Good evening, everyone.

And welcome to the Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 regular city council meeting for the City of Musquete.

We're gonna go ahead and start off with an invocation by Pastor Greg Jansen of the River Valley Bible Church.

Okay.

Father in heaven, uh Lord, we do thank you for your grace toward us, uh, your love for us, uh, the fact that you care about the things that uh we care about.

Uh Lord, you tell us in your word that you are the one that appoints governments, you're one you're the one that appoints officials.

And I'm I'm grateful, Lord, for uh a mayor and a council that sees fit to call upon you at the beginning of these meetings and and seek your wisdom.

And uh Father God, I do pray for the city of Musquete and ask you that it would be a place that uh honors you, that the people of this city would be seeking to please you.

And uh Lord, in that I do think of this meeting here tonight, and just asking for your wisdom that the decisions that are made here tonight would indeed do that, that they would be honoring to you.

Uh Lord, we thank you for the opportunity to know you through your son Jesus Christ, and it's in his name I pray.

Amen.

Thank you, Pastor.

Could ask you, please uh rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Under God, individual liberty and justice for all.

Okay, this time we're gonna have a uh proclamation read by Simon Kim for building and safety.

Thank you, Mayor, and City Council.

I got long version, but I have a short one too.

So I'm gonna read the short one.

Um the City of Muskete recognized the biological building safety professionals and modern construction codes in protecting our homes and communities from everyday risk and natural disasters.

In honor of their uh dedication, Mayor Jesse Repo uh proclaims May 2026 as Building Safety Month, uh, encouraging all citizens to participate and raise awareness of building safety.

Thank you.

Thank you, Simon.

And now we're gonna have a presentation by Dominic Alabado.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council.

I got two hats on tonight because I had to uh beg to get the money.

First of all, wow.

I guess I better be real nice.

After hearing how well these kids did by got to clean this up, doing so well against the big schools and all that.

I brought it up at a Coca Pelly ATV meeting.

And unfortunately, we schedule out our donations all year, but we did manage to scrape up $1,800 from them.

This check here means a ton to me.

This comes from the Vietnam Veterans of America chapter here.

This is the first donation we have ever made that hasn't gone to a veterans deal.

And when I mentioned in the meeting how well you guys did, they said if they did that well, we can scrape up another $1,800 for them.

There you go, Wendy.

I wish there was more.

This is come on, some of you good looking people get around it so I don't look so bad.

Pretend you like the color.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Wendy, would you mind give us like a little update of where you guys are at?

I would be happy to um because of this community and the way they've embraced these kids.

Uh, we have reached our goal.

Um, these kids have raised over 45,000 in the last five, six weeks.

Um they have been extremely busy along with the parents have have really helped us out and this community.

There are several members here who have given very generous donations.

And we could not have done it without this community.

So I just want to say thank you to everybody that donated, everybody that came to see the show, everybody that let us set up a booth and sell snow cones and cotton candy and cupcakes.

The police department and the fire department came over and supported our very first fundraiser at ACE with the um the bake sale.

They gave generous donations.

So this community is just I said it before I moved here, or I came here in 01 and I fell in love with the town, and I didn't know why.

I moved here in 2019, and I I won't leave because this community is amazing.

So thank you from me from the bottom of my heart, and thank you from my students.

You made it possible for all 17 students uh to be able to travel this summer to nationals and represent Nevada.

So thank you.

Thank you, Wendy.

Now I have an announcement slash presentation.

We'll we'll call it an announcement.

Um we have the nominations for the Grand Marshal for the Mesquite Days Parade on Saturday, and uh very many worthy candidates, and I got a select one.

And uh Bethany Green is gonna be our grand marshal.

She's being humbled, but Bethany has done.

I don't know how she's in so many places at once.

But amazing things for elementary, middle school, high school, community theater, um, as well as being a foster mom and an adoptive mom.

We're we're we're lucky to have her.

So that being said, come out to the parade on Saturday and wave on Bethany as she leads us down the road.

Um is there any other presentations that I'm missing?

No?

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and go into our opening public comment period.

This is for items that are not on the agenda.

Um, you have three minutes.

Uh address your comments to myself, and please come forward.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and City Council members.

I'm Mary Mathis, president of the Mesquite Fine Arts Center, and I would like to update you on a few things we have going on.

We just closed our annual Grand Bazaar on Saturday, and we're now showing our colors of springtime exhibit, which showcases our talented artists in the community.

We invite you to come in and see the exhibit.

We also have our student showcase exhibit going on in the Mesa Gallery.

I'd like to invite you to attend the reception on Thursday, May 21st from 4 to 6.

This Friday, we'll be holding our final uh first Friday annual art or um art walk before the summer break.

We're looking forward to taking the summer off.

It's been a lot of work.

So it will be Friday, May 1st from 4 to 7.

It'll be located at the Mesquite Fine Arts Center.

Uh come have dinner with us.

We're excited.

We're going to have a food truck this month.

So we don't have to cook.

So that's going to be a new uh food truck that's called Curbside Cravings.

They're just starting up in Mesquite.

So I think this is their first time they're doing it, so come out and support them.

Uh we have the music of the cat mesquite cafe blues band, and it's getting bigger and more popular every year or every month.

Um, it's it's almost like it's become the community gathering place.

So it's fun to see people come and see friends and meet new friends, and we have a lot of like 31 vendors this month.

So gonna be a lot to come and see and buy.

Uh, we will shut down for the summer again, starting up uh we closed um, I think in June, and we'll start up again after the fall.

Um, and then our first Friday, like I said, we're taking a break for the summer, and then we'll start up again in October, and it will be the second Saturdays from now on, so that'll help us.

It'll be during the day.

Hopefully, more families can come, it'll be lighter and better weather, and um we can get food trucks.

So um, oh yeah, let's see.

Um also on Saturday, we held a new event.

It's called the Art and Collectibles Appraisal, and we had uh attendees come and they could bring a piece of art or antiques or other interesting items that they wanted a verbal evaluation on, and our auctioneer was the celebrity Grant.

Zach Keel, I'm not sure how to pronounce his name.

Um, but he's on the the road show show, Antiques Road Show.

Um it was a lot of fun seeing the items that people brought in and hearing the appraisals.

We'll be holding a second one this fall.

Uh they're move, they're currently relocating to Mesquite, so they'll be here and have a center.

Uh we also have announced our Maypal and Porsche.

You can go online and see what the selections are for those.

Those are a lot of fun.

You come and paint with your friends or meet new friends.

I've gone by myself before, um, drink wine or drinks and snacks and paints.

It's one evening.

So uh let's see.

Of course, we still continue to hold a lot of our classes, um, and they're popular.

We we can't keep up with them.

We almost need a new arc now.

We've we've outgrown it.

Um, we have our pottery studio, we have a glass studio, we have the new print shop, so we're building or uh producing bigger prints and our matting and framing shops, so we're staying busy, and then our of course our classroom is always busy.

So uh we have an excellent website at MesquitefineArt Center.com where you can see everything going on.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mary.

Gary El Gordon, Mesquite.

Uh, first I'd just like to say how much I enjoyed driving down Mesquite Boulevard today without having to change lanes.

That was pretty pretty thrilling and and very smooth.

They did a great job smoothing out the little humps.

They ground them all down.

It was very impressive work these guys did.

Um, but I wanted to thank each and every one of you up here on City Council for your complete and clear rejection of the not a truck stop, truck stop.

Um I listened to their presentation, and and and it liked how they tried to convince you that their purpose was to only serve existing traffic within our community, and then I looked down two items lower and I said, Why does a business that only wants to serve existing people who are already off the highway need a 65-foot high sign?

I think they were lying to you, and I think you all saw through that, and thank you very much for rejecting it.

It would have been a nightmare in that traffic circle, would have destroyed it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gary.

And it was a vote that the council uh put out that they would not they would not uh pay 349,000 for a uh termination, false turn from false termination.

Um from the federal court, it went to the state court.

State court, after everything was all said and done, wound up to be 1.425 million dollars, like hitting a lottery.

The statement was well, we didn't do anything, we inherited it.

No, that person did not inherit it, they created it, and the courts will deem that soon.

I'm not here to debate it.

I'm just saying that they were part of it, part of the vote to make it happen.

My question to you, mayor, is this.

Uh money that was had to have been paid to the insurance company for the deductible.

Nobody's ever heard anything about it.

And my other question would be if we can get an answer to that, but I would also like to hear, is there any plan to sue those people that brought this on the city?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Nick.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council staff.

My name is Rich Buller.

I lived at I live at 1648 El Suenal Court.

Tonight I want to well, I don't I'm disappointed the drama department left because they probably could have got a lesson sitting here.

But uh I I take umbrage to the fact that people have attacked realtors on the city council.

We are a viable industry in this community.

There are several of us.

And if you don't read NRS 281A, then don't be filing ethics complaints.

If it doesn't, if if you yourself are not benefiting from it, if a family member within the third degree of consanguinity isn't benefiting from it, if your company you work for isn't benefiting from it, it's not a conflict.

Please read it.

I'm reading all this crap about oh, some councilman has some conflict because she's gonna vote on short-term rentals.

Well, her company doesn't do short-term rentals, she does not do property management.

It's ridiculous.

And I also want to add that as a realtor, one of our codes is the value of property ownership.

And I see all these signs out there, people putting up their signs, all these people running for office, putting their signs on private property.

If you don't have permission to put your sign on private property, you are trespassing.

Ask the owner for their permission or take them down.

You're out of line.

Thank you.

Thanks, Richard.

Okay, seeing no one else come forward, we're gonna go ahead and move on to I thought there was one more person's back there standing.

All right, good evening.

Um, my name is Lindsay Piazza, and I have a personal relationship with a lot of you guys that are sitting up there.

Um, I stand here today, not as a member of the community, but as someone who's chosen this community and has been incredibly fortunate to be embraced by it.

I wasn't born and raised here, but from the moment I have arrived, I made it a priority to build relationships.

As many of you sitting up here, as well as all the men and women behind the badge.

Over time, these relationships have become meaningful, and I've been truly grateful for the trust and support that I've received from this community.

I also have had the opportunity to start a business here from the ground up, and I want to recognize and support that I did receive assistance and help from the city council to make it happen.

This kind of support matters, and that for that I'm incredibly grateful.

Over the years, I've worked closely with our officers and seen firsthand the dedication that brings this community.

I also want to acknowledge something very important.

Over the past few years, a few years, they have ref they have faced challenges that have gone beyond the job, scrutiny, pressure, circumstances, and they have made many in that in that field, they would have stepped back, but they didn't.

They showed up anyways.

They continue to serve and protect this community no matter what.

That kind of resilience deserves more than recognition.

It deserves our support.

Right now, our officers are asking for an increase, not only in excess, but out of fairness and the need to stay competitive.

Across the Las Vegas Valley, all the departments are receiving ranging from three and a half percent up to 14.25 percent.

Lindsay?

Yes.

Um is that on this on the ballot to discuss?

Yeah, this is gonna be discussed later on.

So I just want to say that I'm thankful to be part of the safest city in Nevada, and it's not by accident.

We need to maintain the standard continued and investment to support our officers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lindsay.

Okay, moving on to the consent agenda.

And I want to reacuse myself as my company does to business with the consent agenda.

So, in the unlikely situation that I would have to vote, I won't be able to vote.

So 2.1 consideration of approval of Wednesday, March 25th, 2026.

Oh, and let we would like to excuse uh councilwoman Gallo from being in person.

She is on the phone.

So um consideration approval of the Wednesday, March 25th, 2026, special city council meeting minutes, the Tuesday, April 7th, 2026, technical review meeting minutes, and the April 28th, 2026 regular regular city council meeting agenda.

2.2 consideration of notification of bills paid and purchase orders.

2.3 consideration of approval of resolution number R26-001, adopting supplemental number seven to the interlocal contract 1350 between the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada and Clark County, City of Las Vegas, City of North Las Vegas, City of Henderson, City of Boulder City, and the City of Musquite for traffic signal system.

2.4 consideration approval of resolution number R26-012, adopting interlocal contract number 3266 between the City of Musquite and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada for City of Mesquite Sawtooth Roadway Project.

And 2.5 consideration of designating the gymnastics and miscellaneous equipment that is located at the old high school gym campus as items to be auctioned.

Any questions from council on the consent agenda?

Any public comment on the consent agenda?

Okay, seeing none, I will ask for a motion.

Councilwoman Fielding.

I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Do I have a second?

All second.

Okay, call for the vote.

Parachive.

I don't saw.

Gallow I.

Okay.

Um we are going to do a little rearrangement here.

We're going to move item 6.2.

So, and I hope I can do that, Adam.

Are you there?

Yes, Mayor, you have the authority to arrange that if you'd like.

So you can do that.

Okay.

So we're going to go ahead and do 6.2 right now.

They've come in from Boulder City, I believe.

And so we're going to let them do their presentation and get home.

So consideration of approval of a restaurant with bar liquor license from Vinny's Little Italy.

Italy located at 31 East Mesquite Boulevard.

Simon, is that yours or is that the Yeah, this is mine.

Sorry.

Because you moved it too fast.

I'm trying to catch you up.

Okay.

Um shop will be located just across from the city to the north.

Uh it'll be the first floor.

Uh so city step will be uh really easy to get reach out to there and have lunch.

Um that'll be a good lunch.

Um applicant uh proposed uh the uh that the restaurant there and uh they applied for a restaurant with a bar liquor license.

Uh the space miss the requirements, and both owners have a finding of suitability from the uh mosquite uh police department.

So uh there are some uh conditions that need to be met.

So meals uh need to be the uh priority, so meals need to be served uh before uh serving the ICO uh and then uh you need to uh meet the zoning and land use regulations and again uh alcoholic before we is uh um meal in uh adjunct to the meals offered.

So uh and then they need to meet uh the sitting capacity of more than 50 uh persons at one time, and uh they are meeting it.

Uh another thing is a non-conforming standards that does not applicable.

So step recommends approving the restaurant with the bar lical license.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from council?

Okay, any public comment.

Okay, councilwoman Fielding.

Welcome to Mesquite, first of all.

Um I will make a motion to approve the bar liquor license for Vinny's Little Italy.

Okay, do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, call for the vote.

Parachite, NSI.

Gallow I motion passes.

Item 3.1 discussion and direction regarding short-term rental STR regulations and committee recommendations prior to formal consideration.

Mr.

Kim.

Jessely make a first presentation, and then I'm gonna hop in.

Thank you.

Good evening.

How are you guys today?

Okay.

All right, so I'm presenting the recommendations that are being brought forth by the committee that you guys appointed.

Can everybody hear me okay?

No.

No.

Okay, how about now?

Good.

Okay.

Um, the committee spent a lot of time and put a lot of thought into what they wanted to bring to you guys.

So we're excited to do this.

So go ahead, Frank.

So we're gonna go through this section by section, title two, chapter 13.

Title one, uh, chapter 13.

Sorry, title two, chapter 13, section one is just the title.

There were no changes.

The purpose of the chapter, we did add two letters F and G, as you can see.

F will read the purpose of this chapter is to establish a clear, objective, and enforceable authorization program for short term vacation home rentals or short-term rentals to protect a neighborhood quality of life, support tourism, and economic activity, ensure tax compliance, and provide an efficient administrative process that rewards compliant operators and removes repeat problem operators.

Letter G states it is the intent of the city that the vacation home rentals operate only when properly authorized, responsibly managed, and subject to meaningful enforcement.

The city's enforcement priorities are one threat to life safety, two chronic nuisance activity, and three repeated failure to respond to verified complaints.

Section three was applicability, and there are no changes to that.

Section four is the definitions.

We did add hosting platform, which is defined as 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 room within a residential unit for the purposes of transient and lodging.

That language is directly from AB 363.

We changed local contact, not we, they changed local contact to qualified local operator, and the definition remains the same.

We changed operator to licensed operator, but the definition did not change.

And we did amend the vacation home rental license definition to remove some language that conflicted with other areas of our code.

So now it just reads a license issued by the city that permits the use of a privately owned residential dwelling as a vacation rental unit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

Okay.

Section five, the requirements, there were no changes.

Section six was reserved for distancing.

The committee felt like this was a big um decision to make and decided to leave that to council as you are our wonderful elected officials, and we depend on your uh guidance here.

So that one is up for debate.

Uh section seven is agency.

In the code draft you have, we just renumbered it.

Any mention of the local contact person was changed to read the qualified local operator, but everything else is the same.

Zoning compliance, which is section eight, we just renumbered it to uh meet the changes, and though nothing else was changed in that section.

Uh section nine was the application for the rental license.

Any mention of the local contact was changed to qualified local operator again.

And section B, we added language that requires a notarized affidavit from the qualified local operator, stating that they accept the responsibility of responding to any and all issues as stated in the chapter.

Um section L was amended to require a valid certificate of occupancy from the city's building department prior to licensing, and section M was added to insert the language that was in L.

So L move to M, and that reads other information the development services director or a designee deems reasonably necessary to administer this chapter.

Um requiring the city to provide a copy of the application to the improvement district and the homeowners association.

We took that out.

Section 10 is the application renewal fees.

Um nothing was changed here.

We just renumbered this the title section title.

11 is the room tax, just renumbered and no other changes.

Okay, 12 is the standard license condition and additional conditions.

So on this one, they did a bit of work.

Um section one, the committee amended the chart to top out at 16 guests total.

So we used to have it, it says uh currently um it says excluding children under 12.

They removed that and just said 16 guests total.

So another thing they did was up the number of guests per bedroom.

So zero to studio stayed the same at four guests, one bedroom stayed the same at four guests, two bedrooms would now allow eight guests, three bedrooms would allow 10 guests, four bedrooms would allow 12, and five and up would allow 16.

Another thing they did was they took out overnight.

So this is guest period, daytime or night time.

If you have a four-bedroom house that you're renting, and 12 people are staying there, you cannot have additional guests at the home during the day.

You're max at 12.

Okay.

Let's see.

Regarding the parking, we removed the word overnight with the intent of limiting the vehicles to anyone visiting the property.

So again, if you have four people, you have four cars, four designated spots.

That's how many cars can be there, period.

Day or time, day or night.

Regarding the trash pickup, they did have we did have times in there.

It was they can be put out from 6 p.m.

to 6, but they have to be picked up by 6 a.m.

And the committee voted to um change that to allow for the trash cans to be placed out at curb at the curb any time the day before collection and brought back up the day of collection after services were rendered.

Section 11 required a landline.

They like to eliminate that.

And section 12 was renumbered and amended only to require cleaning between occupancies.

13 is the qualified local operator.

The title was renamed from local contact person to meet our definition.

Any mention of local contact was changed to qualified local operator.

Language was removed in the first paragraph so we can rewrite it into section A.

The section A that's inserted will list the duties of the qualified local operator.

And as you can see, it reads they must be available 24 hours a day.

They must answer calls in a timely manner.

They have to exercise the authority they've been given to immediately cure any violations that are occurring.

And they have to maintain response and incident logs and provide them to the city upon request.

And then we just relabeled section B and Section C accordingly.

This is a new section that was added.

What this would do would be it would require any new operator to provide written notice to all the residential properties within a hundred feet.

And that notice will include the address of the short-term rental, the 24-hour contact info for the qualified local operator, and the complete complaint procedure process.

So the suggested for minor issues would be to first contact the local qualified operator, and then if it's not addressed or resolved within 60 minutes, call the Mesquite police non-emergency line.

Any other issues, the suggested protocol would be to just call Musquete PD non-emergency.

This would be done after they received their certificate of occupancy, but before we issue the business license.

So we make sure everybody has their notice.

And then the last section on the section B is that the neighborhood notice is for information only and does not create a vote or approval right from those neighbors.

Violations and penalties is section 15.

It was renumbered accordingly.

Hello.

And then under section B for penalties, the language of not to exceed a certain amount was removed and instead says of.

So there are stricter fines, which is one thing the committee was wanting to crack down on those bad operators.

It's more of a um more of a harsh penalty than just a slap on the wrist.

But the amount of the fines were not changed.

Okay.

17 permits and fees not exclusive.

Uh the section was renumbered, but no other changes were made.

18, same thing.

Penalty section was renumbered, but no other changes.

19 is the enforcement of the chapter.

It was renumbered, but no changes in the language were made.

And 20 is same thing.

Section was renumbered, but any mention of the local contact was changed to qualified local operator.

That's it.

Questions?

Councilman Ennis.

Just a couple of questions.

First of all, I wish I would have had this presented to me or given to me a couple of weeks ago and should have waited until it came out on the agenda so I could go through everything.

Um I wish I could have been a little bit more prepared.

Uh secondly, um, on the documentation of letting the residents know on 21314.

So is there gonna be documentation?

It's gonna be required to turn into the city, letting you guys know, or especially you, Jeslin, on this on how they were contacted and acknowledgement of some sort.

Yes, I believe our preferred process is going to be that we have a template the operator would use, and they would we would give them a list of addresses that are applicable to their distancing for the notice, and then they bring those back to me stamped and ready to go.

I mail them once they're mailed.

I can issue the license.

And that's before the license is issued, right?

I would have the notices in hand and mailed prior to issuing the licenses.

Okay, and just clarifying something earlier.

Children are no longer included as unlimited.

There's a limit on total bodies.

Total bodies.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Councilman Wallace.

I just wanted to thank all of you that sat on this committee.

I know it was time consuming.

And you did a lot of work in a short period of time.

We all appreciate that because we didn't want to have to do it.

So thank you very much.

And know that it is appreciated.

And I think your recommendations meet the standard for what people are looking for.

They want people that aren't doing what they're supposed to be held accountable, and I think this does that.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Fielding.

Thank you, Mayor.

So I have a few questions.

So is this for the non-HOA subdivisions only?

No, ma'am.

This is for all areas within the city.

Okay, because some of the communities, such as Stonehaven, Boulder Heights, Cambria, they say in their HOAs that they can, they are allowed short-term rentals.

So are you now impeding on their HOAs and C C and R saying no they can't?

No, ma'am.

There's nothing in here saying that they can't do that unless they're not being able to meet the licensing requirements, then they would not be able to obtain their license.

But they would the HOA rules would still be in place.

So if there's HOAs that do not allow it, we would not be able to issue a license.

Okay, because that's because I know there are some developers in town that build specific homes to and short-term rentals are in there.

And I've seen a lot of them on the business report at the end of every month that have been approved and given business license for short-term rentals without coming to council because that's one of the reasons is because they allow that.

That's correct.

So okay.

And then some of these other houses that already have the short-term rental, are they gonna be grandfathered in?

Is that a process that you're gonna use?

Or how is that gonna work?

That would be something we would recommend to council that all those existing STRs are grandfathered in.

Okay.

And that's and then um, and I like the FNG, and then I'm I'm really not for any distancing on that at all.

Um, and I again I've said this before is I don't think that we should dictate to a homeowner and a non-HOA what they should do with their with their house.

So thank you.

Let me clarify.

Well, I guess ask a question.

Um, the grandfathered in is their license is grandfathered in.

They don't they're not grandfathered into the old rules, correctly?

That's correct.

They would have to abide by the new rules.

Anyone currently existing would need to do the neighborhood notice and such, but their license would be grandfathered in.

Yeah.

Any other questions from council?

Councilwoman Gallo, do you have any questions?

No, I'm good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Justin.

Thank you.

Simon.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council.

Um, so this is my uh uh personal or step recommendation after reading the uh recommendation.

So um we need to uh check uh the relationship between the short-term residential rental and the home occupation.

If we have been confusing uh the what is what so if you go to the home occupation uh under the unified development code, uh there are performance standards, MMC 98A-4.

Among those, I'm not going through go uh go through those entire uh standards.

I I'm gonna just talk about the ABC uh up there.

So A says must be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes, and then must occupy no more than 25% of the floor area of the residents, and then B, no more than one person other than those residing on the premises who shall be engaged in the in the activities of the home occupation.

C, it is being uh patrons, uh students or other any business related to individuals at the home occupation location, may only do so between the hours of 8 a.m.

and 8 p.m.

during the daytime.

Uh so this is the basic idea.

Uh somebody's work at home, it could be plumbing, it could be it could be the handyman, and they can just uh uh get the phone and move out there, but uh if the work is really uh do well and they need to hire more people, and then uh they don't actually stay uh because it does not meet the whole home occupation uh the standard anymore.

So in that case, they move out uh to the commercial area and work from office.

They have more uh people in it, and uh it is within the commercial area.

However, uh the if you look at the short-term residential rental, it does not work that way because the service is a home itself, it's not the activity, it's a home.

So uh the first standard is 25% of uh usage of 25% of the flow area.

So if it grows and then if it becomes a 100%, um they cannot actually pick the house and move to the commercial area.

So they cannot actually move to the commercial area.

It's the home now, but become commercialized.

So that's the uh the differences.

So short-term rental is not home occupation.

So is it clearly incidental and subordinate to its use of residential purposes?

Well, it is not, but you may claim uh maybe, let's say maybe, then no more than 25% of the floor area uh of the residence has been uh used.

But they they have been using 100% right now, and no more than one person, and then uh activities that there will be more activities, uh so uh it is uh uh not meeting the requirements, and then uh the daytime uh the uh usage and it is not again.

We have nighttime activities and all those too.

So short-term residential rental is not home occupation, then what what is it?

It's a commercial.

So key differences is short-term residential rentals are focused on renting the physical property, home occupations are focused on uh uh that the services uh that occupant is providing.

Uh short-term residential rental uh welcomes frequent high frequency high frequency uh gas turnover, but the home occupation is not uh and then short-term residential rental open requires special conditional use permit, while home occupations are already permitted.

So short-term residential rental, uh is it residential or commercial?

It can be both, uh, but the first it need to meet the requirements.

If it is owner-occupied short-term residential rental, and the owners taking care of those visitors, then it could be residential and maybe commercial.

But if it is a vacation rental units you utilizing Airbnb, if we have VO and management company has been used, it's a commercial.

So it has been changed from owner-occupied short-term residential rental to the vacation rental units right now.

So that is a problem.

So previously it used to be the residential owner-occupied, but now there is no residential owner occupied, it is a commercial.

That is the problem.

Also, there is a tax advantages.

Um if the average stay is seven days uh or less, uh, they can be treated as an active business.

Uh so uh they can offset uh depreciations from uh their uh W2 income so they pay less tax too.

I I looked at the US Census quick facts, and then uh for the entire United States persons per household during the 2020 through 2024 was 2.53 people.

Now City of Muskit has been 2.19.

Short-term residential rental offers beds for eight through 16 persons, maybe more.

So there are differences.

So I communicated with the American uh community survey, and they sent me some of the data here.

So I found there was uh uh one person unit and two person unit through the seven or more.

Now seven or more is only 1.45%, so which means excluding the seven or more, uh one through six is uh already uh nine uh 98.55%.

So most of the uh the house number of households uh within one through six, not more than six.

Uh short-term residential rental may become a home occupation.

Uh short-term residential rental may become a home occupation, so we may allow them, and uh it is actually protecting the private uh property rights.

So clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes, uh maybe, and yes, no more than 25%, uh one through three three bedroom house, two guests in the living room, so uh two guests plus uh the homeowner uh owners uh two, maybe four, and then four bedroom house, so 25% can be used, so two guests in the living room and two guests in the uh in one bedroom, so four plus uh the uh homeowner, so it could be six uh maximum.

So those are actually within uh the um average household number.

Uh no more than one person uh uh other than residing on the premises shall be engaged in activities.

The owner residing the property will manage the activities and more activities will be there, but we can actually ignore it because we have been uh uh ignoring it in the past, and that has not been noticed by neighbors because it they are not inviting eight through 16 people there.

Um and the uh daytime activities and uh that that can be reduced uh the by the uh homeowners uh and because homeowners are uh controlling those.

Uh so this traditional short-term residential rental may be justified, and that is about uh uh the property rights up to this bar.

So I studied about it, and I thought, well, I may need to double check if there is uh any other places that does the same uh with my idea.

Um of course, always there is uh uh uh the people uh out there, and uh this is uh uh from the American Planning Association Planning Advisory Services memo uh 2019, January 2.

Uh this was uh from the New Orleans City Planning Commission.

So if operator uh present and they use it as an accessory use, then that can become an accessory use uh of the short-term residential rental.

If there is an operator present and they allow so only temporary uses, so up to 30 days for and the four maximum permits per year is allowed.

Now if no operator present and they want to use it for the permanent short-term residential rental, they removed it, they prohibited it and moved it to the commercial area.

So they're already uh working in progress.

So after looking into it, I I think uh it it can be justified to prevent the particular commercial businesses from clustering into a certain area.

So 660 feet, like a state is uh uh mandating if a population is over 25,000, can be justified.

It's uh it's a small block area, and if it is uh double uh 1,320 feet, it's a broader neighborhood uh separation area.

It can be also justified.

Spacing controls clustering, so it is controlling commercial, not the residential rights.

So in this case, step recommends 665 spacing.

Now short-term residential rental committee, they uh did a great job.

Um their opinion uh has been uh different from each other, and they worked together, just Jaselin was helping them, and uh eventually they got uh into the conclusion and made a recommendation.

And this was uh the purpose of the chapter.

Now they added two more.

Um generally you don't change the purpose or you you don't add intent unless otherwise the intent has been changed.

So if you look at carefully, it says support tourism and economic uh activity.

Uh we don't expect residential area for the economic development.

Uh we of course want to have our uh community grow, but uh it is not the area.

I recommend uh the FNG um added uh would be removed from the uh draft.

And then uh there is an MMC 213-13.

It says the qualified local operator shall have complaints.

They added addressed and or reserved resolved within 60 minutes.

Within the city, you can get there anywhere within 16 minutes.

And you can you should be able to resolve issues.

That is the entire point here.

And if they want to actually relive and make make it relaxed by adding addressed and or they don't need to resolve it, that's the problem.

So step recommended removal removal or addressed and/or from number three.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Simon.

Councilman Wallace.

Simon, I I read this earlier.

I was confused.

And after just listening to you, I'm more confused.

And I actually like you and appreciate your presentations.

So you're saying if somebody owns a property that they frequent themselves from time to time, it's a short-term rental.

But if they have three properties that are just rentals permanently, they're commercial.

In a way, that is correct.

The thing is even if they have one property, they don't live in it, and they actually making it a commercialized, and they lease it out entirely, 100%.

That's not that does not meet the short-term uh the home occupation definition.

That is a commercial.

So if they come down and stay within a two weeks out of the year, is it then a short-term rental?

They're using it.

No, no, no.

What I mean is uh um owner occupied and controlled short-term rental can be the home occupation, which means owner reside in that unit, and they like an old air, uh, old BNB bed and breakfast.

Owner prepares and controls their guests.

If guest guests wanna enjoy their time, that's fine.

But uh at a certain uh after time the owner should be able to go there and stop that happening and uh let them sleep.

So uh there is uh old traditional short-term residential rental and current short-term residential rental that utilized uh entirely online and uh nobody's actually supervising it.

And uh they they actually uh advertise it to have more guests, like a six through twelve.

Now maybe more, but the old uh short-term rental is really small scale.

They have one or two people in it.

So there are totally different scales.

So again, if you are plumber, plumber, you want to work in-house, that is okay, it's a home occupation.

And now your business is grown, and uh uh you you want to hire more people there, and you want to sell the plumbing tools and equipment there.

Now it is not allowed because it is more commercialized.

So in that case, they made the you know money, they need to move out from the residential and go to the commercial and open opis.

Now again, the same logic.

If the owner occupied the units, owner has been using it for short-term residential rental, invited couple of people, but uh the work growth.

Now owner wants to live outside and uh lease entire 100% for the short-term residential rental, which already went against the definition of uh home occupation.

And uh it becomes a commercial.

Now, when it is a 100% commercial, you cannot move the house into the commercial area.

That's the problem.

Now that's the that's the issues that the the home uh short-term residential rental owners and managers are bringing it out.

It's a personal property, and we should have the rights to it.

However, it's the commercialized.

So if it is commercialized, they they actually should not manage it that way.

They actually need to purchase another house and in the commercial area and do the same there, that's fine.

But uh 100% uh the short-term residential rental uses within the uh residential area is a commercial.

So commercial uses within the residential area, 100% is by all means zoning zoning violation.

I didn't think it was possible to be more confused.

I just flash back to the Nick Saban commercial where he's there telling him you're five minutes early and send the hot tub with them and mowing the lawn while they're sipping iced tea.

I don't understand where you're going with this.

My wife and I sold our motor home a few years ago after I had back surgery, and when we travel, we stay in short-term rentals, and never once has there been somebody living with us when we were there, and never once were they in a commercial area.

And we have places where there's several short-term rentals that are in residential areas that are clustered together.

In fact, there's entire developments communities that are set up just that way.

So I I guess it could be like forest gump and say, I'm not a smart man.

But I'm not sure where we're going with this.

I think short-term rentals are needed by the city.

We do not have the room or capacity in our hotels for some of some of the sporting events we have going on down here, and a lot of people, if they're bringing a family down, don't want to split the family up among hotel rooms.

They'd rather have them together.

Are there bad people?

Dominic, absolutely.

And those are the people we're trying to stop from coming, and that's why we put this committee together.

So I don't know what we can and can't do legally, but we need to look at ways to take the process we have now, make it better, and move it forward, and spacing things out to the point where we can't put any more else else any others, the others in isn't it's not doing a benefit to this city.

I don't know the definitions between commercial, residential, short-term rental business.

I don't know any of that, but we need to look at ways to make this work and make it work well.

I think that what the committee put together makes a lot of sense.

And you you mentioned the same thing.

Now we just need to figure out how to make it work for everybody.

Thank you, Councilman.

Councilman Parish.

Thank you, Mayor.

I've been a little bit silent on this subject this evening, just for this is not something we can get done tonight.

Um there's no way we can do this tonight.

I've met with probably half of the audience out there at one time or another.

Um we need, according to the agenda item.

This is just a meeting to discuss things before prime uh prior to a formal consideration.

Well, I'm nowhere near ready for formal consideration.

Nowhere near.

We've got distancing issues, we've got uh issues with the amount of people.

I know there's people here that have bigger homes that want more than 16 people in it.

Um there's a few other issues that we need to deal with as far as um what goes on, and we're not gonna get it done in this forum tonight.

We need to call a special meeting, and I would entertain uh council considering this or setting it aside, or whatever we need to do to get a special meeting so that all these people can give us their input so we can make some good final decisions that'll hold up to the courts, because you know and I know this is going to get end up in court.

All the stuff in Vegas has ended up in court.

So let's just try to do the best we can, get a good legislative uh ordinance put together so that this can work for everybody, and we aren't we don't have neighbors shooting neighbors.

So thank you.

Thank you, councilman.

Councilman Annis.

Thank you.

Just a couple of quick questions.

First of all, I what you're saying, what I'm understanding, again, I'm like Paul.

I'm I'm I'm gonna force gump moment here.

Um so all of our rental, so all of our STRs out there are in violation of our commercial code.

Is that what you're saying?

No, um what I'm saying is uh right now the system uh we are you uh they they are utilizing uh short-term residence residential renter through the online imbiding more than eight through sixteen people is a commercial I don't understand where that isn't code because you didn't really you didn't re reference that to any code or any codes.

Uh what is the differences from the hotel?

There is nothing differences from the hotel hotel motel is a zoned for uh they they need to be uh uh work uh within the uh commercial zone.

And uh and this one has been growing from the baby, like uh short-term legislature rental inviting couple of people and the managed by the owner now is a massive and owner is not living in it.

And uh it it has been rented out to the eight through sixteen people, more people than the normal house can accommodate.

No more household numbers, as I showed you through the uh the US census data is uh one through six.

It's a 98 point uh five five percent.

It has a um the the one through six household numbers, and uh we are talking about inviting uh more people every weekly basis, or maybe if if if not maybe the uh month uh daily basis.

So we can't put a hot we can't put a short-term rental under the same coding or under the same zoning laws as a hotel tourism zone.

I I just don't think uh that's not gonna work.

I'm not gonna go back here and try to tell 247.

How many do we have?

Six?

264.

I'm sorry.

I'm not gonna go back here.

I'm not gonna be the one to go back and tell 264 homeowners that they now have to come back in and re-register as a commercial property.

That is that's what we're not gonna do.

That is called resorts.

And we are talking about the majority.

Short-term rental is a resort.

It used to be.

Well okay.

Anyway, um, I'm gonna um, yeah, we're gonna talk about this, like councilman Parrish said.

Uh first of all, Mr.

McIntyre, I want to thank you as chairman and Jeslin for all your due diligence and hard work on this.

My whole thing when I when I first approached this, and I was the bad guy back in January and put the moratorium on this, uh, was to get our hands wrapped around number one, our current situation at hand, and those people who are not following the rules and the laws of what a short-term rental or what our codes are.

And it's not fair to the folks out here that have businesses for short-term rentals.

That was my whole, that was my whole dream, not dream, but that was my whole thing behind.

I don't have dreams anymore.

I'm too old.

Um, that was my whole thing behind setting this uh committee up.

It wasn't uh it wasn't to start discussing commercial and non-commercial and zoning laws and all that other stuff.

Um, so I agree with councilman parrish on this.

That we this is something that we need to sit down and and have a and I know I know you all hate special meetings.

Uh we heard that from y'all last time we had a special meeting, but I think this is something that we need to have where y'all can give us some input.

Like Councilman Parrish, I have listened to a whole bunch of y'all, and I've tried to respond to as many as I possibly could.

Uh, but um right now this just raised a whole bunch of other little funny things in my head about what we need to discuss.

Because me personally, I don't think it's fair to those folks who are doing this as a business to I I I I have I have an issue with the commercial thing.

I that just blew me away when you give that presentation.

I didn't know where we were headed with that, and I still don't.

So, anyway, that's that's gonna be my when it comes around to that, that's gonna be my recommendation to follow what he said, and um hopefully we'll be able to get this settled rather sooner than later because this mortarium is up in June, I do believe, and so I want it to be done with.

I want us to move on, and I know the committee does too, because the last thing you want to they want to do is hear from me again.

And so I I just want to get this wrapped up done and something in place to where we we decided to go commercial on this stuff, talk about lawsuits.

Holy cow.

We're gonna have some lawsuits if we do that, if we go down that road.

So thank you.

Councilwoman Fielding.

Thank you.

I can't believe Bill said that this was his dream.

He's like, no, he didn't never mind.

It wasn't my dream, and I was like, what?

I don't dream about this.

Um okay, so I have a few things.

Um when Justlin gave her report.

Um, I actually said I liked F and G.

I mean, I like that I like what the committee did.

Then when Simon gave his, he says staff recommends removing F and G.

So that brings up a few questions.

Who is staff?

Is that yourself that made this recommendation to remove those?

Yes, I have in the staff.

Um you are the staff, but it's just you yourself and your staff.

Right.

Right.

You're the one making these recommendations.

Okay.

Um, and I think that that was kind of a conflict to the committee who spent all these times doing this presentation, and then staff is recommending the opposite of what the committee that we employed to do to come back to us to give us their recommendations, and then staff is saying um recommend removing FNG, and staff is recommending this the distancing.

And so I'm kind of confused on that.

Um, the other thing we're talking about the short-term rental right now, and you started talking about commercial, and I'm with Paul.

I was like, where's it going with commercial?

I mean, it's uh a business, but short-term rentals.

Um, if now are going to be commercial.

What about long-term rentals?

I mean, are those going to be considered commercial properties as well?

Because we have a lot, we have more long-term rentals in the city of Mesquite than we do short-term rentals.

And invite more than eight through 16 people.

Okay, so I think I I am in wholeheartedly agreement with um Councilman Parrish and and Councilman Ennis, but we're not going to get taken care of this tonight because I am seeing right here so many conflicts with this committee report that we just got, which was stellar.

Thank you so much.

And then Simon's report, thank you for so much for that.

But I think we got, and sounds like a lot of people got a little bit more confused with exactly what this committee was supposed to do, how we're supposed to move forward.

And I do agree a special meeting would be best.

And the the best thing about a special meeting is not like the last one that was agendized three days before the meeting.

This one will have some, you know, so much moving forward, a little bit more substance, and we can get down to what we need to change this to be because it sounds like we're all kind of conflicted up here.

Um, and that's that's kind of my um point right there.

So thank you.

Any other questions from council?

Um I'm gonna take a stab at I think what you're getting at is when Airbnb first came around, it was like I'm gonna rent my room to somebody for a night or two, and it was either they would take off for a weekend or they would rent a room and they would stay there.

That was kind of in the genesis of Airbnbs, and it's turned into people just buy multiple houses and rent them out.

And so I think is that correct what you're yes, that that was what I'm saying.

Um, at first it used to be the home occupation.

I don't think it is now.

Um, so uh again, uh, if you you're the handyman working at home, that is home occupation.

You did really well, you need to go out and hire more people and have an office out there in the commercial zone.

That is a different one.

So, but that they can actually move out to the commercial area, uh, rent an office and open their own businesses.

But the short term residential rental, when it is actually blown up to uh actual commercial level, they cannot actually move the house out.

That's the problem because the service short term rental is providing is a house itself.

When other home occupation, the services provided by the occupant, right?

Okay.

Um so that being said, um, we will call uh yes, Justin.

I just want to address one thing, Councilman Ennis said.

Um, you're hoping to have this wrapped up by June.

I just want to make you guys all aware so it's not a surprise.

Um, if you decide to do distancing, we are required to do what's called a business impact statement, and that will push this out with the adoption of the ordinances and everything past the moratorium date.

So you're going to be looking at either extending that moratorium or ending it and having no new policies in place.

I just want to make you like.

Uh, yes.

And that's okay.

I totally respect that.

I just want you guys to be aware that it's not going to be wrapped up by the time the moratorium's done if we don't get um direction on distancing, um, just because we will have to do that business impact statement.

This is a very important issue.

I do recommend you take your time.

I respect that you guys are taking this very seriously and with the importance that it is.

Just want to make you guys aware of that situation.

Okay, councilman Parrish.

Yes, Mayor, I looked into that, and the moratorium is up in June.

So let's just go as far and as not fast, but as steady as we can, and then if we need to extend the moratorium a month, two months, three months, whatever we need to do, let's let's deal with it at that time.

Okay.

Um is everybody good with a special meeting next Tuesday.

I couldn't be more happy.

Yeah.

We will, we will.

Yeah, we're not making a motion.

I'm just asking, you know, just so the public knows that that could possibly be the date.

So that being said, um, we kind of have everybody's vibe on it.

We are gonna hold a special meeting.

So if you would like to reserve your comments for that special meeting, feel free to do so.

Obviously, you are gonna have the opportunity if you choose to do them tonight to do them tonight.

Um, but if they can wait till next Tuesday, we're looking at a long meeting here.

But that being said, you have three minutes, please come forward.

So I had a full speech prepared, but because everything that happened, well, we're gonna I have all these emotions, so I just want to tell you guys.

So it might come out a little bit.

My name is Sherry Holland back.

Nice to see you guys.

But I just want to, it might come out a little bit rough, but I just want to let you guys know and point something out.

So I was actually one of the members that was selected to be on this committee.

And you, Kevin and Bill, Karen, Paul, as well as Patty, each hand selected us.

And on this board, it was people that was against short-term rentals for short-term rentals, and also neutral.

You did a brilliant job.

And this job, this crew was not meant to get together.

This was meant to find the truth.

And so I understand you guys want to do the special meeting, but I feel like it's kind of been negating all the hours and hours and weeks and weeks and months that we all, business professionals put into this.

And as far as like all this noise, that's what we dealt with.

We didn't just listen to the stories, we went and saw the people in person.

We dealt with the facts.

And what we found out was we sat down with the citizens and neighborhood, we sat down with the police department, we sat down with the different uh city officials, and we found out what the actual facts was, not just the stories.

And what we also found out was these stories that has caused this whole issue.

Many of them were not true.

Such as one of the gentlemen that we got to interview was he had said he called the police multiple times.

Well, when we actually went to go find out if he did, turns out he didn't make one single report.

And when we went back to talk to him, he said he was intending to.

And that was a theme we saw over and over and over.

And I apologize I'm being so energetic, but we spent so many hours and resources already doing what you guys are trying to do in this special meeting, and the special meeting is just gonna be a ton of emotion, and that's why you guys gave us this job.

And so we intentionally did not put in distancing because the lawsuit taking place.

We were very mindful in every single thing we gave to you guys in the in the recommendations, and it should be an easy task because you guys gave us this job to go do, and we did it to the best of our ability.

We did everything, and so the special meeting is just gonna cause us huge confusion and drag on more what we already did because you told us to do it and we took it so seriously.

So, what I'd recommend you guys do is I would just love for you guys to honor our recommendations that we work so hard for, not for a day, but for months, and not everyone getting along.

You guys specifically chose us to not get along.

There was anti, there was pro, there was neutral.

So I would just ask you guys to honor our request, honor our recommendation.

We didn't put any um uh litigation words in there as far as that could get us potentially in trouble.

Um, until everything is all solved.

That our recommendation is very mild.

It it fixed the correction, and it was a communication issue that many of the public even said was the issue was a communication.

So now everyone's gonna have cards to be able to communicate with the um managers to where they can come directly to us, but that was the solution, and that's from finding the facts, not just listening to all the stories that we found out oftentimes had no validation behind it.

So I just thank you guys very much for your time.

Thank you, Sherry.

Dominic Olivetto, I'm gonna force gump this for you guys.

Great suggestions.

Make more laws.

We can't even enforce the rules we got right now.

Now I'm not against short-term rentals.

But do I want one next door to me?

Heck no.

Simple fact.

Right now, zoning can't be changed.

Everybody that's got a rental right now in the city has to be grandfathered.

That only makes good sense.

But all these new areas we're putting in can be zoned so that people understand what they're getting into.

You know, if it's zone single family, single family only, that's one thing.

That's what I thought I bought into, but apparently, as somebody mentioned, I must have force gumped that reading and that.

But in these areas, you could zone it for that.

In the new areas, you could zone it for single family, multi-use, however, you word that legally to get it done.

That would take care of the problem out in the distance.

Right now, the problem is we go no distancing.

Boy, I shouldn't say this.

I was told by my wife not to say this, but you know, we won't have to worry about the next census because all we'll have is property managers and short-term rentals in Sun City.

If we don't have distancing, but there's a cure to that.

If somebody wants to put a short-term rental in a neighborhood, some of these uh property managers already do this unofficially, they go around and talk with all the neighbors, which is a great idea.

But if they had to get a 60% approval in that neighborhood before they could put a new short-term rental in there, then nobody can complain.

That takes care of the short-term rental business.

It also takes care of people like me that wanted single family and no short-term rentals.

I mean, it's a simple solution.

I mean, all of the regulations they're bringing up are really great regulations, but they don't solve the problem down the road.

Uh, you go throw in three more short-term rentals, you're gonna have six people up here complaining.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Dominic.

Rick McIntyre, uh, Mayor Whipple and members of the council.

Uh I I got I got what you said, but I I want to have some continuity what Simon's presentation was about.

I'm gonna try to summarize what Simon and the state and the county are trying to achieve.

They're trying to take a residential unit and turn it into a business.

They're trying to define it as a business or commercial.

The only way for the county and the state to survive or win on their argument uh to have distancing is to make a short-term rental commercial.

At every step in the federal process so far, it has been slapped down.

The courts have said, no, you're not gonna turn a residential unit into a commercial unit arbitrarily.

They this is one of the major protections that we have in the Constitution that your home is a sacred place, and you can do whatever you want with it.

Uh, well, within the law, of course.

So the courts, it's working its way through the courts right now.

The Ninth Circuit's got it.

It could very easily get all the way to the Supreme Court, and this could be decided at that level.

Uh and the question is, is this in fact a commercial thing, or is it a residential unit?

And so far, the courts have said it is not a commercial thing.

So Simon's argument that he's putting forward is basically been being slapped down by the courts over and over and over.

And there has been preliminary injunctions issued that have said you're not gonna be able to do this distancing thing.

I would say suggest to you that at the end, distancing will be struck down.

This is my opinion by the courts, and I'll throw this one question at you for your consideration, and just to think about this.

If you as a homeowner have the right to do something with your home, should your neighbor have the same right?

I have posed that question to many people on both sides of this issue.

And whether you're on either side of the issue, that you always come to the realization, of course, your neighbor should have the same right.

Of course.

If that's the case, and if you believe that, distancing cannot survive, and you should not include it in this ordinance.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Rick.

Mayor, counsel, Nick Elf and Setti.

Uh, thank you for the presentation.

Uh brought up a lot of good points to the committee.

I know you guys did a lot of work on it, probably a lot of arguments.

It's a good thing two by fours weren't available.

Uh there would have been some moving of wood.

The thing that I look at with this is this.

The house next door to me sold.

I didn't find or see or hear of any zoning change.

It was residential, it was always residential.

When I bought in 20 years ago, it was residential.

It's changed three owners, and now the third owner has turned it into an Airbnb.

If the license uh was issued for that uh property, it was unbeknown to me.

I never got a notice, never nothing.

So now what we're talking about here is licensing.

Well, based on so many people, based on this, based on that, all these things come to play.

I say this, it was never zoned to be commercial.

Neither was my house.

Now, how does my house fit into this?

Well, I have a casita.

I was told I could never rent it because it's a single family home.

Now, do I have to apply for rezoning?

Do I have to get signatures of my neighbors, which I only have the one, and they're never there because they're always renting.

I don't know who I'd get to sign the paper.

So when we look at this, this thing is going to bring in a lot more issues with a lot more areas and a lot more houses that are they gonna go and say, Well, I can rent out my casita.

In my case, I got three garages.

One of the garages has water, has sewer, has electric, has cable.

What's the chances of turning that into a rental with occupancy, the owner occupying the property?

I mean, the list of things that come up in this whole thing is just baffling to the brain.

And I don't see any way for this thing to survive just because the fact that whether it's licensed, not licensed, whether it was zoned, not zoned.

Does it have to be zoned?

Does the zoning have to change?

Obviously, I guess not.

So that means tomorrow morning I could put an ad in the paper for my casita for one person.

I do have off-street parking, I do have a separate entrance, it does have its own utility.

So now see what I'm saying?

It just opens up a whole bag of worms, and I say to you, be careful what we do that we don't wind up in another court.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nick.

Mayor, Council, Console.

A couple of points.

Notifying people within a hundred feet is silly.

That means next door.

It's a bigger community thing.

They want to defend the community right of living and stuff.

Communities more than the next door neighbor.

Second of all, quick math.

We have four short-term rentals within a nine-iron of my house, and since I lost my leg, I don't hit a nine-iron that far anymore.

But that means 40 people, possibly 40 vehicles, pickup trucks, trailers, ATVs, stock trailers for all I know.

That's four four hundred feet per home.

Take away the driveways.

You're talking about six football fields long of parking for 40 people.

That's ridiculous.

And if the city can't get this straightened out, I strongly urge you to pass another moratorium for 90 days until this can all get straightened out.

Because what a lot of the stuff in this rewritten package is really silly.

One part calls for offshore parking.

The other says no on no off-site parking.

A diagram with spaces, no diagram with spaces for parking.

The committee within themselves couldn't decide what they wanted to accomplish.

So how do you folks know what their intent was, or more importantly, what the public wants.

Thank you.

Thank you, Doug.

Natalie Haffen.

I was one of the people on the committee also, and it was it was a good committee.

We had um a lot of different opinions.

And the spacing is and the distancing is the big contentious thing that that went on.

What I try to do is help everybody and maybe clarify in my layman's terms for the zoning, as Simon was trying to explain.

When I purchased my home, there was the other side, we built it and moved in in 93.

Lived here.

I've been here since 1988.

The other side of town, the Southside town didn't exist.

I bought a single family, purchased a single family zoned residential area.

So that meant just single families can be there.

Now what they done is with the short term rental, they adopted a policy in our short-term uh city ordinance in 2012.

And if you wanted to have your home and be able to short term it, then you'd have to get a special condition re uh business license, a conditional use permit.

And then in 2019, they've changed it, and the city council they did post it, they had a meeting, and they turned it into just a permitted um license or permitted use.

Um so you're still single family.

You're not if you want to have a hotel condo, well, like the smoky lane condos, not smoking lane, but the Hawk Ridge condos, they were hotel um hotel condo zoned.

There's different zoning.

So within that commercial, you have the hotel condos and so forth.

In the single family, it's single family or multi-family, depends on how many units.

So what you've done is you've put um businesses into the single families.

One of my questions is if you have to get a business license, how does that make it a home?

If you have to get a business license for your short term rentals.

Uh, when you're obtaining, if you're an investor, if you're not paying cash.

If you're um, if you're a homeowner and occupy it, you're called a homeowner, owner occupier.

If your investor purchasing a home for to invest in and to rent out short term, long term, you're called an investor, you're not a homeowner.

You keep saying homeowners have rights.

So if you have five or six homes, are you really that homeowner?

Aren't you just a business person?

You know, you've got to think about this because there are people, and I'm a real estate agent, I have a property management, I have long-term property, I I stay in the RBOs, I love them.

But we have to have distancing.

There's homes here, there's people here, and there's in and they were here.

The 80 80-year-old mother or grandma, you know, that has two home, you know, short-term rentals on both sides every day, you don't know who's coming, every weekend.

And that's what I don't want.

I want somebody beside me beside me in front of me.

You know, we have to have some kind of consistency and with without that transient traffic.

So the zoning gets down to it, whether you're a homeowner and you're whatever, you know, it's not when you get a business license, it's a business.

And you're gonna have to think about the people that bought any single family zoned areas, what you're doing to them by not distancing them.

I'm not against having one or two, but when you have a bunch and then can be around, and that's what's happening right now.

Sorry, but like my agents are waiting, they they have investors waiting to buy right now before this moratorium or before the um 2030 comes in.

Thank you, Natalie.

Hey, air counsel Corbin Van Estwell run.

Um, a couple things.

I thank you, uh, Mr.

Parrish for bringing up that I don't he doesn't feel you folks are ready, and I don't either.

Um I would like to ask if you have a special session, can we please have it like at these later hours?

All of those committee meetings were done at two o'clock.

I've and I attended all but one, and I did watch that one.

Okay, great.

Because it is really difficult to have to take off work, and I have to actually take off work to make these meetings in time.

And Tuesday sounds really sudden.

That sounds really soon.

I mean, I I still have to work 10 hours a day, and I would like to do some research and present you with some facts.

And I would ask when people get up here too, and they start claiming lawsuits and this and that, that they source that, let us know where that comes from, because you can Google things and get all kinds of stuff.

You can find an answer that leans any direction you want it to.

So if we're gonna cite lawsuits or something, or if we're gonna use that, then let's cite them and tell us where those come from.

Um although I do appreciate the the efforts of the committee, and I know those people gave their time.

I will tell you it didn't go.

I went to all but one, and then I did watch that meeting, and they weren't as smooth as it sounds.

I really think like the first three meetings were basically very poorly conducted.

Um the committee did not have direction, it did not know where it was going.

And I think it really was probably about the fourth meeting where they actually discovered their purpose, and then they formed a subcommittee of the committee to review the ordinances and meet by themselves and then come back and make a report to the rest of the committee to vote on.

So it didn't quite go the way I feel like a couple speakers here have made it sound.

Um I'm glad you're going to reconsider this because I I think uh overall the majority of what the committee recommended, I think is good.

But they did completely table, or they I think they marked aside as reserved the distancing issue, and that's something we're going to really have to deal with.

And I would also like to remind everybody here about AB 363, which was largely discussed in the first few meetings.

Is that that's however that turns out it came up for a reason?

It came up because this is an issue, this is a problem, and we don't have to be the last ship to sail.

We have other examples to look at, and that's why 363 has come about because this became issues in other communities.

So I I hope we really take a look at that.

Um I would ask you to extend the moratorium because you're not going to get this resolved in that amount of time.

And you'll you're gonna have to face it, you'll never resolve this to the satisfaction of everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Hi, I'm Colleen Gleedon from Mesquite.

Hello, everyone.

I wanted to go through the details of where we can actually have short-term rentals right now.

As you can see in the map here, everything with the orange lines that are crossed out are not able to have short-term rentals in those areas.

It's either because the HOA doesn't allow it or that the condo or townhome areas don't allow it, and apartments don't allow it.

So what the details are and the facts are 92% of all HOAs do not allow for short-term rentals.

Only 7% allow for short-term rentals.

On the non-HOAs, there's approximately 12% of all homes in Mesquite.

They only represent 12% of non-HOAs.

That allows short-term rentals.

Out of all the condos and townhomes, only 18% of those allow short-term rentals.

We're at 20% of all homes in Mesquite allow short-term rentals.

So we have such a small area already to have these short-term rentals.

We're trying to say that if there's distancing that's put out there where there's 2,500 feet from a hotel area, 600 feet from homes.

The map shows the black circles represent 600.

We're now, if that is put in place, 660 feet from each short-term rental, we will have only approximately nine allowed in all HOAs, three allowed in all condos and townhomes, and 23 in HOAs.

So what you're saying is if you put any distancing in place, you will eliminate having this industry, basically.

The ones that are grandfathered in will go away, and then we will not have those investors.

They are things that have to be done for the people that do not respect the rules and do not follow the rules, and that's why they're in place on the ordinance to find them or whatnot.

There's four different categories.

Thank you, Carlene.

I guess the word hello, my name is Jacqueline Flores, and I am the uh I am speaking on behalf of the Greater Las Vegas Short-Turn Rental Association.

We are the group behind the lawsuit that was filed against Clark County, and also very important to note that the lawsuit was not just against Clark County, it was also against the state.

The state law, SDR law AB 363.

Uh, my comment was uh that to encourage you to table this uh ordinance and to take the time to think about it very carefully because we have been getting a lot of calls from property owners here in Musquete that they want to join the lawsuit as well, or that they want to start their own lawsuit.

Our recommendation to them has been to contact their uh public officials to come to these meetings and to express their opinion first, because of course, you know, the last resort that should happen is litigation.

It is time consuming, it is costly, and it just affects everyone.

And so I I don't think that you know a better presentation could not have been made to encourage tabling this matter than the presentation made by the uh planning director.

I mean, there were so many maybes in that presentation, and that alone should be a reason why this should be table, and also the fact that there is currently an injunction that we were able to win two injunctions actually.

We have uh we won an injunction against the county uh because the county was trying to force Airbnb to take down listings because they didn't have a license.

The court ruled that was unconstitutional.

We also asked an injunction to prevent the county from enforcing the uh licensing requirements because they were arbitrary, they were uh violating people's uh equal protection clause, which you know it it treats property owners differently when they are equally positioned, and one of the major issues was the distance restriction and uh many other requirements.

For example, property owners that are connected to CDSUR that are not connected to City Sewer were required to connect to City SUR and um and denied the opportunity to apply for a license.

That went to district court here in in uh in Nevada, and we won that as well.

The judge said in that situation that property owners were being treated differently, and that was unconstitutional.

A short term, in fact, they we use the comparison between a short-term rental and a long-term rental.

And the judge agreed with us that if you allow short term uh long-term rentals to operate without those requirements, you cannot have a a restriction on a short-term rental operator.

And then finally, the claim that short-term rentals is of commercial use, that is actually not true.

The vast majority of courts have rule that uh short-term renting is a residential use of a property, not commercial.

These rulings typically hold that renting one's home overnight for lodging, it's still residential use.

And I know somebody asked about uh cases on it.

Washington Supreme Court, Colorado Court of Appeals, Arkansas Supreme Court, even the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that short-term renting is residential use of the property.

For that reason, I ask that you table this matter.

Okay, seeing no one else come forward, I'm gonna go ahead and turn it back over to the council.

Okay, Doug's the last one.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Doug Reath, I'm one of the owners of premier properties, mesquite vacation properties, premier property management.

And I would just like to say, excuse me, the committee did a great job.

I mean, it it was kind of chaotic, and everybody had big opinions, but in the end, they came up with a great idea, and that is where you assign somebody the communicator.

I don't, I'm not sure the term again, but it's somebody that if there's a problem, they're qualified in the eyes of the city, they're qualified.

The neighbors know that you know, two, three neighbors in each direction have a contact person and they solve the issue within 60 minutes.

I think that's a big thing.

I I think you know, there we've been operating for 15 years.

We never had a problem until there was a problem.

And you can see the communication tonight.

And that was in the past, the policy wasn't to go in front of the conditional use permit.

If you and that's only the case that if you had a um non-HOA that said yes or didn't say yes or no, and you and it was it was reviewed through the staff, which it should be to the you guys shouldn't have to deal with that.

But it became a problem, and then next thing you know, there's three people that got denied that their neighbors were approved, and they said, I've got property rights, I'm gonna sue.

Well, then the problem became how do we solve this?

Let's let's throw 363 in, in which at the time nobody knew that there were actual injunctions in place that basically restrict the distancing, etc.

And so in reality, I think that what we've got in place with the committee in actuality should be voted on.

I think it's a great policy.

For the rest of the distancing and whatnot, there's a lawsuit that's gonna be solved at some point in time.

And if it's not, or 363 is considered to be constitutional, then we're gonna have to handle that in five years, and that's gonna take take its course.

But for right now, I I'm not sure unless you want to continue to hear everybody's voices.

I think the problem is solved.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Doug.

Councilman Wandless.

Can I make a motion?

I won't define irony for you, but this is pretty ironic when you really think about it.

I'm gonna make a motion that we move tech review to 4.30 next Tuesday and hold a special meeting on this tableet until then.

At five o'clock next Tuesday.

Okay, do I have a second?

Okay, call for the vote.

Council McGallow, are you still there?

Okay, motion passes.

Item 3.2 presentation for the 3D grant committee from John Rosen and Amy Bradshaw.

Mr.

Mayor, City Council members.

I actually had submitted documentation to you uh sometime earlier last week asking that that particular item be removed from the agenda because we would not be ready to make a presentation at this time.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Okay, so we're gonna go ahead and pull that item.

But we are gonna have public comment.

Yep.

So if you have any public comment on the 3D grant committee, please come forward.

Okay, seeing none, we will go ahead and move on to 3.3 presentation of city funds by the city finance director.

Bryce.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh just wanted to give a presentation for some informational purposes.

There's uh some questions asked on city funds, and so just kind of want to do a presentation, uh, an overview of and hopefully they'd answer those questions.

Uh if you can go to the next slide, Frank.

Uh before we get into fund accounting, we want to start with a quick overview of our audited financial statements and what they show is the city's financial, what they show about the city's financial position.

There was a question brought up about uh 25 million dollars increase in net position.

Uh, one key tech away takeaway is the city's net position has increased.

That position is an indicator of good financial health, but it's important to understand what exactly what that means.

Net positions is not just cash in the bank, it reflects the city's total financial standing, including assets, liabilities, and long-term investments.

Next slide.

What is net position?

Net position net position is essentially the difference between what the city owns and what it owes.

So we take total assets like cash, infrastructure, equipment, and subtract liabilities such as debt and obligations.

The result is is in net position, which represents the overall value of the city from an accounting perspective.

It's similar to personal net worth, but on a much larger scale and with more components involved.

Uh next slide.

Uh components of net position.

Net position is made up of several components for governmental funds, capital outlays reported as an expenditure.

This includes infrastructure like roads, buildings, vehicles, and equipment uh minus depreciation, and then uh restricted net position funds that must be used for specific purposes and unrestricted net position funds that can be used more flexibly.

The most important thing here to highlight is a large portion of our net position is tied up in capital assets, things like roads and facilities, which are not liquid, and uh of that 25 million over 20 million dollars of that is from that increase in fixed assets in assets for the city.

And um, they're highlighted at the top is uh 5.7.

That was uh increase in total governmental funds.

Uh go ahead to the next slide there, Frank.

And sorry, that is kind of low up there.

Um so why net position increased?

So when we say net position increase, what does that mean?

Uh it doesn't mean we just have more cash.

There are several reasons this can happen.

Investments in capital asset capital assets like new infrastructure equipment, paying down debt, which reduces liabilities, and operating revenues exceeding expenses.

In many cases, increases in net position are driven significantly by capital product investments, meaning we've added long-term value to the city, not just increased cash reserves.

Uh next slide.

Um, key takeaways.

Uh the key uh key takeaway here is an increase in net position reflects overall financial strength, but it includes much more than just than just cash.

A significant portion of that increase can come from capital assets like infrastructure and equipment, which can provide long-term value but are not spendable in the same way as cash.

So when reviewing these numbers, it's important to fully understand or to understand the full picture.

It not just to assume it represents available funds.

Think of it like owning a home.

Your net worth goes up if your home value increases, even though it doesn't mean you have more cash in your checking account.

And then next slide, Frank.

Um, and then the next portion I wanted to touch on is uh uh fund accounting.

Uh just been getting questions on what we can use our available funds for.

And so uh let's just start with the foundation of what fund accounting is.

Uh, governmental accounting systems are uh organized on what's called a fund basis.

That simply means we don't treat all city money as one big pool.

Instead, we separate into different funds, each with its own purpose, rules, and legal restrictions.

These rules aren't arbitrary, they're set by the governmental accounting standards board or GASBY.

GASBY establishes the standards we follow, which fall under generally accepted accounting principles or GAP.

So, in short, fund accounting helps us ensure we're handling public money in a structured consistent and legally compliant way.

So, why do we go through all that effort?

There are four main reasons.

First, transparency, which allows public to clearly see where the money is coming from and where it's going.

Second, legal compliance.

Many revenues like taxes and grants are restricted by law and must be used for specific purposes.

Third, accountability, the system uh prevents misuse of funds by keeping them separated.

And finally, good financial management helps us plan for both short-term operations and long-term needs.

So, really, fund accounting protects both the city and the public.

Next slide.

Uh to make this easier to visualize, think of each fund as its own small city within a larger country.

Each city has its own rules and purposes, and it needs to stand on its own financially.

You can't just take money from one and use it somewhere else without a formal process.

Within each fund, you have accounts you have accounts.

These are these are like bank accounts used to track specific types of transactions like payroll or projects.

So, in a simple way to remember it is funds are the legal boundaries where money can be spent.

Accounts are the tracking tools, how we keep record of that spending.

Uh fund types.

There are several types of funds we use, each serving different purposes.

Uh the main categories include general funds, special revenue fund, capital projects fund, debt service funds, enterprise, and fiduciary.

You'll see a lot of specific examples here.

Uh these are represented on how detailed and structured our system is.

Uh the general fund.

The general fund is the city's primary operating fund.

This is what pays for everyday services, things like administration, parks and recreation, uh, public works, courts, and more.

It also receives the majority of the city's revenue.

As a general rule, everything goes in the general fund unless there's a legal or accounting reason to separate it into a different fund.

Next one.

Um here is just a quick snapshot of our general fund budget, the 2020 2526 final budget versus uh the 2627 tentative budget.

Uh for fiscal year 26-27, both increasing slightly with expenditures projected to be a bit higher than revenues.

Uh, we're anticipating an ending fund balance of about 4.6 million.

Uh that balance is important as it acts as a financial cushion for emergencies and future planning.

Uh, special revenue funds use for money that that's restricted to specific purposes.

A good way to think of this is earmarked funds.

Money comes in with infrastructure with instructions attached.

For example, economic development funds must be used for economic development.

Streets and maintenance funds come from specific uh fees and must be used for roads.

Uh more cops funding can only be used for new officers and equipment.

These restrictions ensure the money is being used exactly as intended.

Uh capital project funds are used for large long-term projects.

These are typically multi-year efforts like building parks, infrastructure, and redevelopment projects.

Because these projects can span multiple years and involve large sums, they're tracked separately for clarity and accountability.

Uh debt service funds are used to track repayment of debt.

This includes both principal and interest on bonds or other obligations by separating this out.

We ensure debt payments are planned for and paid consistently and transparently.

Enterprise funds operate more like a business.

They are funded primarily through user fees rather than taxes, and ideally they should be self-supporting.

A good example is the sewer utility.

Customers pay for the service and those revenues fund the operations.

Fiduciary funds are a little different.

These are funds that the city is holding money on behalf of someone else.

That means the money doesn't belong to the city, it's just being managed temporarily.

Examples include court fees that are passed to the state or employee withholdings.

Uh budgeted revenues versus expenditures.

Um, this was uh uh for the budget fiscal year ending 26 and next to what's the fiscal year ending for the tentative budget.

Uh uh this slide highlights the relationship between uh revenues and expenses.

The key takeaway here is they carefully plan to align what we bring in and what we spend.

This helps maintain financial stability and ensures we're not overextending those resources.

And then just uh a few of the common questions we get uh to wrap up.

There are um, you know, we get asked why don't we use all the available money because funds are restricted and we can't treat everything as one big pot.

Um what does the council approve in the budget?

Uh largest component is the general funds, but the full budget includes all funds.

Uh, and how does the budget process work?

It starts internally with department heads, finance and the city manager, then moves to the council in public.

Um, and then just some key deadlines are April 15th this year for the preliminary budget and June 1st for the final budget.

And uh that's the end of the presentation.

Thank you, Bryce.

Um, any questions from council?

You did a good job.

They don't have any questions for you.

I read fast, I was nervous.

No.

Any public comment?

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll turn it back over to council.

Councilwoman Fielding.

Thank you, Mayor.

And thank you, Bryce, for clarification that we don't have 25 million just sitting around.

Um, I'd make a motion to accept that presentation.

Okay, do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, call for the vote.

Councilwoman Galloway.

Thank you.

Um 3.4 city manager's report of the non-binding fact finders findings, recommendations and associated fiscal impacts related to the collective bargaining negotiation impasse between the city and the Mesquite Police Officers Association as required by NRS 288.208.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

I'll start out over here.

Um, as city manager, I've prepared a report of the non-binding fact-finding fact finders findings, recommendations and associated fiscal impacts related to the collective bargaining negotiation impasse between the city and the mesquite police officers association as required by NRS 288.2008.

Tonight I have asked that the city's labor attorney, Paul Denham, um, to communicate the report from me.

Thank you.

Good evening.

The city manager's report begins with a brief timeline followed by a more in-depth discussion related to the findings recommendations and fiscal impacts of the non-binding fact finders decision.

In terms of the timeline on February 27, 2025, the city and the union began negotiations for a new contract.

On June 30th, 2025, uh the parties engaged in the last negotiation date.

On in July of 2025, the union declared impasse.

On August 29th, 2025, the city and the union attempted to mediate a resolution, but the parties were unable to reach an agreement.

Following mediation, the party scheduled a non-binding initial fact finding under Nevada law.

In December of 2025, the city and the union participated in a one-day fact-finding hearing before fact finder by the name of Dean A.

Martin.

Under Nevada law, before a dispute is submitted to interest arbitration, an impartial fact finder makes findings and recommendations.

Again, the findings and the recommendations of the fact finder are not binding on the parties.

In this situation, the fact finder made findings based on the evidence that the parties produced during the evidentiary hearing.

In addition, the parties exchanged final offers for fact finding in the days leading up to the hearing.

Here, the fact finder made recommendations in response to the party's final offers for fact finding.

On March 12th, 2026, the fact finder issued his decision.

I note that the fact finder did not explain any of his recommendations.

Nevertheless, he made recommendations in favor of the MPOA's final offer for fact finding related to wages.

Before we discuss these findings a little bit more closely, we should briefly discuss the purpose of this agenda item.

The city is required under Nevada law to present the fact finding decision to council along with the associated financial impacts.

This item is informational only.

The city is not agreeing to the fact finders proposed facts or recommendations under state law.

The city has the ability to resolve this dispute through interest arbitration or by negotiating an agreement with the union.

For the next few minutes, my presentation will include a brief overview of the contract provisions at issue and a summary of the financial impacts of the recommended decision on the city if it were to adopt the fact finder's recommendations.

It may also be helpful to keep in mind that interest arbitration carries inherent risk for both parties, and it is generally not ideal for labor relations.

Following the receipt of the fact finding decision, the city offered a settlement with the hopes that the parties could try to negotiate a compromise prior to interest arbitration.

In response, not only has the union declined the city's offer, it has refused to make a counteroffer.

Let's first discuss the issue of wages.

Prior to fact finding, the MPOA's final proposal on wages was a one-year across the board increase of 20% over the current existing uh wage increases under the salary scale.

A few months later, the city retained my firm to assist the city with preparing for fact finding and helping the city with fact finding.

For Article 24 wages, before the fact finding hearing, MPOA offered a 7.65% across the board increase, and the city offered a 3.3% across the board wage scale increase.

Without explanation, the fact finder recommended the MPOA offer for fact finding.

One thing to keep in mind is that junior officers, approximately half of the bargaining unit, receive step increases on the salary scale in addition to across the board increases.

Under the MPOA proposal, 19 out of 40 bargaining unit members who were not topped out at tops at top step will receive a change in salary from approximately around 15.46%.

Bargaining unit members at the top step will receive a 7.65% increase.

Notably, in July of 2025, the public safety PRS rate increased an additional 8.75% to a total of 58% of 58.75%.

That's directly tied to wages.

Under the city's proposed wage offer, there would be a 213,733.

However, with additional PERS liabilities, the city's proposed increase would add $644,0191.71 cents to the fiscal year 2026 budget.

In contrast, the union's proposed offer on wages, there would be a 373,0016 and 21 cent increase between fiscal years 2025 and 2026.

However, with additional PERS liabilities, the union's increase would add $899,619 and 43 cents in new expenditures.

The difference between the two proposals is 255,427 and 72 cents.

With respect to that provision, the union proposed increasing the number of union representatives under the CBA from four to six without explanation.

Again, the fact finder recommended this change that was proposed by MPOA.

The cost of this change is uncertain.

There was also an additional proposal that was furthered by and proposed by the MPOA, in which uh they are trying to add bilingual pay to the contract.

Uh the union's proposed provision would pay officers $35 per day.

I'm sorry, $35 per pay period for bilingual pay.

Without explanation, the fact finder recommended this change.

In doing so, the fact finder conceded that the cost of this proposal was unknown because it was unclear how many officers would qualify.

The cost of this change is uncertain.

There was another proposal proposed by the union related to canine pay.

Their current is currently is canine pay in the contract, but the union proposed a new provision that would increase canine officer pay from $125 to $250 per pay period.

The new cost for the city would be from $3,250 to $6,500.

Uh currently the city has two canine officers for a total additional cost of $6,500 per year.

The overall fiscal impact of the fact finders' recommendations on the MPAOA labor contract for fiscal year 2026 is over $899,000 from budgeted funds available.

Um at this point, that concludes the report, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

Do we have any questions from council?

Okay, seeing none.

Thank you, Paul.

Thank you.

Now I'm gonna go ahead and open it up for a public comment.

David Baldwin.

The one thing I want to bring about the presentation, it's not our police officer's fault for PERS cost.

It is just not and should not be considered this.

It is a cost of the city, but the the police officer shouldn't be.

What I want to bring up is a bigger point is in all the years I've been in town, 18 years, I've never seen so much animosity between the city and our MPOA.

They deserve much better.

They're there for us.

I don't know why we continue, and I've talked to uh I've sent emails to everybody about other other issues about this.

Why is this city outsourcing your responsibilities to a out of state attorney law firm?

Why offload it?

They're not part of this community, they're not vested in this community.

Maybe some people think it's a good idea.

I don't think so.

I think this is close enough that we can come to an amiable conclusion without much effort at all.

We need to find somebody in town.

We need to fire your current negotiator and find somebody that can negotiate this and get this settled.

And the other thing that I noticed was if I read this right, this agreement that you would go into is less than a year.

It expires this July, if I'm not mistaken.

So you're gonna do it and you're gonna be doing it all over again.

We need to get this resolved.

Find somebody that can negotiate this.

There's people in this town that I know could do this, and there's probably a half a dozen or more that in this town that I don't know that could do this.

Bring it back in the house.

Let's do it ourselves.

Let's do it, let's musquite do this.

Not somebody, and without with all due respect, a Midwestern law firm.

They don't have they don't understand this community, they aren't part of this community.

And I don't know who made that decision, but I I think it was it's just an absolutely ridiculous decision.

So at this particular time, I'm gonna I'm gonna there's other comments.

Start over, get this settled, quit quit the adversity.

If you don't do that, we're gonna have confrontation with our police officers for for years to come.

Bad feelings.

Let's get the feelings behind us.

Let's do it ourselves in-house, start over, settle this within a few weeks, and make everybody happy for a three-year contract.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dave.

Donna Vanita, Mesquite resident.

I have the same questions he has.

Why are we hiring an out-of-state, way out of state attorney, to take care of the business here in Musquete?

I think there's at least one or two or three here in this town that could take care of it.

And if not, there's one in the state of Nevada that could take care of it.

And also, are you flying him in and out of here every time they have to negotiate?

Or are we zooming it?

If you're zooming it, you don't even know what's going on because I was a labor negotiator, and I'll tell you what, body language across the table has a lot to do with negotiations.

So he says, let's get it done, get it over with.

Our guys work hard, really hard in this town.

And you're talking about dogs not being paid for.

What did the dog just do the other day, about three or four weeks ago with all the drugs that they found in that car?

Thank you, Mr.

Dog.

Thank you, Donna.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

My name is Andrew Reaganbaum.

I am the executive director of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers.

I am also the MPOA's uh contract representative.

I am here to talk to you with regards to some of the things that your council just said that I would like to address and correct, but I have a few prepared comments as well.

First of all, it's important for this this council to realize with regards to this public hearing that you have before you a formal legal recommendation from an uninterested third party who was selected by both the city and MPOA to hear this matter.

Both parties presented evidence, both parties presented arguments to that third party.

And after that hearing, there were extensive briefs submitted to that third party before a decision was made by the fact finder.

Now, when counsel tells you that the fact finder made recommendations without explanation, there is a 27-page decision written by the fact finder.

I ask you why that fact-finding report is not attached to this agenda for the public to read and for the council to read.

I would note for you that Clark County just last week had a similar hearing as this on a fact-finding result that happened with one of their unions and the county.

And attached to their agenda was the fact-finding report.

Why is it that this one is being hidden from the public and perhaps from you, the council as well?

Now it's significant to remember that prior to this contract impasse at the last contract that was negotiated between the city and the MPOA.

There was no dispute that the members of your police department were underpaid compared to comparable agencies in the valley and in the state.

And we couldn't fix those issues in one contract.

So we made a contract there for three years and we did what we could incrementally.

Coming into this contract cycle, we had to make additional changes.

What I would end with is that this time, if you're going to allow, as you've heard from some of the members of the public yourselves to continue to spend tens of thousands of dollars, you've spent already over $50,000 on outside council fees to arbitrate this matter, and you want to go and do that again by not accepting the fact finders' recommendations.

The amount that Mr.

Denham just told you, 255,000 is the amount between us, and you're telling me you're going to spend over a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees rather than pay the men and women who protect you and make this the safest city in the state of Nevada.

I ask you at this point.

Under NRS 288 200 subsection eight, you have no obligation to vote here today.

But I would suggest to you there's also nothing in that statute that says you can't take a vote and make a recommendation that we adhere to the fact finders' recommendations.

You are the elected officials of this of this city, and I believe it is incumbent upon you, and it is a disservice to the public if you do not vote today to either up or down on the fact finders' recommendations.

But take a stand and tell us whether you support your police or you don't.

But I ask that you vote today.

Thank you, Andrew.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mr.

Mayor, Council Jason Brown.

Uh, I'm an MPOA member, I'm also a resident.

I came from uh Indianapolis, Indiana, which is a large city police department.

We have less than a million people uh in Indianapolis.

They adopted agenda to defund the police.

Um that's one of the reasons why I decided after 24 years to retire, look for a city that didn't do that.

Indianapolis follow along with Chicago, Chicago defunds the police, Minnesota.

They defund the police, and I feel I needed a city that supported the police, the council that sort of uh supported the police, and I felt mesquite was that position.

When I looked for this position when I came, mesquite was under a lot of scrutiny.

They were under a lot of things going on.

I watched all that, I looked at it, I investigated it, and I could still see the public supported the police.

I can still see that the council supported the police, and that's why I chose to retire from there and come here.

I don't want to have the same feeling of defund the police here in Musquite as I did in Indianapolis, as they do in Chicago, as they do in Minnesota.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jason.

Parent council, Del Slosser, uh president, also a member of uh the police department.

Um, I just want to add to what what's been said and what hasn't been said.

You'll also find if that's been provided to you, and I hope it does.

Um that fact finders report.

You'll also see that the fact finder didn't rule in all areas in our favor.

Um, there was parts of that or part of that that he denied.

Uh, so it is not just one-sided.

There is a lot that was that was for MPOA.

I understand that.

But uh, it was presented, at least in my perception, that it was only for MPOA.

It was also for the city.

They could see a need.

We didn't present the facts.

The fact finder said, nope, sorry, you guys don't get that, as he should.

Um I appreciate the time that they've that they have taken uh that Mr.

Martin took to listen to those those facts that we presented that day.

Um, as I watch our our men and women of our police department, and what's gone on with this uh these these actions and the up and downs that we've had over the especially over the last year, the last 18 months.

It's been hell.

And to watch them just excel to step up when asked.

Many of these men and women put forth and everything they've got to be here for this city, and it's time that the council sees what's really the value of these men and women that we have working for us.

I say that as a citizen, and I say that as a member as well.

Um can't reiterate, I've never been to a city that that supports their police like mesquite city does.

These people here, our citizens are outstanding, and I as a as a police officer appreciate your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dill.

Mayor, Council Ian McComy.

I'm a resident and board member of the MPOA.

Uh, when I was hired 13 years ago, there were 75 applicants competing for two positions.

Over the last few years, we struggled to get 10 applicants to show up on a testing day.

When I was hired, one of the biggest factors for me was mesquite's pay scale was two to three dollars less than Metros, and it was six dollars more than St.

George.

Today, both neighboring agencies pay much more than mesquite.

I've recently been talking to St.

George, and if I lateral there as an officer, I will make a little bit more per hour there than I currently make as a sergeant here in Musquite.

I personally have considered leaving multiple times over the last two years, but my wife and child and children have uh managed to talk me off that edge.

Every member of the MPOA understands the value of living and raising their families here in a small community.

That's what brought us here 13 years ago.

But the pay gap must be narrowed back to where it once was if we want to recruit quality officers and keep the experienced ones we already have.

Over the past few years, we've lost some officers to the Department of Corrections, North Las Vegas, Clark County School District, and Lincoln County Sheriff's Office.

They've left for better pay and better career opportunities, but without action, more will leave.

The city now claims to be strapped for cash, yet you pay and fly in a lawyer from Chicago for tonight's meeting.

I ask you to stop wasting money on a Chicago lawyer and instead invest those funds into your police department.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council staff.

My name is Rich Buller.

I usually don't get up for more than one item because I know there's a lot of guys that do, but I'm not one of those guys.

But um, I agree with former councilman Bowig.

I think the Chicago lawyer, it's just a bad look.

Why?

Is he some kind of union buster sent here to create miracles?

Is he licensed in the state?

Is he here pro hoc vis-a-is he in House Council?

Can he practice law in the state of Nevada legally?

I don't know.

I know disrespect.

But it's not needed.

These guys' job is hard enough.

200 what?

What was it?

200 plus thousand?

We're gonna spend how much to fight it?

No, it doesn't make sense.

Let's do the right thing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rich.

My name's Dave Price.

I'm a resident of a mesquite, been here 32 years, know most of you pretty well.

Uh it's it's amazing to me that we're even talking about this because our police police department does everything they can to keep us safe.

Uh I was a business owner here for 24 years, never had any problems because they took good care of the city.

And I think the city owes them a lot of a lot of respect.

So I would think that you would do the best you can to solve this, especially within the city.

It doesn't seem like that big a deal.

If everybody else got a raise, police department ought to get a raise.

So I think you need to really think about that and make a big make a good decision.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dave.

John Rosen, citizen of Mesquite.

Um, I am not sure why the fact finders' findings was not included as an attachment to the agenda.

Um, I myself was able to find them.

I have read all 26 pages.

Uh I think the is the characterization of the report that was just given a few minutes ago, uh, I would agree is accurate.

That is to say, it was not a one-sided finding.

It was a fairly detailed, fairly balanced set of findings, more for the MPAOA than for the city, but certainly not 100%.

It was done item by item.

Now, I have in my past career worked as the chairman of ethics committees, which come up with similar types of uh disputes.

And I've recognized when a report is one that is careful, thoughtful, balanced, and fair.

And that is the impression that I got from this particular report myself.

So I have not heard any uh any opportun or had any opportunity to have someone explain to me why it might not be that way.

But from right now, what I have determined, I would say it would be my recommendation that you accept the findings.

Thank you, John.

Dominic Olivetto, citizen of Mesquite.

I hope nobody's watching this that I used to have to negotiate with the UMWA over because they'll shoot me.

Uh we need to take care of our police department.

We hold them to a much higher standard than we do our regular citizens.

And you know, if I'm only getting 3.8 on my uh Social Security this year, and they get 15%, they're gonna take care of better, take care of me because we'll get better quality people because you get what you pay for.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dominic.

Mayor, City Council.

My name is Rylan Longman.

This is super out of my comfort zone, but um, I've been a mesquite resident for just over two years.

My husband has been a police officer here in our city for about five years.

When our family decided to leave Las Vegas, where my husband was previously working for Metro, we were very intentional about where we would go.

We were looking for a place to raise our children, a community that values safety, connection, and the people who serve it.

Mesquite stood out because of its reputation for supporting its police department.

That mattered deeply to us, and it's a big reason we chose to build our life here.

And I want to be clear, our experience living here has been positive.

We love mesquite.

We want to stay here.

I never ever thought I would move here or want to stay here, but we do.

It's becoming harder to feel confident in that decision as this contact contract process continues to drag on.

These officers have been working without a new contract since July of last year.

They've gone through negotiations, mediation, and a full fact-finding process.

That independent review, after looking at both sides, found in favor of a wage increase for the police officers.

Even after that, there still hasn't been meaningful movement for forward as a resident and as the spouse of an officer.

I'm asking you to really consider what message this sends.

These men and women show up every single day, regardless of opinion and regardless of risk.

They handle situations most of us will never see, and much of what they do never makes headlines, but it matters.

It keeps this community safe, and they continue to show up for this city.

They are not asking for anything unreasonable.

They're asking to be paid fairly at a level that aligns with comparable departments for the work they are already doing every single day.

Choosing arbitration will cost more time, more money, and continue to delay resolution when there is already a fact-based recommendation.

This isn't about conflict, it's about resolution.

It's about honoring a fair process and supporting the people who serve this community every day.

Our city is the safest city in Nevada, and it wouldn't be possible without the men and women who serve and protect it every day.

My family chose mesquite because we believed in this city.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Rylan.

Hello, my name is Jackie Bolkley, and first of all, I want to say that I am the proud grandma of canine rogue, who helped pull pull that hundred pounds of meth off the streets a couple of weeks ago.

Go rogue.

I think it's fair to say that mesquite police officers are the lowest paid officers in in all of Clark County by a significant margin.

It's hard to believe that these officers are so are not paid well enough when they make such a pivotal factor in making mesquite the safest city in Nevada.

Their pay isn't just about fairness, but it's about the citizens' safety as well as the officer's safety.

I think it's comforting to know that when someone is in a medical emergency and calls 911, mesquite firefighters, paramedics, and emts will be on the scene almost immediately to help treat that person.

However, if someone breaks into a home late at night, there are commonly only three or four officers on staff to respond.

Um that's that is concerning for the victims as well as for the officers.

Pay would not only allow mesquite police department to hire and retain good officers, that would provide peace of mind to the to the minds of the citizens to know that in desperate times that help is on the way.

It would also provide the police officers with the manpower to help handle dangerous situations that they may encounter.

I just totally want you to know that I totally support the Mesquite Police Department and the officers that diligently serve this community, and I hope that the officers will receive a pair rate of a fair pay raise that they so totally deserve.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jackie.

It's been a while since I've been up here.

I really don't like to come up here, but uh but I look concerned with like all the residents.

I think that you're you're hearing life, so I think that's going on.

My question to all of you sitting here is if we have a deficit, we can't get to that 7.6, but there's already been other departments in the city that have received that raise.

Why is it that we want to balance our budget on the back of one department?

That just doesn't make sense.

That the police officers would be the ones that you would target to make up the deficit instead of targeting all of the departments.

That's only fair.

And that's the way it should be.

So I don't know who made the decision to get the outside council to do those things.

Uh this department's been through a lot the last couple of years.

And they're good at what they do.

They're professional what they do.

And they need to be compensated fairly.

Just like one of the one guy said when he first came here, we were pretty comparable with Metro in those things.

I worked for the Clark County School District for 35 years.

When I came here, we were one of the top 10 pain school districts in the nation.

When I retired in 2019, we were 48.

And I don't want to see our police officers go through that.

To continue to go backwards and backwards, so we can't compete.

We can't get good competent people here.

Uh that we can't be competitive with those around us.

So I would just ask you to consider that and do what's right for a police officers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Claire.

Okay, seeing no one else come forward.

I'm going to turn it back over to council.

Very quickly.

Retired here to Mesquite.

The crime statistics, the the level, the low level of crime in Mesquite was one of the reasons we investigated this city to um to retire to, and the feeling of safety, is a big reason why we've stayed and want you to consider the tremendous value that our police department provides to us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Liz DeForest.

Um last week I saw the pay scale.

15% doesn't surprise me at all.

I would not risk my life for the kind of money our police officers are making.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, seeing no one else come forward, I'm gonna go ahead and turn it back over to council.

We have a motion.

Okay.

Um item dies for lack of motion.

Um mayor's comments and reports.

Um mayor's comments and reports.

Um just remind everybody that we have mesquite days coming up.

If you want your mesquite days t shirt, it's ten dollars at the rec center.

And family fund night tomorrow, and then the activities throughout the week.

Any uh comments from council okay.

Any comments from staff?

Okay.

Um item 5.1, introduction of bill number B26-002, development code amendment case number DCA-26-001, deep roots harvest, amending Mosquite Municipal Code sections 2-14-5 to expand hours of operation.

Simon, thank you, Mayor.

Uh give me a second.

Here we go.

So um we had a discussion last time, it was introduction.

Today is a consideration of the adoption of the bill.

Um is about the deep loots.

Uh currently MMC 214-5 limits our hours of operation uh between 8 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

And uh there was a question from the Deep Roots if they can expand that hours to the 11 p.m.

So Step.

I had a discussion with the police chief.

Police chip uh the indicated that uh there are no immediate uh public safety concerns.

Uh so uh deep roots applied, and then the city council introduced the bill number B26-002 by shoot title at the April 14th City Council meeting at this and uh set the public hearing date for today.

So uh Las Vegas, Culac County, uh North Las Vegas Vegas or permits a 24 hour operations.

Henderson allows until midnight.

Uh Boulder Cities only limited their time uh from 10 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

So uh based on lack of identified public safety concerns, regional consistency and the more uh modest nature of the request, the proposed amendment to extend the hours of operation to 11 p.m.

is reasonable and supportable.

And uh I recommend the city council without the bill as ordinance number B 2602.

Thank you.

Thank you, Simon.

Uh any questions from council.

All right, any public comment on item six point or five point one.

Okay, seeing none, councilwoman fielding.

Thank you for clarifying that, Simon.

Um that's funny.

Um I'll go ahead and make a motion to um um introduce bill number B 26002.

Okay, do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, call for the vote.

Yes.

Item 6.1, consideration of amended tentative map case number TM-26-001.

Santero say phase four sub-8 to approve the subdivision of 14.49 acres of land into 46 residential lots located at APN 001-05-315-006 in the single family zones within Anthem at Musquite PUD.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council.

This is a comparatively easy case because the party applied last year, November 18, 2025, and they applied at the time 25.49 acres uh with this uh 75 single family residential lots, and it got approved.

Uh but uh they reduced a lot this time uh into the 14.49 acre, about 11 acre less, and then uh proposing 46 single family uh units.

Uh so it is a lesser impact, and uh um that there is uh nothing uh bad about it uh here.

Uh the blue boundary line, blue dotted line was the applied last year and approved, and then they modified into the red uh boundary lines, and they applying uh this time.

Uh this is the tentative map, they applied.

And then key facts is uh within the anthem at Musquit PUD and uh they are applying 46 units, and that was approved on November 18, 2025.

Uh the subdivision is non-AG restricted, not uh non-gated, uh common interest community, or proposed a lot conform to the city's zoning requirements.

So uh step recommends that the city council approved the tentative map, uh TM dash 26-01, Santero pays uh phase four, sub eight, subject to the agency's recommendations and standard conditions.

Thank you.

Any questions from council?

Okay, with that, I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing.

Okay, seeing no one come forward, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Councilman Wanless.

I'd like to make a motion to amend 10 tentative map case number TM2601.

Do I have a second?

Councilwoman Fielding?

I'll second.

Okay, call for the vote.

Sorry.

Okay, motion passes.

With that, we've move on to our final public comment period.

Hi, Mayor and Council.

Uh my name is Kathy Lee, and I'm a resident as well as the owner of View On Magazine.

I have been so proud for the last several years to be able to put an article in my magazine that calls this the safest town in Nevada.

I'm hoping with everybody's decisions and everybody's everything that's going on, that we can continue that.

Because our police department is amazing, and we all have to realize that.

And I'm very embarrassed that not one of you up there, one of you really acknowledged that after they got done speaking and before you took your vote.

Not one of you.

And I'm frankly appalled.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kat.

Quiet Oliver Citizen Musquite and a member of the MPOA.

Um, I have a lot of stuff that I've been thinking about with this whole negotiation we're going on.

However, I don't think it's entirely the council's fault.

You guys are getting bad information.

You you're getting information from a lawyer from uh 1500 miles away.

He's telling you that you guys can't talk to your constituents.

Um he's telling you guys that you can't release the public the fact finders report to the public.

I don't know if you guys have even seen it.

It I don't I don't follow you guys entirely.

However, you are complicit with the bad information you're getting.

You're getting bad information from a lawyer who they Henderson paid him 300,000.

You understand that they paid him 300,000 for the same thing we're going through.

And our raises we're asking for is less than that.

It's just appalling that you guys are willing to spend, like uh Andrew Riegenbaum said, up to hundred thousand over a hundred thousand dollars for legal fees.

Yet he's the lawyer's not gonna mention um how much he's getting paid.

He's not gonna mention the fact that everybody else in the city got their increases, all the city administration and city uh department heads got the 7.65%.

He's not gonna mention the amount of PERS impact that has in the city for them.

He's not gonna mention any of that because it doesn't sound good for them.

It doesn't sound good for the city.

Uh and in an election year, for heaven's sakes.

You guys all claim to be on pro-law enforcement on pro-public safety.

Really?

I don't believe that.

I don't believe that for a second.

It's an election year, and you guys actually speak way louder than anything else.

It's it's unbelievable.

Um it's not we have a major problem recruiting.

We absolutely do, and it's been going on for years, and it's getting worse and worse.

And if you guys want to continue to be able to do your public your uh social media posts and say, I live in the safest city.

Thanks for the police department.

They're so great.

If you want to be able to continue to do that, then it's time to accept the negotiation contract.

If you want to be we are the safest city because of the officers, not because of the administration, not because of the chief or whatever the no matter despite whatever chief tells you, it's not because of the chief.

Yes, administration employs policy to allow us to do our jobs, but the day in, day out officers, the stuff they do, that's what makes the city the safest city.

That that's the bottom line.

And you guys are not willing to to uh show us our value, and that's despicable.

Thank you, Wyatt.

Okay, seeing no one else come forward, this meeting is adjourned.