause for us to go back in and say, hey, we need to.

I think so, you know, somebody'd have to file a complaint just like no, that's I guess that was kind of that question there, like once you brought up the kind of that war that search, like it just like just knowing that we're kind of balanced.

In order to I think it might happen, like when you renew your license or something, they but I doubt you know they're not gonna okay.

Do you want to amend your motion now?

Or what do you want to do here?

Yes, I would like to massage the words around.

So I would like my motion is we change M to what it is on the screen right now with parentheses reserved parentheses to make it match and stay consistent with the entire document in regards to distancing.

Okay, that's the motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay, uh moved and seconded actually to amend this section.

Um does your motion include recommending the remainder of the language to the council.

Sorry, yes.

You should say yes.

So okay, yes.

Uh as amended, then the motion as I understand it is to uh okay.

The motion as I understand it's a move move the recommended language as written in section two-13-9 as amended, okay, to the city council.

All right.

Correct.

All right.

Is there a second?

What's up?

Go ahead.

Well, you may it was your motion.

Uh uh I just have a question.

I was like, if we just put reserve there reserved, we just might as well take out M altogether because it's not reserved for much.

You're making it consistent though, aren't you?

You're going, you're she's gonna make it consistent.

Well, the other one's that you said the other one said it was reserved for distancing.

This yeah, it is a the title was distancing and then it said reserve.

This just has reserves.

This is just reserved, so we could take it out.

I'm okay with just taking it out.

So this was um motion and second it, so it has to be voted on now.

Okay.

If if we all vote no, can we make another motion on the same item to fix it, how we really should have it fixed, or should we just this is where I really wish Adam was here, but and when we kind of discuss it.

I think you can.

You would just have to allow public comment again before you make another motion.

Fine.

All is in favor say aye.

All those also posed say aye.

Aye.

Okay, now uh public comment on this item.

Yeah, oh my goodness, you're gonna okay.

Come on up.

So um, so the issue is not uh that we don't want the government to do inspections for health and safety.

Yeah, the issue is that the way it's written here, it's uh it's very broad.

It says that you have to get a certificate of occupancy to get a certificate of occupancy is not the same thing as inspecting it, you know, for fire extinguisher, all the things that she listed.

In fact, most ordinances that we uh support do actually spell out exactly what the inspection is going to entail.

So she gave a list.

That is actually what should be written in there instead of saying they have to have a certificate of occupancy, it should say there should be an inspection for these items, and then she gave the list already of those items that need to be in there, and that's what we think should be then.

Very good.

Thank you, Jackie.

I would discourage you from doing it that way simply because the inspection items are based on the building code, which you guys cannot influence.

So if you limit it to that and that changes, then we're stuck with it.

That's fine.

Once again, I'm my only recommendation.

Yep, I understand.

I see what she's saying though.

And we we I think I we understand what you're saying, and this will get sorted out when we get to a legal standard.

Okay.

Okay, now is there a new motion?

I'll make a motion that we remove or what did it go?

I removed it.

Oh, yeah, or LM.

It was M, right?

I removed the M placeholder and moved N to M.

Okay, I'm gonna make a motion that we remove M and turn it into N.

We don't need to just have a reserve section there.

And I second that.

Okay, it's moved and seconded to do that.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you.

Okay, we're on uh three-10 now.

Discussion impossible.

Okay, title two, chapter 13, section 10, which is application and renewal fees.

Public comment.

Okay, seeing none, committee members.

Seeing none, is there a motion to recommend that language written in section two-13-10 to the city council?

I'll make a motion that we adopt two-13-10 as written.

I second that.

Okay, moved in second to uh do that.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you.

Very good.

Okay, item 311, discussion and possible action on Title 2, Chapter 13, Section 11, room tax imposed.

Public comment.

Okay, seeing none, committee members.

All right, and seeing none, I'll make a rope.

Uh I'll move to recommend the language as written in section two uh three.

Oh, sorry.

What is it?

2-1-13, yeah, 2 13 11.

Yeah, two-13 section 11 uh to the city council.

I second that.

Okay, moved and seconded to uh approve that language for this to the city council.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any thank you, Amy?

We got you.

Okay.

All right.

Discussion and possible action on Title II, Chapter 13, Section 12, Standard License Conditions and Additional Concerns.

Okay, public comment.

We've worn you out, have we?

See you guys.

I don't know if you folks are gonna get through this tonight.

Uh we're gonna we're gonna try, but that's all right.

Okay, uh, formally this had a state your name, please.

Sorry, Corbin, yeah, fan nest.

Um, formally this chapter had the notice to be posted clearly visible within the unit and so on.

It still says that on uh paragraph seven, but um I also found other city site where it had similar language, but it was not actually, it was just like a document posted there.

It wasn't part of the chapter.

It was more like a notice for people, but it mentioned it being outside.

I would like to see a notice posted outside a rental property where you know where that contact number is.

I don't I I know there's gonna be language in here about a postcard sent to adjoining owners and so on.

I would think like to see that really posted outdoors where people would know who they could go and find and contact, and you know, not have to count on that card coming in the mail or retaining that card in your records or so on.

And uh, I would like to make a commotion.

Can we adjust that remote speaker volume down a little bit?

That thing's harsh.

Thank you.

Second uh motion.

Yeah, this is from a guy that can't hear.

Uh okay, thank you for the yeah, Colleen.

Pauline Gleaden.

So um of the things uh in here is that it's a very long list, right?

So one of the items he just brought up though, if you put a sign up on someone's property that's mostly vacant throughout the year because they're not using it as a short-term rental through the summertime or at time, you're putting a target on it for someone to break in.

So I do not like that idea at all.

You can get the spreadsheet from Jesselin who says all of the addresses and all of the phone numbers.

So you can actually get a phone number from her at any time to call the people or find out if if there is a short-term rental there.

You have the whole list that's sent out every month with the new ones put on there that are active active.

Um, the other thing is the um, I'm gonna go down a little bit.

The landline, um I did call Reliance Connect.

Um, they can offer a um blocked basic line for $30 a month.

However, when the power goes out, it will go out.

The internet goes out, the phone will go out.

And so I don't think it's needed in this time and world, your phone cell phone still works.

If the power goes out, your cell phone works with internet goes out.

It just doesn't feel like a needed item for that extra cost.

We struck it, I think, right?

Yes, okay, okay.

I wasn't sure if it was gonna and you can't get a battery for those for your landline.

I know that.

I'm old fashioned battery, yeah.

Okay, so that in particular that that was I'm glad you struck it because I didn't realize it was struck.

Okay, okay.

Go ahead.

Perfect.

Okay, anything else?

That's all.

Okay, thank you, Colleen.

Any other public comment?

Okay, okay, committee members.

I Vanessa wanted me to bring something up for her, and I agree with you.

Oh, oh, go ahead.

Okay.

Did she tell you what she wanted?

Okay, go ahead.

That's how I know.

I don't have mental telepathy.

Um, so on the on the maximum occupancy, maybe Dave, I only she might have mentioned it to you, you were shaking your head.

But if if at this time we don't have the distancing that we lower the maximum people, because it was a suggested to to increase it here, but without distancing, she thought it would be better to lower it and keep it that way.

So the the rationale on that, and this is something that uh I think we'll end up getting discussed uh maybe even legally.

Um, it went from it it didn't change the amount of people very much.

It just instead of excluding people under the age of 12.

So we actually kind of made it more restrictive.

So this one here basically says if you have five plus rooms, you can have 16 people total, not 16 people and kids under 12.

So that's where because we struck out in the subcommittee, we struck out the excluding children part.

That's why we added a couple extra in there was to accommodate kind of that balance of now it just it's clear um who's there.

Um doesn't matter what age they are.

So that that was the that was the rationale of why we changed that is because we we uh made it include uh children under the age of 12 as well.

Right.

And I I think that because she was on that on your committee, I think she was just saying that there's not gonna be distancing, maybe lower the amount of people, maximum people in the home.

That was just her thinking.

Can I pipe in here?

Yes, Amy.

Uh I am in agreement with Natalie and Vanessa.

Um, from our experience, um for a five-bedroom house, if you think about it, kind of the rule of thumb is two people per bedroom, and then in a common space, two more people.

So what I this is what we do, and it works with how Airbnb and the platforms do it.

They do not count children under the age of two, because there's usually a crib, a pack and play, and they're not taking up um you know, a space necessarily on in the home, and they don't cause outside havoc.

So I think what's appropriate is to not count children under the age of two, count everyone else, and only limit two additional people over the amount of two times the amount of bedrooms you have.

So for instance, if you have a four-bedroom home that sleeps eight, and then you have two more in a common area, and so that would mean your your four-bedroom home sleeps 10.

And that's how we control problems with neighbors, is we don't allow like in a five-bedroom home.

We will only allow 12 people over the age of two in that five-bedroom home, because that's where I'm in agreement with Vanessa and Natalie on this.

That's where you get your neighborhood problems because maybe you have three adults in the home, and you have let's say there's a three-bedroom home, and you have three adults, and you are allowed seven children.

That's that's it's it's a lot harder to um supervise seven kids.

So the I just think 16 max for I think it should be you know, six bedroom home, you can have 14.

Seven bedroom home, you can have 16.

But I think I think it's too much for a five-bedroom home.

And that's just that's not personal opinion.

That's just what we have seen in uh squelching problems with a larger group in a larger home.

I uh I like what you said, Amy.

I'm of the opinion I I don't think that adding two extra per, we just bump up number by two people, and really how we did have it, and I know yours excluding two-year-olds would do this very similar thing, but I just like Dave said, I do feel like we did make it pretty restrictive and covered all of our bases.

So I'm of the opinion I really like how it's written.

Um, we don't have a hundred kids and you know eight adults, but I I like five plus houses, five plus rooms.

The max we can do is 16 humans.

Okay, but that means in a tight neighborhood where you have side by side, back to back, you can have 16 people in the yard in a five-bedroom home, and that's that's quite a bit, but it is I mean, I it is, but just like with if there's becomes an issue, then we already have the checks and bounces in place to take care of it, you know, they can make a phone call.

I don't I don't think the number I think people if there's four people in the house and there's room to have 17, four people can be just as noisy as though there's 20.

And so I think it's more of like a regulation issue.

I'm I'm okay with the 16 humans, but I see what you're saying.

And and I don't know what Vanessa didn't say whether you know to count children under two or not anything.

I don't think no, she had a problem with you know that 16 is the max for everybody, you know, humans.

I think she just was thinking of the spacing and to lower it a little bit, maybe to 14, something like that.

That's just yeah.

Okay, uh my biggest problem with it is it um, let's see, Airbnb will not uh they do not count children under two.

So I guess that's you're it's you're not gonna have an accurate account, I guess is what I'm saying, because your Airbnb and VRBO is not going to count that child under two.

Well, we are they count well, okay.

Do do we know how many uh uh and it could happen, so we need to consider it, but do we have many short-term rental properties that are over five bedroom?

I'd have to go re-look at everything.

I don't have an answer for that right now.

I don't think we have many.

Do you know?

Okay, yeah, I don't have that.

So we're we're really talking about something that doesn't exist in Mesquite right now, anyway.

Not very many.

If how many are yours?

Sherry, yeah, there's three, that's five plus five puts.

That's what I was thinking.

Well, if you think it's doable, I'm fine.

I'm just I'm concerned we're not going to get accurate accounts because they don't count those underage two people.

So and I I love everything that you're saying, Amy.

I totally agree with it.

I just feel like things you've already put in place as far as you know, if there's an issue, they can just call and then we could turn them down because the noise, whether they have like I said, with four people, they can cause a huge fit like a party.

I don't really have the numbers.

I'm okay with the 16 humans.

Okay.

If I may, if I remember correctly, another reason you guys decided to up it was because you were taking out the overnight part and limiting it to all guests at any time.

Right.

That's right.

Yeah.

And that's a big point.

Yeah, it's yeah, that's very true.

An awful lot of the complaints uh that I caught up wind of in it at least had to do with uh, you know, four people, four adults showing up with 12 kids and you know, a baseball team or whatever, and that was just too it was overwhelming to them.

And I got that.

So I I really like the fact that we're saying a number of people, period, and and there's no age ages whatsoever.

I think that really makes good sense and solves a lot of those issues.

I think so.

Okay.

And so when we look at that, I want to she moved it.

No, yeah, but I can't.

So I think you know, it says you took out the overnight, but I could we yeah, they took that.

Yeah, I know, but could it be total of guests at all times, or is there a better word for that?

That's what they're saying.

No, that's what they're saying, but it would you was it we're gonna read it that way?

Oh, doesn't it say you scroll down just a smidge?

I can try.

Oh, sorry, the other way.

Oh, it does say overnight.

Yeah, it does.

Yeah, we need to well, they they're taking that out, but that's what I say.

So you take that out just say total number total of guests, but it does up in the top maximum occupancy limit overnight occupancy of the vacation home rental.

So there we didn't strike that word out overnight.

Yeah, and then I think that they know, like even if you you know, you haven't guests over, you have you have your 16 people in the house, but you if you can't invite anybody else over now because the 16 is for outside too and up to all times.

And part of part of the discussions I've had with a few people are the the baseball teams that you know, one family rents the home and then they invite the whole baseball team over for a barbecue and a pool party, and again, that's fun, it's good, they're not really breaking any laws.

Um, but that kind of brings in a parking issue and all of that.

So that's that was kind of the premise behind our thoughts on that the wording is just at all times or something like that's in there.

I don't know, you know, say limited occupancy of vacation home rental to a maximum of 16 based on the chart below.

So that should be including yeah, including guests or something.

Could we could we add what Natalie's the suggesting and say at all times because that might be interpreted as just stand the night?

I added language to say uh to a maximum of 16 persons, comma, including guests, comma based on the chart below.

Would that be sufficient for you guys?

I like that.

Yep.

Okay.

Time for motion.

Uh one other thing before we're nope, hang on.

What's that?

Uh we highlighted this trailers may not be parked on the street to discuss with the committee, um, because we're having problems with them parking on the curb and it's causing ADA issues.

So one of the things we talked about maybe doing was just disallowing that altogether.

I I thought that's what we wrote here.

Is it was there was there it was it was highlighted as a discussion point.

Ah I didn't realize that to bring it up.

There's there's more things on here that I wanted to discuss too.

So I'd appreciate not no motion before we go through the whole thing.

Okay.

Uh can you can you tell us what the issues was about trailers?

Yeah, I just had a different idea for trailers.

I didn't think about the curb and that being an ADA issue.

Uh but they can do that with a car as well.

I guess what my idea, and I I don't know if I wrote this down on my uh ideas to you, Dave, but um, if we you know, if somebody has a 40 foot trailer and they have a truck and that trailer, I just feel like if that fits within the property and they're not on the sidewalk, they we could like if we say limit four per four um four cars for a a four-bedroom home and it has I just feel like we're tying owners' hands if we don't allow those UTV trailers because they have really nowhere to put them.

So I guess what I was thinking of is if the if the truck and the trailer can be within that owner's property uh measurements and they're not on the curb, could we allow that and just say, okay, and that's what we have told we had a 40-foot trailer and a pickup, and I physically went out and measured it, and I said if it fits within these with within your property scope and doesn't go into the neighbors even their even their not even their driveway, but even their property line, then we allowed it because it wasn't interfering.

So I just think if we say trailers not to be parked on streets, we're we're cutting out quite a few visitors.

So you're talking about you're saying the the person's property out front, because that the streets either they belong to the HOA or to the city right.

So what I'm saying is their property.

Let's say uh, you know, citizens are allowed to park for 24 hours on the street.

Um, I just don't understand why a truck and a trailer couldn't be parked in front as long as it's not outside of that property uh owner's boundaries, and as long as they're not on the sidewalk.

So if you're drawing a diagram, you know, and somebody calls and say, Hey, we have a 40 foot trailer, can we park?

You know, I'm gonna go down there and I'm gonna measure and make sure it doesn't go over into the next properties uh property line.

Well, the the property lines in before the sidewalk, you don't own the sidewalk or the streets, so that's that's not what I'm that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the width.

I'm sorry, I should have said width.

So if a if let's say in Cambria, if if the HOA and the city allows someone to park in front of the house, obviously not on the sidewalk, because that is an ADA issue.

Um, can we not allow the parking to be within the property lines, obviously not on the sidewalk, but within the distance width of that property because we're cutting out a lot of a lot of spring and fall travelers if they don't have a place to put their trailers?

So if you'd like, oh Simon's here, perfect.

Simon, if you are talking about IVs and Simon Kim, development services no, I'm not talking about trailers, I'm talking about uh utility.

I should have uh specified that.

I'm talking about utility trailers where people take their utility toys out and they go play during the day.

I'm not talking about like uh TVs and stuff like that.

Yeah, I'm not talking about RVs, that those don't need to be there.

Buses, RVs, I I understand that.

I'm talking about those utility trailers that people bring.

One thing you need to understand is any kind of vehicle cannot be parked uh in the yard or outside that is not paved, so it may be parked on the side uh on the uh street, but uh it cannot be parked, uh like uh landscape the yard or gray with the areas, uh nothing, and also that trailers need to be move um the daily basis.

If it is more than 24 hours, it'll be told.

Right.

So if we told our guests your UTV ear, whatever you park on the pavement off the sidewalk in front of your house has to stay within the obvious boundaries and you have to move it every 24 hours.

Could we still permit the utility trailers, not the RVs, not the buses, but the utility trailers?

Okay, I like I like the way they have you want to have it more stringent than other uh the uh police ordinances or the development ordinances, that is okay.

But uh if you want to just comply with uh a city code right now, uh we have a code available for the trailers and RVs and all other stuff.

So um do they allow it, Simon?

Do they does the city allow a utility trailer to park inside in front of their house on the payment within their own property lines for 24 hours?

Less than 24 hours, and as long as they're not blocking the driveway, right?

Yeah, you you it should you shouldn't be dry, uh blocked the driveway too.

Oh, they can't block their own driveway, yeah.

So if you are creating more stringent regulation here, then that's fine.

But the if you're duplicating it, then we're just wasting our time here is after five, yeah.

What he said it's after five.

We're wasting our time here, it's after five.

Yeah, we can we can make the laws.

We we can make the laws stronger, but we can't lessen them when what you're looking at is lessening them.

Yeah, no, I don't think we are.

Are we saying that trailers can't be parked trailers cannot be parked on the street?

Well, they can they can't be parked in like if you're a 40-foot trailer or something like that, and then a truck that's what I don't know how longer trucks, five feet, I don't know.

Then you're gonna be covering the the driveway and everything else.

If you put it on the property, then once again it has to be paved or something.

You can't put it on, you know, just gravel or along the dirt side, you have to have porous stuff.

There's all sorts of laws for parking utilities and trailers and everything else in your yard too.

And what I'm hearing is sounds like you guys are fine to just take this out and go by what's currently on the books for trailers on the street.

Yes, accurate.

Okay, okay.

Did we agree?

I think Amy said yes.

What do you think?

Did you guys?

I'm good.

If if there's already city code that covers it, it why why do we add to it exactly?

Perfect.

Okay, other other comments on this section?

We're on section 12.

Yeah.

It's a big one.

Everybody's good.

Well, we'll get to that.

Section 12.

Okay.

This one?

Section 12.

Okay.

Section 12.

I'm a little concerned about the trash pickup or put out that it can't be before six.

Is that the same as residents?

Are our city residents not able to put their garbage out before 6 p.m.

before the day of pickup?

No, if they're not in an hour.

I don't know that answer.

Um is there a possibility we could I don't want to rush through this.

We work so hard.

And like for the Springs condo, they pick up the garbage at five o'clock in the morning.

And our our employees are done by five.

So if we you know are we gonna make our employees get up before five o'clock in the morning and take the garbage out?

There's just don't the tenants do that?

The people rent out.

Oh no, if you rely on the tenants, you're gonna have garbage all over the place.

You have to and they would check out at like three or four in the afternoon or something like that.

I'm okay if if if it is copying whatever every other citizen has to do, I would like us to the Airbnbs to be able to copy whatever the rest of the citizens are doing.

Well, this what this says is you can put it out at six the night before.

And it needs to be right six the next day.

I feel like that's pretty steady.

But but the tenant, if you're if you're relying on the tenant to do it, they check out around three.

If you're dependent on the cleaners to do it, they're done work by five.

So now they have to go back to all those properties and and put the the garbage can out.

It sounds like a great job for a qualified local operator.

I I think it's putting undue, you know.

People that are we're doing our best we can with garbage.

We're not gonna be able to meet that without extensive expenses.

I'm okay with taking it out.

What I was just stating that I'm okay with taking it out and making it taking that e out unless it's required by the city.

Citizens is that language just from the old code?

We that's the that's the old code.

We didn't tweak anything there, did we?

Yeah.

No, it was the old code.

Okay.

We're almost done.

I don't think we're gonna get through this agenda.

Oh come on, you can do it.

I just don't want to rush through things.

Well, I I know, but you also want to make sure.

Well, the rest of the comments are pretty easy.

I mean, we don't have that many left.

Well, 14.

And there's not a neighborhood information notice.

I don't think there's a lot of changes though.

Do you want to try to blow through this?

I would love to.

Oh, I would too.

Namely would like to?

Can I get a three?

Fine.

Let's go.

I'm here so I'm here for the log hall.

Okay, at this point, then we've got the trailer issue dealt with, right?

Correct.

Okay, is there anything else on 12?

I need clarification on what you want for the trash language.

Yeah.

I think it should just be consistent.

Well, okay, this is just my opinion because I'm not having to do it, but I think it ought to just simply be consistent with what the city's rules are on that, or the trash pickup company's rules.

They say you have to have have it out the night before or right?

Or but the but uh have a tenant put it out or a cleaning person put it out and it's three days before trash pickup.

Oh, see now that I don't okay.

So that's what I'm saying.

Like if you there's nothing there, they're gonna slide the garbage out on the street.

My question directly to you, Jesselin, is what is the laws compared for like a normal citizen?

Is there a restriction for normal citizens?

And everybody's gone.

And I guess I'm a normal citizen.

Yeah, you're normal citizen.

So I didn't have much choice when I rebuild our house.

Um, there is no code, but I think it's being in neighbors and knowing each other.

We either hauled or the person's in if they're not here or something, but or they ask somebody, can you put it out tonight?

Because with the garbage lately, sometimes they come at five in the morning, sometimes they come at seven, sometimes or at noon.

We don't know anymore.

I don't know why, but we don't leave it out there all week or anything.

Can we just can we just revise it to say that it is put out no you know, no later or no earlier than let's say noon the day before, and it that it is put away, uh the day of pickup?

Instead of having time limits on it, just refer to the the day before and the day after that it's put out and picked up sure.

I'm fine with that.

Yep.

Thanks, guys.

That's just that's a hard one for us when you would have to take up.

Yeah, we will double check with uh uh public works, and then uh if it uh we will make it consistent or just remove it if there is a regulation to it.

Otherwise, um you mentioned the noon.

Um let's go with that as a baseline, but uh um if probably also has a difficult regulation, so we're gonna just follow it.

Um otherwise we are making it difficult from regular uh trash pickup hours, so yeah.

We we did have a complaint from uh for one of our tenants years ago that the people were didn't want the renters in there and they were complaining that the diapers were stinking for a day or half a day that was out there.

So do we need to make a motion for that?

Yep, yeah, uh just is yep, there's still there's still the rest of this site whole section, right?

Yeah, we're we're talking about sec yes, section we don't we don't need to make a motion just for letter E.

We want to we want to as amended, let's just let's just approve 12 as amended.

Fair enough, but is there anything else the rest of 12?

12 is a big section, so I personally don't have anything less than 12.

So we we did take the landline out for sure, yes, correct.

Okay, the other the other thing I have uh a question about is cleaned weekly.

I'm not number one, I don't know how you would ever enforce that.

Um and number two, um so if we have someone, Amy.

Number I'm sorry, number 11.

It's uh 11 was taken out, and so a 12 now became 11.

Right, okay.

Cleaning service, each property shall be cleaned at least weekly while occupied.

We could maybe just say just take out the while occupied and just say in between tenant occupancies.

I think that works really good.

Cleaned in between guest occupancy and it yeah, guess right now.

It says tenant occupancies or yes, I don't care.

Because they're actually a tenant because they've signed a contract, but yeah, that's fine.

So you just want to strike.

Are you doing that?

Justly I did.

I struck out at least weekly while occupied, and so it just reads each property shall be cleaned in between guests or tenant occupancies.

Okay, good.

Did you put guess or because they are tenants?

Yeah, I said that's not tenants.

Sorry, I misspoke.

Yeah, okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Anything anything else, Amy?

That is it for me.

Okay.

Uh Natalie.

Okay, we got thumbs up here.

Let's have a motion for section 12 as amended here.

I'm motion we accept section 12 as amended.

Second.

Okay, moved and seconded to uh recommend that language in section 12 as amended to the city council.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, there are any opposed.

Okay, thank you very much.

Here we go.

This okay, discussion possible action on title two, chapter 13, section 13, qualified local operator.

Okay, public comment.

I just was having a question on um a where it has have um complaints resolved within 60 minutes.

It's a very vague statement saying complaints.

So is it uh a noise complaint?

Is it a light on?

Is it parking?

Is it um something that the police should be called on?

Um it just seemed kind of vague.

Yeah, that we had to resolve it um in that 60 seconds.

So it may be hey, the guys are on an ATV ride, but their vehicles parked in the wrong spot, but we were gonna resolve it as soon as they get back and they'll move it, or if it's not moved within 60 minutes, are we gonna get a fine?

Okay.

Um and then um that's all I have on that section.

I'll go to the next section.

That's it.

Thank you, Colleen.

Other public comment.

Jackie, your name is Jackie, Jackie Florence.

Um, on the same thing, um, this is gonna be like uh uh substantiated complaints or just any complaint because um, you know, it could be somebody just raising an issue that is not really an issue, and but then the property owner now is required to go to the property, otherwise they're gonna get cited.

So the only observation we made was that it should be substantiated complaints.

Well, I think oh we can't as comments.

Uh yeah, hang on, hang on.

Yeah, so okay.

Yeah, but right now it's written, you know, they have to uh address any complaints and and then not only address them, but they have to go there in person to address those complaints, and it just could be something that they could resolve by phone, um, even faster than having to go there in person.

Thank you.

Other public comment, okay, committee members.

Could we change that to something like verified code?

And I can't find the word violation, code violation verified code violation complaints.

That's a mouthful.

But who's gonna verify?

But that's just it.

I'm gonna say who who knows until that person goes a qualified person, they don't know what the person's talking about.

You're gonna have to go check on it.

So the yeah, it's a chicken egg thing here.

I think I don't know how to how you gonna know if it's qualified.

What I'm trying to say is, you know, if someone calls me and says, Hey, there's kids out in the pool, it's four in the afternoon, they're splashing, and they're they're screaming and you know, giggling.

That is not a verified complaint because it doesn't break any codes.

So I guess that's on the discretion of the operator.

Like, is this break is the complaint breaking one of our city codes?

If it is, I need to go check it out.

Maybe maybe they're totally within their right, and the complainer was you know, just complaining to complain, but I still need to respond and make sure.

I think that you should because sometimes maybe they are overly loud or obnoxious, or you don't I don't I just don't until you get there, you really don't know what the person's talking about because the people calling in don't know what they're talking about.

So most of the time I would I'm thinking most of the time they will be frivolous like that, but I think somebody's gotta determine it.

Let's say you added language to say something about review and attempt to resolve complaints within 60 minutes or a timely manner or whatever.

Yeah, I like that.

I like review, and what else did you say?

Um came up again here.

Um I thought you are actually uh working on the public health safety and welfare here.

And the 60 minutes is not a short time during the night time.

So when they have uh some complaint to make, it means that in in the four four o'clock in the morning, they cannot sleep.

So they called someone, and if it takes more than 60 minutes, I think that's the problem.

Somebody needs to address that 60 minutes is one hour.

I mean, this is a small town.

If manager is with uh wherever within the city, they should be able to come there within 15 minutes.

I mean, unless otherwise they they need to do the makeup and change the clothes and all those stuff.

But uh I I don't think that that is right.

I think 16 minutes is generous.

I think we should keep it kept the six sixty minutes.

Thank you.

And and I agree with you on 60 minutes.

I the only thing that I think Amy was pointing out was to make an extreme example is somebody could complain that they don't like the color of your house.

Well, do you have to go respond with that within 60 minutes?

Versus if there was just some sort of little tiny word in there that just said some sort of valid, well, what's the definition valid?

I don't know, but um if you could just say the one word, I think that would solve Amy's concern.

I have I actually have no problem even shortening that amount of time.

I think 30 personally, I think 30 minutes is plenty.

But what I'm saying is I just want the uh term complaints to be defined.

Well, I'm thinking too, like you thought that it was, you know, okay, maybe they're saying yeah, the kids are loud noisy, they're they're having fun today, but maybe there is a day sleeper next door that you can make.

No, and I could I would go and say, hey, you guys, there's a day sleeper.

Can you please hold you know hold it down?

So I think that some I it's hard, but I think it's not like you have to go clear across, well, you do have to go clear across town here, but it's not far.

Yeah, I I think uh it doesn't matter if it is ballied complaint or not, whatever it is you you need to address.

And uh resolved the means if if it admissed the uh code and it is not a violation, it is a reserved, but uh at least somebody need to check it within 60 minutes.

Yeah, yeah.

And that is what I'm saying.

I think Jessel had the answer.

What was that wording you said?

Valid.

Said uh review and attempt to resolve.

I like do you guys like that?

I do.

But what I also but if what if you attempt to resolve and it's not resolved?

I mean, how do you mean by that?

I think then it would go to PD.

Then you would follow the complaint process, it would go to PD, and then PD would handle it from there.

That's my understanding of what we have written down.

But see, then I'm thinking like somebody's gonna call and say these kids are loud, and of course they're you know, it's it's it even like her example before in the afternoon, and then what's gonna happen is if the if somebody doesn't go over there and check, then the person's gonna be watching and watch if somebody check and they don't in 60 minutes are gonna call the cops.

I I think we are thinking too much.

I I think original language is correct because uh if there was no violation, there's a no violation to solve, so it doesn't matter.

Um it's gotta be resolved within 60 minutes.

That there was no violation, nothing to resort, it missed the code, so the manager uh addressed the issues.

Whether they went over there or not, it needs to be addressed.

Yeah, right.

Thank you.

And if I can just speak on this real quick, we said the 60 minutes of the subcommittee to give time for the 40 miles, the traffic and things that give them a little bit of time to get there if they are within that 40 miles.

Oh, because it's still at 40.

Yes.

Okay.

And I have no problem going out and you know reviewing, but what I'm saying is is if I get to a home and I am gonna respond if the kids are being loud or whatever, but if I can see that it's not anything that's really violating and it's not appropriate to ask the guests to calm down, that's that's what I'm talking about.

Is we I wouldn't be able to fix a problem that's not a problem.

Oh no, you made it sound like if you if on the phone you decided yourself that it wasn't valid.

That's what it kind of sounded like.

Okay, I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.

We always reach out to our guests.

Oh, yeah, because I'd imagine half of them aren't valid.

Yes, but what I guess what I was saying is I don't want to be um held to resolving something that didn't I there was nothing I could do because it wasn't breaking the code.

That's what I was trying to we do have provisions under section C for false complaints that if they're not substantiated or not relevant to compliance with this code, uh they're not subject to penalties.

And and even and even item B says complaints must be substantiated before penalties will be invoked.

So um it was taken care of, yeah.

I think our line, I think it's all right there.

I do struggle with the word resolved because it it could be a struggle to resolve something in 60 minutes.

Um, but I definitely think it needs to be addressed within 60 minutes.

I thought we changed the wording to address instead of resolved during our subcommittee.

Maybe yeah, I think I remember that too that's pretty good.

Have complaints addressed.

That's the requirement within 60 minutes.

Is that good?

I like that Simon.

Simon, he's tired.

You could put addressed and or resolved.

Because if they can resolve and they need to resolve them, not just say, Well, we addressed it, we'll take care of it tomorrow.

But if it needs to be if it needs to be resolved right then, it needs to be resolved.

So I say addressed or resolved if possible.

Okay.

Okay, that it, Amy.

Yeah.

Anybody?

Dave?

Good.

Yeah.

Okay, let's have a motion to approve this then as amended.

I'll move to uh I'll make a motion to uh recommend to city 213 13 as revised.

I second that.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to do that.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

I there any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, we're on 13 Title 2, Chapter 13, Section 13, qualified local operator.

So this has been.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh or section 14.

I am sorry.

I'm one behind here.

Sorry, section 14.

Discussion possible action, title two, chapter 13, section 14, neighbor information notice.

Okay.

So this is an entirely new section, correct?

All right.

Uh the only thing I'd like to.

Oh, go ahead.

Oh, not public comment.

Rick, public comment.

Sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm reading.

Uh public comment.

Go.

Hi, Colleen Gleaton.

Um we do agree with giving out a 24-hour number.

We we do think that will help with the residents around the short-term rentals.

Um, however, the 300 feet is streets and streets away.

There, I've done a few different diagrams, and it's like 40 to 50 homes.

And depending on how tightly they're packed in.

And I just don't think that if there was an issue that the person three streets over is gonna worry about the parking in front of two streets over, you know.

So the I I think that should come down to the uh proximity around the short-term rental.

Um, if it's even just 75 feet or something, just so it's in the people that it's really going to affect and need the number.

These other people, if there's something going on, there's always the city they can call and she can give them the phone number.

There's a whole list of public uh information there.

So that's the only thing I see on this one that um is kind of an issue for me for the distancing.

Was that pretty clear to the subcommittee?

I mean, was that something?

Well, so uh one thing I would like we did we didn't have a chance to talk about, we brought that up and then because of time it would we were gonna talk about it here.

And um one thing I would just to cut to the chase is I would like that 300 because the 300, whenever Dave did the map on the radius, it's like 45, 50, 60 homes.

And he gave examples to where I mean it could a house over here, several streets over.

You have to know that the post office.

I mean, I think if we were to just to start something is if we were to do like 75 feet radius, that would cover a couple houses in front, beside, behind, and that would cover everybody because that's gonna cover the people that have issues with the traffic and the noise.

Houses further down than that or streets over aren't gonna if the noise is that loud where the police are coming, you know.

Let's see.

What would if we're talking about on the same street, what would 100 feet be?

That would be only like two houses down, right?

Two left and right and behind and in front, roughly.

Yeah, could we just could we just change the language instead of it being within 300 feet to be like within five homes, five homes to either side back and front?

I think you need to keep it.

You have to keep it in feet.

You have to keep a distance able to see because some houses are different if they're town homes, condos, single families are different.

Yeah.

Yeah, I agree.

I think feet is the right way.

Um whether it be I'm okay with 75 to 100 feet.

I'm fine with that.

Yeah, same.

I I do agree.

I want all the neighbors that are going to be personally affected.

Um but like if there's a house on Bern Street that has a short-term rental and they're backed up to enchantment and we say 300 feet, everybody in enchantment gets a or not enchantment in uh what's the one right behind uh I know which one I mean sits back behind me.

Sandstone.

Yeah, um, you know, we have to they you have to mail a thing to every single person in sandstone.

Like that that seems like a little excessive.

So um, you know, I I think 75 feet might not quite be enough because that's only one home in some bigger neighborhoods.

So if it if it's at 100, that would guarantee two homes, maybe three are getting it.

I'm good with a hundred.

Yeah, me too.

Okay.

Sounds like we got 100 feet there, so as amended.

Okay, anything else about this item.

Did we do uh public comment on this?

We did, yeah, we did.

Yeah, okay.

Um do you guys want me to change the language under section three um A2 to say if not addressed or resolved within and or resolved within 60 minutes too much?

I do just be consistent.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

Okay, good.

Are we there?

I'll make a motion that we recommend to city council 213 14 as revised.

Second that okay, moved and seconded to amend uh or to recommend as amended a section.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any thank you?

Okay, item 15.

Okay.

So discussion and possible action on title two, chapter 13, section 15, violations and penalties.

Uh public comment.

Okay, seeing none, uh committee members.

Hearing none, entertain a motion to approve uh I'm sorry, can I interject real quick?

Yes.

I'm so sorry.

Um, one thing that we changed on this that we were gonna bring back to discuss is you guys discussed wanting stricter penalties.

And so as part of this, what we did was we did we crossed out not to exceed $500 and we made them fines of this much, fines of that much instead of not to exceed.

I just want to make sure you're all on the same page with that before I unhighlight it.

Okay.

I am can you scroll down to where that is?

Oh, I see it here.

Okay, for violation.

I'm fine with that.

I am too.

Yeah, we we've rather than leaving discretion in there, we're fixing what it's gonna cost you if you do this.

So yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, good with that.

Yep.

Anything else?

Okay, we'll entertain a motion for item number 15 or something.

I make a motion that we accept uh and recommend 2315.

Second that.

Okay, so moved and seconded to uh to do that.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, are there your opposed?

Any opposed, thank you.

Excellent.

Okay, item uh uh title two, chapter 13, section 16.

Um this has to procedure for imposing penalties, suspension or revocation.

And the only changes we see is you only change the you know the name again from the local contact to the qualified local operator, and then the chapter's numbers changed.

Yeah, but I didn't see anything that I felt needed changed.

So, okay, public comment here, yeah.

Colleen.

Um, we were just going over some of these things that um it's the city council that's gonna render a decision, yeah, instead of maybe a third person like mediator to if there's something going on, because they're kind of having a bias.

The city council does compared to an outside mediator.

That that's on section B, and I just thought maybe that should be added in there somewhere that um it should it's the it's all reviewed against with the city council, and it should be a mediator.

Oh okay, I understand.

Yeah, this this is kind of a due process thing that's a fair due process thing you're talking about, yeah.

Okay, any other public comment?

Okay, committee members.

Do we have any other maybe Simon anybody could do we have any other processes that use a an uninvolved body to rule on appeals?

No.

So the city manager is is or is it a city manager or their designee, or what is it?

Let's see.

Um city manager or some other STEM members uh direct of development services, yeah, usually in this case, right?

Yeah, this section does allow them to um it says they may designate a hearing officer to take um evidence, or they can preside over it themselves.

So there's options there.

Yeah, and with the mediator too, you're gonna have to people are gonna have to pay for that mediator and decide where to get them from and so forth.

It gets a little bit more into a mediator than the but if I was going to come with somebody would come with somebody with me to the city to help represent me.

Yeah, yeah.

Outside of this process, if um the person have uh um kind of felt to unfairly help handle the everything, then they can always appeal to the city council.

So that there are processes, it's not just applicable to this, it's for every process, and then if it doesn't have sold at the city council level, then the this district court uh would be the next level.

Well, that's a standard yeah, built-in thing within the city.

If you don't like what city manager does, you can bring it to the council.

You don't like the council does, you go to court.

Well, okay, did oh, it is yeah, is it we do public comment?

We did public comment.

Oh, I thought it was a part of the city, he's a well, but it's public comments.

We he gives us directions.

Um go ahead, just go ahead.

I just wanted to clarify um the issues.

Um, for example, we're request, you know, we're suggesting that you amend the section um to have the revocation decisions be made by an independent new neutral hearing officer, not the city council.

The way it's written, it still gives the power to city council to do it, and it should not.

Most regulations in even in the city of Las Vegas, Henderson, even Clark County, they have an independent uh person that decides these issues, not it's not the county, is not the city council is always an independent person.

The other issue is um that uh you should extend uh the pre-hearing orders to 30 days minimum for suspensions and uh and 45 days for revocation because the time that you gave right now it's very very short.

So if people have to get an attorney, investigate, get facts, get proof.

The 15 days is not long enough for that.

I'm sure your attorney would ask for an extension.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um what about that?

Anyone?

I would be ready to make a motion.

Yeah, give me just a second.

I just want to read this and see this.

Yeah, me too.

Okay, could we give them a little bit more time than I'd be game to change it from 15 days to 30 days or yeah?

Does anybody I mean from the staff perspective here?

Do you do Simon?

What is the standard uh for the regular code enforcement code?

Oh well, that's good point.

This 15 days uh standard uh the number, and uh I'm not sure why uh we are trying to make it lesser regulative.

I thought we are actually going for more.

Um but it's a your choice.

Um I think we're just trying to go for fair.

You you guys talked about wanting to crack down on bad actors, so this tells them you have 15 days to fix this issue.

This is a violation you have 15 days to fix it, and now you're saying, well, you can have 30.

So you guys, that's just kind of what I'm hearing from you guys.

So we are talking about uh fair news 15 days affair.

Um if I can just ask Colleen and Christina, um have you ever had a situation where somebody had a violation and this had to be implemented and they was unable to fairly resolve it in less than 15 days?

It's probably never happened, yeah.

So I'm I'm I'm okay with I'm okay with the 15 days.

Okay.

So and I'm probably just a dummy on this just to keep this really short, but um, this isn't talking about resolving the issue, it's talking about the only about a hearing.

If it's not if they get if they get revoked or something like that, and they have to come before the city and kind of do a little hearing that gives them um 15 days to kind of put their stuff together and and not resolve any issues, but it it gives them that 15 days to get in front of city um or the city manager.

Well, that it says not less than 15 days, not more than 45 days, so it can be anywhere between 15 and 45.

What you guys are reading are things that we have to follow when we're issuing a citation.

We have to say on that notice, you have to resolve it within 15 days.

If we don't have that language, then they're not held accountable for it.

I apologize B, not A.

So I I agree with the same thing for B.

It's if you're requesting a hearing, we have to schedule it within so many days.

I'm ready to make a motion.

I okay.

One just one last comment.

Set C, of course, gives a wide range of due process because it's a misdemeanor citation, but uh just FYI.

Okay, okay.

Go ahead, Natalie.

Oh, any other comment?

Good.

Okay.

Just if 15 days keeps it consistent with what the city already has, it's probably yeah a good idea to keep it.

Okay, that's I think that's where we're at.

So Natalie, do you want to make a motion on this one?

So we're on the section.

I might make sure on the 14 of 16.

So I um make a motion that we accept the section 16 as uh suggested by the subcommittee.

Okay, is there a second?

I'll second moved and seconded to uh accept title two, chapter 13, section 16 as amended and recommended to city council.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, are there any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, 17.

Okay, 17.

Title 2, Chapter 13, Section 17, permits and fees not exclusive.

Okay, we are not changing anything here.

This is a stand.

This is the same old thing, right?

Is there anything in okay?

Public comment, sorry.

Public comment.

Okay.

Uh committee members.

Anything?

I'll entertain a motion to approve 17.

2-13 17.

I second it.

Almost, I'll make the motion.

Go.

You'll make me in a motion first.

Oh, I thought he just thought I'm sorry.

So they they've moved it, they've moved and you seconded it.

So uh all is in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are they imposed?

Thank you.

Okay, penalty two-13-18.

Uh penalties.

Public comment.

We're almost there.

We are almost there.

Any any public comment at all?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh committee.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve the language in 2-13-18.

A second.

I'll make the motion.

I I used I'm saying I'll entertain.

I just I should just make a motion.

Go ahead.

I'll make a motion that we go ahead.

Approve it as as revised.

Second.

Okay.

Moved and seconded.

Oh, it's not revised.

It's it's not revised.

Number.

It has a change of number.

Got it.

Moved and seconded to approve 2-13-18 regarding penalties.

Correct.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Opposed.

Thank you.

Enforcement chapter 2-13-19.

Um public comment.

Seeing none.

Good for you.

Uh committee members.

I will entertain a motion to adopt the language in 2-13-19.

You can just say so moved.

Yes, I'm so moved.

I make the motion.

Good.

Go.

I'm second.

I'll second it.

I'm messing this up.

Big deal.

I know we're trying to get out of here.

I know, I know.

Okay.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the language two-13-19 regarding enforcement of the chapter.

Uh, and recommend it to the city council.

All those in favor say aye.

Are there any opposed?

No.

Thank you.

Okay, item two-13-20, violations by occupants of vacation rental uh home rentals.

Okay, public comment on this one.

Go ahead.

Can I can I ask a quick question on this?

Is this just uh the guest um liability for guest conduct?

And does this also include the grandfather clause as well?

Because I only see the first section here.

You have to answer that if you want.

Yeah, go ahead.

The grandfathering clause is only gonna need to be applicable if we implement distancing.

Everything else is gonna need to come into compliance.

The local contact, they're gonna need to get their notarized people.

We'll do that throughout the year, likely as um they renew.

But yes, this is about the guests, and then the grandfathering clause would go with distancing.

Okay, I'll just do the comment and then go ahead.

Uh so uh the Great Order of Las Vegas Association requests the following amendments to section two-13-18, 19 and 20, and request the addition of the grandfather clause, section uh two thirteen, eighteen must be amended to exempt.

Uh I'm sorry, this is not two-um about um guest liability.

Sorry.

Um, so this raises a substance in due process uh concern as liabilities uh imposed without a clear showing of fault.

Um when the guest commits some type of uh violation, then the property owner is being held responsible, and we think that it should be the the guests that should be responsible.

And this is something that we have been pushing, you know, in other cities that as long as you don't hold the guests responsible, they're gonna continue to break the rules.

And for example, if you go uh and stay out of property, if you pay a security deposit of a thousand dollars for as an example, uh we have rules that says it hey, if you break this or if you violate this rules, you won't get your security deposit.

That holds that those guests accountable, and they don't want to break the rules because they don't they don't want to lose that security deposit.

But when you have an ordinance that doesn't hold guests accountable, then they're gonna continue to do whatever they want because they know that they're not gonna be held accountable.

Some of the uh pushback that we heard from cities is that well, these are transient people, they're gonna be here for a weekend and they're gonna be gone.

You know, we can't hold them accountable, but that's not true, because if you have tourists like we do in every city, uh you're not gonna give them a speeding ticket because they're speeding just because they're not, you know, just here for the weekend.

And so I think that it's important, you know, to see if you guys would include a section to hold guests also accountable.

Doesn't that's what that's what section 20 says that it may enforcement actions may be brought against occupants of vacation homes for violations, but this also says that the property owner will also be held accountable as well for the same action as the guest, and that's the issue.

But this also says that the property owner will also be held accountable as well for the same action as the guest, and that's the issue.

So the property owner's being held responsible for the guest action when it should be just the guests, and um, and so it's like double jeopardy in the way.

I just like to point out on that, they both say may they may be the homeowner may be held accountable, so it's not a guarantee.

Okay.

Sorry, I just want to say if I what I meant was it's not a guarantee that just because the guests say it's fine, the homeowner is gonna get uh any violations.

Yeah, I'm being the homeowner, yes.

That's part of your liability.

Yeah.

So is there okay?

Is anybody okay?

Public comment anymore.

Okay, okay, committee members.

Anything on this then, or what are we doing?

Nothing leaving it alone.

Good.

I I have a question, but it's not about this.

When we when we vote on this, then we just okay.

Well, hang on, hang on one second.

Let's deal with this.

Can we deal with this?

And then we're gonna have comment time afterwards.

Is that okay?

Okay, generally, okay.

So I'll make a motion that we um accept the uh 213 uh dash 20.

Is that we're on?

Yep, yes, that's it.

As it as um as the as written as written here in this and I second it.

Okay, moved and seconded to accept the language in uh 2-20 or sorry, two-13-20 for recommendations city council as stated.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, all right.

Okay, all right.

Now who's turning the lights down?

Okay, Amy Mall.

Okay, um, committee comments and reports.

Dave, anything?

Thank you guys for all your work on getting this done.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

And uh Sherry, Sherry, anything?

Same thing, I just want to did though.

Thank you very much to all of us working together.

Yeah, Matt.

Okay, appreciate it.

Listen, uh, we're getting to the end of it.

Amy has a we have a plan for going back to the end of the 240 that are already on getting back in time.

Okay, let's just do things that we've done.

I guess that's that's my question.

That's if we don't, if we don't, we still have a lot of problems with existing properties.

Yeah, Justalin kind of addressed that um right at the end there.

That uh there's uh there it like the distancing stuff like that.

When that comes in, that will the current people will be grandfathered in, but there will be a compliance.

Uh everybody will have to come up to compliance, and though the city will work on that over time.