Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the City of Mesquite special meeting for short term rentals.

Um it is 502, and we're gonna get started Tuesday, May 5th, 2026.

Um, we're gonna start with our opening public comment.

So this public comment period is dedicated to things that are not on the agenda.

So if you have something that does not involve short term rentals that you would like to talk about, please come forward.

Okay, seeing none, we will start on item number two.

Um my first question is is we saw the presentations last week.

Um do we need to do presentations again?

Um Justin Simon, how are you guys feeling about that?

Um probably yes, because uh we got a new audience here, and uh I actually uh expanded a little bit on my presentation.

So yeah, so it can actually uh read better.

Uh I try to make uh people understand it easy.

So uh there was some misunderstanding when I said when I made the presentation, so I want to clarify too.

Okay.

Um do you want to go first or Justin?

Do you want to go first?

Just leave.

All right, Jessel.

Okay.

Hello, okay.

Can everybody hear me okay?

All right, so my presentation is just going over what the committee recommended.

Um, we go through it section by section and we break down any changes that were made.

So Title Two, Chapter 13, Section 1 is the title of the chapter.

There was no changes.

And title two, or I'm sorry, section two is the purpose of the chapter.

The committee did decide to add F and G to the end of that section, and it would read as F.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish a clear, objective, and enforceable authorization program for vacation home rentals, parentheses, short term rentals, to protect 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.

Section G says it is the intent of the city that 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.

Okay.

Section three is an applicability.

There were no changes.

Under definitions, section four, we did add the committee decided to add hosting platform, which is defined as a person who for a fee or other charge provides an internet website and 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 room or unit within a residential unit for the purposes of transient lodging.

That is language that comes directly from AB 363.

Changed operator to licensed operator.

Definition remains the same still.

And then amend the vacation home rental license definition to remove language that conflicts with other areas of our code.

And the amended definition reads vacation home rental license, 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.

Under section five, vacation home rental requirements, there were no changes.

Section six is distancing.

The committee felt it was best to leave this decision to council.

So it is reserved for your review and final decision.

Section seven is agency.

It was renumbered for the distancing reservation.

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

Zoning compliance.

Section nine application for a vacation home rental license was renumbered, obviously.

And then any mention of local contact was changed to qualified local operator.

In section B, there is language added 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.

The committee felt that was important to make sure that whoever's being listed on that application is aware that they are on it as the local the qualified local operator.

Section L was amended to require a valid certificate of occupancy from the city's building department.

And section M was re inserted to add the language originally moved from L.

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

Continued language was removed from the end of the section, requiring the city that to that we provide a copy of the application to the general improvement district and the homeowners association.

Section 10 application renewal fees, it was renumbered, but no other changes.

11 room tax imposed.

Section was renumbered, no changes.

12 is the standard license condition and additional conditions.

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

We have language in there now that's excludes language under 12, and they topped it at 16 total that would include children.

So the amended language reads maximum occupancy.

The owner must, by written agreement, limit occupancy of the vacation rental home to a maximum of 16 persons, including guests, based on the chart below.

And there were some renumbering in what was allowed for a number of bedrooms.

So zero to studio is four guests, one bedroom is four guests, two bedrooms move from six to eight guests, three bedrooms move from eight to ten, four bedrooms move from ten to twelve guests, and five plus move from twelve to sixteen.

You'll also see there in that chart overnight is struck out.

This is to intended to limit all guests.

So daytime visitors, overnight guests, anybody at the rental, that is how many you can have there, period.

Um let's see.

Regarding parking, the word overnight was eliminated again with the same intent of limiting how many vehicles can be there, period, no matter who's visiting to kind of help down on those, help those issues.

Under section seven, letter E regarding trash pickups.

Currently, there is language in there that is has to be put out by 6 p.m.

the night before and brought back in by you know a certain time the next day.

I think it's 6 a.m.

We removed that just to say you can put out the night before, needs to be brought in the day the services are rendered.

Section 11 currently requires a landline.

The committee voted to eliminate that.

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

Section 13 is the qualified local operator.

So this was renumbered accordingly, and it was renamed from local contact person.

Any mention of the local contact person was rewritten to read qualified local operator.

And we did remove language in the first paragraph to be rewritten into the new section A.

Section A, it was inserted to list duties of the qualified local operator, and they are as follows.

The qualified local operator shall be available 24 hours a day, answer calls in a timely manner, have complaints addressed and or resolved within 60 minutes, exercise given authority to immediately cure violations, and maintain response and incident logs and provide them to the city upon request.

Section B was relabeled accordingly for section A and same for section C.

The neighborhood information notice.

This is a new section that was added, uh, section 14.

So the neighborhood information notice, what this does is it requires the operators to provide notice to their neighbors of several different things.

So in this it reads section A, prior to the issue of initial issuance of a license, the operator shall provide a written notice to all residential properties within 100 feet.

Notice shall be sent once the certificates certificate of occupancy is obtained from the building department and shall include the address of the vacation home rental, the 24-hour contact information for the qualified local operator, the complaint procedure options, the suggestion for minor issues is that they contact the qualified local operator first, and if the qualified local operator does not address or resolve them within 60 minutes, then they would call the police non-emergency line.

For other issues, they would call them PD right away.

Section 4 says neighborhood notice is for information only and does not create a vote or approval right.

Violation of penalties is section 15, it was renumbered.

There was some languages in there that reference other portions of the code that were also renumbered, so we adjusted that language.

Local contact person was changed to local qualified operator.

I'm sorry, qualified local operator.

And under section B regarding penalties, the code currently reads the fine is not to exceed.

And again, language that reference other sections in the code that were changed was amended to reflect that as well.

Section 17, permits and fees not exclusive.

The section was renumbered accordingly, but no other changes were made.

18, same thing.

Penalty section was renumbered, but no channel, no pen, no other changes were made.

And 20.

It was renumbered, and many mention of local contact was changed to qualified local operator.

And do you have any questions for me?

Any questions from council?

Okay.

Nope.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks, Jessel.

Mr.

Kim.

Thank you, Mayor, and City Council.

Okay.

First, I'm gonna talk about qualification.

It's out of order, but uh I I got uh a few emails that reminds me that uh I'm liable, personally liable and professionally liable.

And I understand that, and uh I have never actually thought avoiding my responsibilities.

My responsibility here is as a step to provide uh research and then provide information to the city council.

And I understand that city council has a liberty of uh follow my recommendation or not.

There are other uh reasons to uh consider uh the up there.

So um my qualification is I have a PhD uh with a thesis uh on urban planning and design, and I have an MBA and I have a Master of Business Master of Landscape Architecture, and I'm certified planner in the United States.

I'm a professional landscape architect licensed to practice in in Nevada.

I am a GIS professional, I'm a profess uh project management professional by PMI.

I'm a certain uh certified uh flood floodplain manager, I'm a certified parks and recreation professional.

I'm a senior professional in human resources.

So when you go to go to the court, they mostly ask about my qualification.

I I've served as a professional witness uh several times, and I defended the city and county uh a bunch of times, 100%.

So I know my responsibility, I know what I'm doing, so you don't need to remind me.

Uh so that that's what I'm at here.

Now I'm gonna talk about home occupation because we cannot avoid home occupation uh while we are talking about it.

The definition is any commercial activity carried out for gain and conducted from a residence or structure located in a residential district.

So it allows commercial activities in residential area through the home occupation.

Um performance standards, uh there are three standards that is outstanding.

First one is must be clearly incidental and subordinate to it.

It's useful residential purposes, and must occupy no more than 25% of floor area of the residents.

No more than one person shall be engaged in activities of the home occupation and receiving patrons, students, and other business uh related in individuals uh at the home occupation location may only do so between the hours of 8 a.m.

and 8 p.m.

So I'm gonna talk about what is the residential uses of home occupation and commercial uses of uh the work from office uh cases.

Somebody uh work at home and occupy uh 25 percent, and uh nobody out there knows about it.

Uh but the when it grows and this per this person's uh work standard does not meet the performance standards, then they need to just move out to the commercial area and work uh from office, and there will be more people, and and uh that'll be based on commercial area.

It is the difference is from uh short-term rental and uh home occupation.

So when we compare with uh uh those standards, uh clearly incident and subordinate to uh useful residential purposes and the short-term residential is no.

Probably maybe at most.

And uh no more than 25%, actually it uses 100%, and there will be more activities, and uh there'll be no time frame that uh prohibits their activities.

And there will be more activities, and there'll be no time frame that prohibits their activities.

So it is definitely different from home occupation, and it is commercial.

Focus is short-term residential rentals focused on renting the physical property.

Home occupations are focused on services provided by the occupants.

So occupants can be moved out, but the home itself cannot move, cannot be moved out.

So short-term residential rental welcomes frequent high traffic, but home occupation is uh prohibited high customer client traffic.

Um zoning, uh the short-term residential rental often requires special conditional use permit while home occupations are uh generally permitted.

So let's get back to the short-term residential rental.

Is it residential or commercial?

Long time ago, when owner occupied the home uh short-term rental was activated, nobody knew.

Owners just reached out to some people, and they came home and they just stayed at night and uh had a breakfast and left the uh house.

So it is a residential and maybe a commercial, but nowadays it became the vacation rental units.

Uh people advertise it through Airbnb and BRBO and they utilize management company.

I understand that I misspelled there, so uh commercial.

Um so basically, owner occupied short-term rental shall be allowed.

Uh but uh if higher intensity uh transient lodging uses are to be allowed in residential zone, they shall be under stricter control.

It is different, it is not the residential uses.

So we're gonna have to talk about zoning fairness or private property rights.

So this is the uh single family subdivision look like.

And uh there may be some people living in it, real tours may be uh occupy their one of the uh bedrooms and they changed it into the office and they work uh they worked in there.

But now their business is doing it really well, they they want to expand it.

If we don't do anything, what's gonna see is like this.

So the subdivision, residential subdivision can be changed into the uh the commercial uh area.

Like so, short-term rental vacation can change the uh the areas, uh residential areas characteristics too.

Uh there are only six people out there, and the people may think that if they go into the house that that nobody will know, uh but thing is at nighttime.

This uh visitors uh come to uh this short-term residential rental locations because the some people mentioned that uh the community is quiet, and there'll be no people bothering them.

They can meet uh their relatives, their friends really uh in a quiet uh the environment and they can enjoy their time.

But in reverse, they are actually creating bad time to the neighbors.

So that is the problem.

So I looked into the US census and I found that for the entire United States persons per household uh since 2020 uh to 2024, it was a 2.53, about three people.

And uh for the city of Musket, uh it was 2.19, it's about three people.

But on the other hand, the short-term residential rental offers bad for 8 to 16 persons.

So there are a lot of differences right there.

And I asked the American uh community survey to provide some more information.

They provide me the information like this.

So uh according to my analysis, about 98.5 uh percent of households uh only have one through six uh uh people in it.

So uh more than six people, uh maybe more than seven people are actually uh the more than what uh general uh household size uh says.

So is owner occupied short-term rental is a uh can be a home occupation?

Yes, maybe.

Uh and uh it actually uh can be within the 98.55% of household uh numbers.

So uh and the owner can maintain and manage it.

So it's gotta be actually allowed as a home occupation.

Uh so that's gotta be just fair.

And the similar uh the practices have done in the New Orleans City Planning Commission, they allows home owner-occupied uh units, uh, the short-term residential rental cases as an accessory permit.

So they just allow it.

And if there is no homeowners, and uh they allows it as a temporary permit, and if it is permanent commercial, they allow it as a permanent commercial, and that needs to be located in the uh commercial area.

So this is one example.

However, I've got to say short-term rental residential rentals are not problematic because they are rentals.

They are problematic because intensity turnover and externalized impact.

So we need to control those.

When we look into the zoning, uh those short-term residential rentals and are allowed throughout everywhere in residential and non-residential areas.

In the residential areas, they named the short-term residential rental because it is residential.

And if it is commercial, uh commercial lodging and they call it hotel resorts and maybe mixed uses kind of thing.

So when you compare one side by side, it's almost similar.

Uh, just there are some limit limitations in the parking at the short-term residential rental and the services are minimum and self-service and all those.

But uh when you look at the look at the commercial lodging side, and you you know why uh it can be justified there uh as a permitted use and on at the same time.

When you look at the short-term residential rental side, you see why they are actually they should be controlled within the residential area because it is not simply residential.

So this is Simon's recommendation, not the steps recommendation.

So this is uh ideal concept.

Uh ideal concept would be first allow owner-occupied traditional short-term residential rental for up to seven occupants, including the owner in a house classified as a home occupation as and not subject to spacing requirements, and it's just fair.

Now the ideally we need to prohibit commercial short-term residential rentals in all residential zoning districts.

Commercial uses are not permitted within residential zones.

However, the AB 363, which everybody's uh complaining about actually allows uh this short-term residential rental within the residential zone.

So if commercial like intensity is allowed, it requires additional regulation to ensure compatibility with the residential zoning.

So let's talk about the commercial space spacing issues.

Uh this is to allow commercial operations in the residential area.

This is not to prohibit commercial uh the those short-term residential rentals within the residential area.

So it justified to prevent a particular commercial business from uh from clustering into uh certain, in this case, residential area.

And 660 feet would be the uh the walkable distance, it's a small block area.

Uh 1320 feet is uh another walkable distance, but the it's uh scale of neighborhood separation.

So uh spacing controls clustering and no commer commercial expect expansion.

So this is about managing intensity and compatibility within residential neighborhood.

It is not to uh prohibit short-term residential rental within the residential area.

So uh I recommend 660 feet spacing.

Some said that spacing requirements have been struck down by the courts, uh, is a misleading.

Uh legal outcomes affect specific and not that simple.

So if you don't uh understand the exact facts of the situation, you cannot tell that.

Low suits are common, but uh file challenge does not mean the regulation is invalid.

Uh in many cases, courts have not rejected spacing as a tool.

They have rejected poorly structured regulation that lack supporting findings, but I already provide you a lot of supporting findings here.

The key distinction is between incidental lower intensity use and higher intensity commercial scale lodging activity within residential areas.

When short-term residential rentals are permitted, spacing is a reasonable and commonly used tool uh to prevent commercial clustering and protect neighborhood character.

Some wrote the handmade map previously and showed this 660 feet and the 2500 feet uh the buffer areas, and that says it effectively uh prohibit short-term residential rental operations because it doesn't need any of the spaces, but there are a lot of spaces, and we will have more uh residential areas in the uh vacant uh land areas out there, but and also we are not talking about 20 uh 2500 feet uh the spacing here.

We are talking about 660 feet uh spacing only, and you see a lot of uh areas that you can have uh short-term residential rentals in there.

This short-term residential rental spacing issues have been uh recommended by the residents.

I don't ironically, those people who don't like this is a short-term residential operators or owners.

Uh so uh owners want to have more and more, and that's the point we need to regulate this so that uh uh people have their uh pieces in their uh communities.

Another thing I need to talk about is uh MMC 2-13-2 purpose of character.

We don't change our intent uh in the ordinances uh by inserting these languages here, especially support tourism and economic activity.

If we get city get sued, then they can be utili used as uh a weapon of the short-term residential rental owner's side.

Uh so I strongly recommend uh to remove FNG proposed by the short-term residential rental committee.

Uh we are here to protect the residents.

And another thing is MMC 213-13.

The qualified local uh local operators shall have uh complaints addressed and or resolved uh within 60 minutes.

Uh the current word wording allows acknowledgement without resolution, so it is really hard to enforce uh in the future.

So a step uh I recommend to remove addressed and/or from the uh state.

Uh city can be reached out within 15 minutes anywhere.

Um and uh the problem is if uh at two o'clock in the morning uh the police get the complaint from the residents, uh it's got to be solved within an hour.

When residents complained about it, they didn't actually uh the pick the phone uh phone and complained at the time they actually stayed the night for starting from their uh the night time, 10 o'clock maybe, and they couldn't sleep, and they had to listen to it until 2 o'clock and call the police.

Police came, it may be the time they they just got tired and get into uh get into the house back, so uh there are there may be no issues by that time.

But so there are a lot of things we need to work with uh to uh for the public, and uh we need to make sure that uh everything needs to be uh resolved within 60 minutes.

So in conclusion, I disagree with the three items in the short-term residential rental committee's findings.

Actually, uh I disagree with the two items, and one was uh deferred to the city council's decision, uh, which was a spacing issues.

But otherwise, I agree with the uh I agree with them and do not oppose it overall.

My recommendations are to protect neighborhood quality of life, prevent over uh concentration and commercial encroachment uh to the residential area, maintain fairness across land uses, and provide clear enforceable standards.

Thank you.

Thank you, Simon.

Um, any questions from council councilman one?

Not sure if these are questions or comments when a home use for short-term rental.

It is being used for residential use.

And if as the committee recommended, we stop people from coming over and having parties, and no more than that amount of people can be there.

And no more than that amount of people can be there.

If we just take care of those things, short-term rentals are important for the city, and it's for tourism and sports for sure.

My biggest issue is with private property rights.

But the person right next to me has home, they could be identical.

Everything in the same community.

And the city or the HOA or whoever told one of them, yeah, go ahead and do this.

This is fine.

You can make money off of it, or or you can do whatever it is.

And then I, as the neighbor, think, wow, that's a good idea.

Maybe I'll try it too.

And I go and ask for the same thing, and they say no, because you're lost.

And I know that exact thing is in the courts right now with that 660 foot spacing.

I think the committee, the committee did a commendable job.

And I I thanked you last time.

I'll thank you again tonight.

I know you guys put a lot of hours into it, and I truly appreciate that.

And I think what you came up with was awesome.

And right now, if I had my druthers, I'd go almost with you, Simon.

But the one place I wouldn't is I would put on hold the spacing until it gets out of the courts.

And that was brought to our attention last week by Rick McIntyre.

That this is in the courts, and and he said he truly feels that it's going to lose.

As somebody who has studied homeowner rights, and what you can and you can't do, if we do that, would be on the wrong end of that court case and would have to take it all back.

But in the meantime, the city would be sued because my neighbors doing something, then you're telling me I can't, and that's unconstitutional.

I don't know if they'd win.

I don't know if they wouldn't.

But I truly believe the best thing to do right now is to listen to all these fine people speak.

And I know I'm going to approve what the committee recommended, but I'm going to put on hold the distancing until it gets out of the courts.

We know if it's even legal or not.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Wandless.

Councilman Nennis.

I agree to a point.

Um the only thing that I might ask this the uh committee to change would be the uh notification to the neighbors instead of just one house down because that's about a hundred foot, maybe go down two or three houses, let them know what's going on, give them the contact information and all that stuff.

Um I the distancing thing is gonna be in the courts for a long time.

I can guarantee you that.

And if we wait until we get, and we if we wait until I get out of the courts, we're gonna be doing a disjustice.

And I know there's gonna be a lot of not a lot, there's gonna be people out there that's gonna disagree with me, and I'm gonna hear about it.

That's okay.

I got big shoulders.

Um like council one uh councilman wonless said, I've gotten several whole bunch of emails, and mine are a little bit, they were about 50-50, but the ones who were somewhat against it, they did say, and thank you for if they're in here, uh, that um they they were in favor of STRs, short-term rentals as long as we the city did our due diligence in enforcing the rules.

And I said this last time, ladies and gentlemen.

My whole idea or my whole thing when I when we started doing this was to do just that and start enforcing the rules because there's so many bad apples out there that's ruined for the ones who weren't, and I don't think that's fair to them.

And so um I wish we had the ability to have three or four more core and code enforcement officers, but as talks over the past weeks have gone, we don't.

But um, you know, but we do need to step up and enforce those, enforce those codes.

And I know we have we have um uh folks out here that run these companies and they do a fantastic job.

Thank you so much for that and making it all look good.

Um another thing I think that we should maybe do is and I agree with uh I agree with the committee's recommendations, but you know, if somebody's gonna at 10 o'clock at night, me personally, I'm not gonna go knock on the door and say, please be quiet.

I'm gonna I'm gonna pick up the phone and bug the chief over there and say, or not him personally, but the the non-emergency number and say, send somebody out here.

This is ridiculous.

And I will I mean I do do that.

I'm I'm one of the fortunes where my HOA does not allow them, but I know the one HOA right above me does, and I've heard them, but that 10 o'clock at night or so they calm down.

But anyway, so my recommendation of piggybacking on what councilman wonless said.

Um I would not get rid of F and G or change it, uh leave it the same.

And um, I would I would vote to have an odd dissidents distancing on the uh on the on the on the recommendations.

Thank you, councilman.

Councilwoman Fielding.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I said this last week, and I'll say it again.

I totally agree with F and G.

Um, and that's first thing I said after Justin gave her presentation last week is I liked it.

I liked F and G.

And then we get Simon's recommendation, and he recommends removing them.

And I do like FNG.

Um I am agree and with both these councilmen that with everything going through the courts right now.

I I don't feel warm and fuzzy about um the distancing right now until we know exactly what's going on.

Um, and I agree with Mr.

Wanless, um, private property rights.

I don't like infringing on um property rights for the homeowners and telling them what to do.

I do agree that permitting and enforcing um somehow, some way, some shape, and this is where this is going, can be done.

We're only limited to one code enforcement officer, but then again, um she fell won't get a personal call from me.

I will call 911 if in the event um something happens and it needs to be taken care of.

And I think that this has really put a lot of people on notice that short-term rentals um need to be taken care of, and the neighborhoods, as Simon said, you know, the livelihood of the neighborhoods, um, they need to still be able to live in their house um without the pain of uh you know noisy neighbors.

So I mean, I think that this committee has done a fabulous job, all of you.

Thank you for doing this, and thank you for bringing this back.

But if it were me, I would not enforce the distancing right now.

Um, and then do keep F and G in there.

And I agree with um Councilman Ennis that a hundred feet is from my door to your door, that it could be three houses down and across.

I mean, however, you want to do that, but I think it needs to be within that area, not just a hundred feet.

So that's my thoughts.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilwoman.

And um, I want to apologize.

Councilwoman Gallo, are you there?

Yeah, yes, I'm here.

I want to apologize to you.

I should have announced that in the beginning.

Councilwoman Gallo is here over the phone.

She's been a little sick.

So but she is here.

Um thank you.

Councilman Wanless.

I didn't bring up the spacing or the spacing of who's notified.

But I would take it out to the 1320 feet.

If you're within a quarter of a mile there, let them know that they're gonna have a short-term rental.

660 feet is an eighth of a mile.

That is a block.

You were right and all that, but let's let's go just outside of that and go a quarter of a mile.

Just so everyone in the in the immediate area knows there will be a short-term rental.

Thank you, councilman.

Any other questions or comments from council?

Okay, seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and open it up for public comment.

Amy Gardner, J and Amy's mesquite getaways, and I was a member of the committee.

Thank you for appointing me to that.

Um it was a great experience and a huge learning curve for me.

I did not expect to have to sit up there and follow strict rules.

So would it be possible to get um 12 up where it talked about the uh amount of occupants that are allowed?

I was I volunteered to I sent you each an email on this, but I know you probably didn't see it with all of them that came in.

I was not on the subcommittee.

Um I kind of yielded to let somebody else be on that that was was wanting it more than me.

And they made a recommendation that after years and years of operating two three bedroom homes, I could see that the limit was too high.

So in a two-bedroom home, we had where two bedroom condo, that's what we have personally.

You have a master, you have a guest room, they each sleep two, and then we have a sofa bed in the living room.

I don't know where those other two are gonna sleep, but I do know that for a two-bedroom condo, eight is too many from what what I've experienced in running these.

Um, and likewise, a seven-bedroom home that has two people per bedroom and maybe uh three or four rooms that could have, you know, a sleeper sofa.

We've capped them at 16, but if they had seven bedrooms and three living areas where kids could throw down their um, you know, we have trifolds or whatever, they could actually sleep 21 probably pretty comfortably.

So, what I would suggest to go to what the council had before that I think was recommended by possibly Premier because they helped establish this, and they also I think probably acknowledged that just a simple two per bedroom, two per living area is easy and it and it it's doable.

The other thing, if you have a four-bedroom home that sleeps 12, that could be six couples, and that means six cars.

So that that is an issue in my mind as well.

That I would like to take it back and uh not cap it, but have it just be a simple formula per bedroom and per um, it might be more work for Jess Lynn.

Um, and the other thing I wanted to mention was that um we as a committee we really felt like after we were presented information from both Adam, the mayor and Karen or sorry, Miss Flores.

That we just needed to wait.

We we have till the um US census is taken in 2030.

Please don't rush this.

Please don't put our economy and our um you know the possibility of housing as many people that need to stay here.

Don't throw that away until we have enough time to really know what's going on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Amy.

Dominic Oliveto, a mesquite resident.

Excuse me, I've been talking too much today.

By the way, mayor, your cousin told me I had to be nice to you today.

I appreciate that.

Uh I could give you my whole speech again, but obviously it's not up to much.

I have come to the conclusion from all of this that you can make 85,000 rules, all the rules you want.

Heck, we can't even enforce the rules we got now.

A prime example is you call the uh police department, and nothing against them.

They got more important things to do than worry about noise complaints.

I'm hoping they're keeping people from shooting each other is a little bit more important.

But noise complaint was turned in against my house.

My neighbor to the back who doesn't like me because she's my sister-in-law, but besides that, complained that my dogs barked all night while we were at the marine ball.

The ironic thing about that, my dogs were locked in the house, it was my neighbor's dogs.

Guess when the officer had a chance to come around the next day at noon.

Those guys are busy.

You can't put on any more code enforcement officers.

Thank you.

Thanks Sonic.

Mayor and Council members, my name is Becky Peterson.

I'm a resident here for the last three years.

I came from a community that I thought I was going to have a wonderful neighborhood.

I had the short-term rentals across the street from me in the cul de sac and right next to me.

I've been there.

I experienced it.

It's not fun.

For me, one of the big words that made me want to come here to Mesquite was the word community.

Community to me is knowing your neighbors, feeling safe with your neighbors, allowing your children to go out and play and not worry about where they are, two houses down the street, six houses down the street.

Community to me means I know that person next door to me, and if I darn it, I forgot to go to the store, I need a cup of sugar.

I can go get that cup of sugar.

Community to me is gatherings in the neighborhood, enjoying each other and knowing each other, trusting each other, feeling safe.

When I was in those that residence that we had the two short-term rentals, I did not have that.

For the people that have been here for the last 20 plus years, they bought into a single family residence community.

That has been taken away from them slowly.

We need to give them some consideration, all of us some consideration.

That's what's so important about mesquite.

The word community.

Bring it in.

But we need the zoning for that kind of stuff to take place.

I resent the fact that somebody says, Well, you should have bought an A HOA.

I know a lot of the HOAs that don't allow it, but they're still there.

Please focus on the community.

Give the people the consideration that they deserve that have been here and that are now being overtaken by these short-term rentals.

Thank you.

Thank you, Becky.

Thank you, Mayor and Council people.

I am Loretta Corp and I live at 170 Quail Run.

I am sandwiched by short-term rentals on each side of me.

Please don't just give it up for a while until the courts decide that could put somebody across the street and behind me.

These neighbors, when when we saw that one picture of the pool and the lights, that's me.

That's what's next door to me.

Every weekend that they choose to come.

They're not here as residents.

They're here to have to vacation.

And who wouldn't?

It's a beautiful place to vacation.

But at my expense, I feel what about me?

Who cares about my ownership?

I hope the city does.

I hope you do.

And I hope the fact that you do, you would don't put it off.

Put it off for what?

And tell new people maybe voted in, and then we can try it again with a new group.

I don't know.

But I don't like the idea of just saying, well, just wait it out.

It's not fun.

I think I know that people have rights to rent and do things they want, but then let them zone be a zoned area for that.

Why don't we have a zone area that says you can rent your home and do what you want in it?

If you had 16 people, that's 32 people in my little area.

And they come and they bring trailers because they have bikes, they have toys, and they park those.

And how about my safety?

I am going to be 90 in July, and I hope to be a hundred, so I hope to be in that house for another 10 years.

And I don't want to move.

I don't want homeowner association, like you told me last time.

I want to stay where I am.

I've been there since 2003, been in this valley since 99, because I love it, like other people do, because it is a community, as she was saying.

And communities make the city.

We make the city.

And I love my neighbors.

I don't know who these people are.

Last weekend, they had fun, they had the lights over the pool, they have TV outside.

They were from Utah, so they watched the jet, watched the uh hockey game.

I'm glad they lost.

But I don't hate the people.

I know why they come.

And I know why they love the pool.

These people are set up.

Both of these are out of state people who bought property as a as an income property, not residential.

That's not what they're using them for.

So protect us.

That's why we keep up here talking.

We want you to listen, not just to those who are using their home for income.

I know it's fair and it's it's happening, but please consider the neighbors.

Don't put anybody behind me or across the street.

I can live with the two, but that would, I don't know.

I wouldn't, I wouldn't like it.

And I love my neighbors, and I love mesquite.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Loretta.

Mayor and council person, Michelle West.

I've been a resident of here for over 25 years.

And I've come before you before you know my feelings on this situation.

I just wonder how many people in this room have actually read the regulations that are put upon short-term rentals.

A lot has been said about noise and nobody deserves to live next to noise, agreed.

Whether you own your home or you're renting your home, or you live next to a short-term rental, you don't deserve noise.

The difference between a short-term rental and a long-term rental next to you is the problem can be easily remedied.

As a matter of fact, not cars are not regulated if your neighbors want to park on the street.

However, if your neighbor's a short-term rental rental, they are regulated.

I don't think most people realize that these are going to be your best neighbors.

There was a comment said earlier about mesquite and making the best decision for mesquite.

I would echo that.

We are a destination town.

We need these short-term rentals to bring in the dollars for those sports groups, for the golf, for other things.

We've already established that this is needed.

We need these.

Thank you, Michelle.

Nickelphins had a mesquite, mayor counsel.

Um I don't mind people coming and visiting mesquite.

I really don't.

I don't mind a short-term rental sitting next to me.

What I mind is the noise that I cannot enjoy my own yard.

I would ask any of you the same thing.

If you weren't able to go out and enjoy your backyard on a good cool night, whatever it might be, not playing music, just looking at the stars, having a good conversation, maybe a glass of wine, who knows, just enjoying it and not listening to all the racket from people that have nothing to do with this town but to come in and celebrate for some reason, and it starts on a Wednesday, and it typically ends Sunday afternoon.

Now, if you can put up with that, congratulations.

And that's typically when we get into a swim contest next door during the day.

And that's not fair listening to all that racket.

I say you could put any number you want on that group.

You can put anything you want as far as how many people.

But when the noise gets loud enough, I ask you, can you live next door to that?

When you bought a home and invested into the city is a wanted citizen, and yet you can't enjoy your yard.

The other day, street, the sidewalk was blocked.

There's two people to come down with walkers.

I wound up calling.

That's a federal law.

American Disability Act.

Can't block the sidewalk.

People walking out in the street because they can't get past the truck and trailers, like they said with the ATVs and other things, motorcycles, whatever.

I just say have some consideration.

We stopped going to Vegas for the same reason because people were just getting rowdy.

And it was no more fun being there.

And now we got the same thing in our yard.

And I say it isn't fair.

And I ask you as voted people coming here that have been voted in to represent the people of Mesquite.

Take care of business.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nick.

Mr.

Mayor, City Council, John Rosen.

It is my opinion that this becomes such a hard problem for all of us to deal with, because respectfully, I think we're trying to solve the wrong problem.

Short-term rentals do have a very legitimate role in a healthy community that's looking to grow and provide economic development for everyone.

Homeownership, private residential homeownership, has a very valid place in a healthy community.

The problem is not that short-term rentals are good or bad.

It is not that short-term rentals are too close to each other or not.

It is certainly not a property rights issue.

Let me just address that last one.

Property rights.

Property rights are not universal.

Everyone knows in any healthy community that certain uses of property are legal, certain uses of property are not.

All we had to do is take one of these private homes and have it owned by a mechanic who gets fired and decide he wants to move his mechanics job to his garage.

And now we certainly clearly can understand that would not be acceptable in any neighborhood if suddenly someone turned their home into a commercial garage.

Similarly, and this is closer to the point, no one would be happy if suddenly somebody turned their home into a holiday and express.

Everyone would understand that is not what was intended, and it's not part of a good planned community.

We separate properties by use, and we do it for good reason and with good tools.

And I think this is a part of what Simon was trying to describe in his presentation about what makes a property a home versus what makes a property a business.

Some incidental businesses are allowed in homes.

Some people can cut people's hair or other non-impactful businesses during the day, and they get business licenses or conditional use permits and do that.

But it is my belief that without purpose, without intent, we created a situation where we now have businesses and residential properties intermixed in an unplanned manner.

It would be my proposal that in fact we do restrict short-term rentals to those zones which allow commercial lodging properties, or those zones for which HOAs have specifically allowed them to exist.

But I think to continue to allow the intermixing of businesses with residences will ultimately lead to problems because there will be some compliance issues.

There may be a lot of people who do comply, but there will be compliance issues.

So that would be my recommendation for consideration.

Distancing doesn't solve the problem, but separation does.

Thank you, John.

Thank you for giving me a minute to speak.

Some of this is going to be a little repetitive from what some of the other speakers have already said, but I had to repair my notes ahead of time.

I'm not here to tell you not to adopt the recommendation made by the subcommittee, but I am saying that it was incomplete, and they deliberately left a part of that out.

They left out distancing.

And they didn't leave it out because it was not an issue.

They left it out because I think probably wisely so they didn't want to deal with it, and they returned it back to you to deal with it.

In one of the subcommittee meetings that I attended, um, I had made the statement that distancing was the elephant in the room.

And a few moments later in that same meeting, the chairman of that committee repeated that, acknowledging, I believe, his agreement with that.

That's on video if you want to go back to see it.

Um I also made a note here at the last city council meeting.

Uh, Miss Gleadon was up here defending their the STRs and so on.

And at the end of her statement, she I will quote her, she said, I don't think distancing is something you should consider because it'll wipe out the industry.

She called it an industry, rightfully so.

That's what it is.

It's an industry.

And that's at one hour and 34 minutes into the video if you want to check it out.

Um, STRs are an industry, they're nothing more than a privately owned hotel and a residential neighborhood.

That's what they boil down to.

You can call it anything, you'll sort of try to paint it different colors, but that's what they are.

Um, and that is the point, and that is the point that I feel like is being overlooked.

Um during a previous council meeting, and actually uh Mr.

Walnuts uh commented to this just a few minutes ago, that one citizen got up and said, Well, if I tell somebody you can do this with your property, how can I tell the next person they can't?

And I would counter that with what do you tell people like myself who purchased a home over two decades ago, and I feel like I've had the rug pulled out from under me.

I didn't, I wasn't aware of any changes, I didn't get anything in the mail, I didn't get any notices, and now these short-term rentals are becoming pretty prevalent in our neighborhoods.

So, what about the people who've been here for decades?

What about our property rights?

And what about the pretense that we purchased our homes and the expectations we had over 20 years ago.

Uh, with that being said, we've talked a lot.

I the committees that came up a lot of times, uh, people making the comment that we are not Las Vegas, and I agree.

And I think at some point um, with this SB 363 coming around the hill to us that you know we should start a dialogue with people in the state and and some of our other uh governmental leaders and leadership and try to approach this thing before it happens.

But I don't want to see tourism and profit taking over the presidents of our the precedence of our citizens' peace and enjoyment of our homes.

Um if it's deemed wise to wait for lawsuits to be settled, then I think it's just as fair to maintain the moratorium so that the playing ground stays level until this does get resolved if we're gonna wait for those lawsuits.

Um that's way government works.

That is your last thought.

I would like to, yes, thank you, because the last speaker did get a couple more moments, but I would like to say government actually usually works best when there's compromise.

And I'm not asking or looking for STRs to go away.

I just don't want to see them proliferating our neighborhoods so thick and all over the place.

And I do have one more thing I'd like to say, Mr.

Mayor, and I did say it at one of the subcommittee meetings.

And Simon had brought it up, and I'm aware of, and I have a copy of it.

The letter was published, I think, on the city minutes, where an organization from Las Vegas sent a letter.

Basically, I think a letter intended to intimidate not only the employees, but also you folks.

Also, you council members were mentioned that letter.

And I, for one, as a citizen, want to express my disgust with that tactic.

And I don't appreciate it at all, and that's no way for somebody else to interject themselves into our city and introduce themselves into our arguments by threatening our employees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor Whipple and members of the council.

My name is Rick McIntyre.

Uh, I had the honor of chairing the committee that we talked were talking about, and I was so proud of the committee members.

You did a such a good job of creating a balanced uh committee of people that were on both sides of this issue that did so good in debating the issues and coming up with compromises and all those things you've heard about.

The comments you've made yourselves are so right on.

Matter of fact, I I don't think I can, there's very little I can uh argue with about what everybody said here.

That's the difficulty is that it's kind of like everybody's right, and it's just hard, but I think we just have to rely a little bit on some legal statutes and some things that'll help guide us.

Um I want to remind you that uh Simon's argument uh is a is good as good as the Simon's argument is he is arguing the same thing that the state and the counties are arguing.

They're trying to turn these into being businesses.

And at every turn, the injunctions that have come out of this have said, nope, we're not letting you do that.

And it and it and it has very much to do with the question that I've often asked.

Um it's a fairness issue, and it just simply says, as you said, uh Councilman Wanlis.

Um, if you have the legal right to do something with your home, should your neighbor have that same legal right?

And it's very difficult to say, nope, they shouldn't.

And and the vast majority of people I talk to, if not all of them, come to the conclusion, of course they should.

And with that in mind, I feel like that's where the courts are going to go with this.

It's in the Ninth Circuit.

I think it'll end up all the way to Supreme Court at some point in time, and they'll decide this.

And when they do, I feel like the decision will come down on the side of not allowing distancing because of that very answer to that question.

Um the committee used a lot of solid reasoning uh in everything they did.

If you had wanted this ordinance to be decided by the staff, you would have asked the staff to do it.

You didn't do that.

You asked a committee of people to do that.

And a committee of people got together for a hundred and some odd hours, 150 hours of time and effort.

Uh we kicked this around for a long time, and we came to you with a what I think is a solid recommendation.

And despite what Simon's telling you and his objections to it, I think that the committee's uh recommendations are excellent, and I think you should adopt those.

Um the one thing that I that I do think you should pay attention to in terms of uh staff recommendations is your city attorney.

Um of the smartest attorneys I've ever known, and reasonable and bright guy, and he gave recommendations to us as well.

Um, when it comes to the legal issues, I think you should listen to your city attorney and take up his recommendations and comments.

Uh, I think it's appropriate to do that.

And uh I'm I'm hoping that Adam will weigh in on this just a little bit and offer some advice to the council if he will if you'll ask him.

And so I would encourage you to ask him.

And the bottom line is uh we recommend, or I certainly recommend at least that uh we be prudent here and wait until the courts have resolved this before we decide about distancing.

Everything else I would hope you would adopt.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Rick.

Hi, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Natalie Hafen, and I was one of the members of the committee.

And yes, um, we did present you with with what we thought was probably the best.

A lot of times we didn't agree, and the one thing was the distancing, and that's why it was left open ended.

Uh so the distancing, as I started looking at now, nobody wants to go with distancing, so then we need to get down to legalities of it, and it is zoning.

And yes, um, as it's been said, it's like, is it fair to say what this to one person, not the other person?

Well, that first person shouldn't have been granted that because that was not the proper zoning.

That's why you have the zoning.

And I have a few minutes and a lot to say, so I'm gonna go fast.

I hope it sinks in.

Um, so you have to remember that the um argument many homeowners and planning professionals make is that STRs blur the uh there's a blurry line, a grain line between residential use and commercial lodging use.

Uh traditional family-sized residential zoning was zoned for long-term habitation, stable neighborhoods, and non-transient occupancy.

And I think that's what we get down to is I don't I have neighbors that are allowed, I have neighbors this and that.

Those are my neighbors.

It's the transient traffic.

You don't, these um the transient occupancy, the lodges are not vetted.

You can have anybody in those houses next to you.

You don't know them.

At least on long-term rentals, they are vetted, they have credit reports ran and background checks, and they're part of the community, and they're part of our working force.

We're looking at zoning.

Um legal question becomes um when does renting a home stop being a residential use and become a commercial use?

Let's see.

We have um the uses uh the let's see, I've got to just I'm trying to hurry now, I'm messing up.

So STRs function like many hotels inside your neighborhoods.

Um we have long-term or other workforce, and what you're getting right now is just a cluster of houses, cluster of of these um homes, right in all one area, because that's all you can do.

I I've been here since 1988.

We built our home, we rented, we moved into it in 1993.

That's what it was.

It wasn't hotel condo, mini condos, and now you're allowing that.

Where are my rights?

You're looking at all these people, investors that have to have businesses and they're transits, they're mini condos, they're hotels next to you.

You have to look at zoning.

That's why they have the commercial.

You have the different types of zonings, and we need to go for remember that um we're trying to get to preserve preservation of residential character.

These are what a lot of the legal challenges have been claims that STRs are commercial uses, due process and notice issues, zoning consistency, nuisance impacts, property rights, equal protection, and constitutional take is of claims.

Now, you're talking about lawsuits, and you're gonna wait and wait for them.

There's lawsuits on both sides, homeowners and single family residents.

There have been lawsuits on that.

It's a very fine gray line, and go both ways.

But if you're not gonna do distancing, you need to look at zoning.

The zoning is there.

So I bought a single family.

It didn't, it's not a mini-condo hotel, and that's what these are.

And they shouldn't, the first person that, like Paul said, that that person should have been granted it.

They need because it once you do something, you kind of opened up a book of worms.

And so that's what's going on.

I think you need to get down, look at the zoning and stick to the zoning.

And let me hurry.

There's um, I just got so much to say, and no time left.

But thanks, and remember, it's about zoning.

Forget the distancing, get rid of the short terms altogether.

None of us hated it.

None of us are against them.

But if you don't want to distance, then you don't need to start paying attention to your zoning laws.

Thank you, Natalie.

Hi, council and um city council, or how hior and council.

Sorry about that.

Um, first, I wanted to start out by thanking Dr.

Kim, first of all, because I think he really helped us get through.

I was on the committee and he kind of came in and started to help us get some guidance going for us because we really didn't know your expectations.

And I don't, I think while we do did do a good job.

I don't think that we did the job that we needed to do in order for you guys to make a decision.

I think that there's a lot more work that needs to go into this.

There are departments in the city that need to be involved.

I know some of the um members on the council mentioned that they talked to the police department, the fire department, different different um departments throughout the city.

The committee was just a starting point.

I don't feel like it was anywhere near what needs to happen.

The professionals, the attorney, city manager, all of those people now I feel like need to get together and really give you guys some guidance.

I know ultimately it's your decision, but unless you you have had a chance to look at AB 363 and understand what's coming.

I mean, and if you haven't done that, then I don't really feel like you have done your research in order to make a decision.

So a moratorium and continuing this moratorium is probably like what I would recommend.

And if you think, you know, if the committee, I don't really have the time.

I wish I had more time to spend um on the committee, but I don't have the time that needs to go into this.

What about some of these other um cities that allow STRs, they require an evacuation plan in the house, buyer extinguishers in every bedroom.

You have 16 people, you issued them a conditional use permit.

The city said they can operate as a business, or if you don't want to call it that, but you have people coming and going, and it surely meets the definition.

Now what?

There's a fire, they didn't know how to get out of their house.

Like, what's next?

I also asked city attorney a question.

Um, and I can find his response and send that all to you.

And it was about the distancing and regarding legal, like if that if we could uphold and if we were to be sued as the city could using AB 363, 660 feet be something the city could use in a you know to protect themselves.

And his I don't I don't want to misquote him, but the way that I took it was that could potentially be something that we we could use.

And um, so I just think there's a lot that needs to go into this.

I think more time needs to be spent on this, get more departments involved to make sure that you were making the best decision, and for and also last but not least, listening to the people that live next to the STRs.

The people that aren't living next to the STRs and the investors, they're not complaining, but the people that are up here are the ones that actually are affected by them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vanessa.

City Council Mayor David Giebink, Mesquite, Nevada.

So I'm gonna start off with a little story.

My mom is the one that's gonna be 90, and she has an STR on both sides.

You've heard me come up and talk about this.

Mayor and I talked to you at the fire department about six or seven months ago.

Something so interesting.

About a month ago, I find out that one isn't even legal through the city.

It's never been legal.

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

They obviously they haven't paid you guys any taxes.

You know, so how do we know about what's really going on if we can't take care of this?

You guys have heard it.

Hey, there's two SDRs.

My mom still thinks it's still legal because they're still there.

You see what I mean?

We have a problem.

So, you know, what I would like to see, and I don't know if this is possible, but could we come to a compromise between both sides?

You know, premier, obviously, we don't want to fight premier, they're way too powerful.

And they do a great job.

And Amy and her crew, these these guys do a good job.

Let them do their thing.

Their zone for I don't know if they're a zone for it, but their HOA lets them.

I say let them continue.

And let's let's encourage communities like let's encourage uh developers to come and start doing areas like they have in St.

George where they are have these STRs.

But how about the non-HOA areas?

Could we do distancing there?

Could we find a happy spot where we could go this way and go this way?

I don't know if that's a legal thing, but to me that would really resolve a lot of problems if we could just take care of the non-HOA, because that is the bulk of the problem.

If that's something you guys could consider legal, I don't know, but that would sort of make I think both sides would be somewhat happy.

That'd be my recommendation.

Thanks, David.

Honorable mayor, council, thank you for your time.

Uh first I want to Oh, let's get your name for the record.

Oh, I'm sorry, Clark Strong uh on Santa Fe Drive.

Uh I first am very impressed with Mr.

Kim's resume, and I honestly think his recommendation, what he gave is listening to the citizens that have been here, in my case, over 20 years.

I've been here since I believe it was October.

As I said, I live on Santa Fe Drive.

The first time I came to the city council, we had 950 Santa Fe Drive up for a cup.

Is that the word cup?

That was posted.

It was the first posting I've seen for a short-term rental.

So I knew about it before.

All the neighbors came down.

We all rallied, we all gave our opinions.

The motion was denied for the short-term rental, and then from what I understand, there was mention of a lawsuit.

So it was brought back the next council meeting and passed.

On Santa Fe Drive, there are 10 houses that go, maybe uh I don't know how long the street is, and then there's cul de sacs behind and on the sides.

Of those 10 houses on that main street, we have five within a thousand feet of short-term rentals.

So the damage, most of it's already done in my neighborhood.

So why am I here?

Because I didn't, I heard a lady must have been three, four years ago come to the city council.

She had a problem with a short-term rental, and I thought, oh, what problems can there be?

But after living around these and having problems with, especially with one behind me, calling the police, being awakened from 10, 2 in the morning.

It's it's not fun.

And you talk about property rights, and I don't want to stop people from making money and doing short-term rentals, but I want to stop having row after row, house after house, and me, the only person living in the neighborhood that's not a short-term rental.

As far as this going to a lawsuit in Vegas or waiting for that to be resolved and not put any restrictions, you're giving a free pass to load up the neighborhoods for the next five years or whenever this census comes out.

You're you're getting free reign with no limitations.

Think what that will do to the neighborhoods.

I don't blame the investors for wanting to buy and enrich themselves, but they're not enriching the neighborhoods with these short-term rentals.

Thank you.

Thanks, Clark.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

I'm Janet Hanson.

I live in Boulder Heights and I am an HOA member.

We started uh with the short-term rental committee prior to the city doing it.

We're now waiting for the city to come to a conclusion or make some steps that we can enforce.

I fully believe that if the short-term rentals have a property manager that can be contacted by the neighbors when the tenants are not being neighborly, then having some type of a value set on that, if they're called more than once or twice, then it's gonna help resolve those issues.

And it would be helpful for HOAs to have, well, we've already worked from the city codes, so to have it in the city codes would be helpful for the HOAs.

But I'm hearing that a lot of non-HOA areas are being impacted.

But as long as those short-term rentals have a property manager and that information gets out to the neighbors as to who to call, that would be very helpful.

And I would appreciate you can work this to death, honestly.

So I'd like to see you make a decision.

Thanks, Janet.

Anyone else?

Sure.

My name is Sherry Hollenbach.

And I just want to thank you guys from the deepest part of my heart because after I got to serve on the board, and after serving on the board for those five, six uh weeks in a row, I have a deeper compassion for everything that you guys do.

And if somebody doesn't stand up for things, because I would I would never want to be in politics.

Um, but I'm glad that some you guys do because if some I was told this earlier this week, and that was if the good guys don't stand up, um, don't come up and show up every single time, then the negative will um will prevail.

I slothered that.

But here's my point I want to say is um is to back it up really quick is you guys all nominated us, and you did a brilliant job because you picked some people that hated STRs, pick some people that loved and pick some people that were neutral.

So we were not a group that was built to agree, but we were a group to build to find the truth, and so we spent a lot of time, and we had uh five special meetings just like this, plus uh additional meeting um of a subcommittee of a subcommittee meeting, and we heard every single complaint that you guys heard tonight, everything.

And we heard about the cops being called, we heard about all these huge noise complaints, we heard about all these problems.

So, our very first thing we did was we went to find the facts, and that's when we went to the police department, and to find out exactly how many calls were actually made.

And out of all the calls, there was a out of all the calls that the police department get got, what they told us on file, which by the way, they track every single short-term rental property in their database.

They said a 0.25% of all the calls that they get was from short-term rentals.

So all of a sudden, all these calls that were being um mentioned and please not responding were actually not being called in.

And of that point to five percent, I asked um what's the legitimacy of all these calls?

What's it was that I was the what are they?

And the explanation was there was laughter in there, and it was uh one explanations was one of the guys that complained was complaining about this music music, the loud bat face going on for days and days.

Well, whenever the police showed up, there the base was supposedly supposed to be there, and the guy was complaining how it was there.

Well, there was no noise, and the officer had asked the gentleman, you know, when's the last time you had this blood pressure checked?

And so it's like a lot of those what we found out was happening.

And so, what I really realized through all of our investigation of all these people come together was it was more of a lifestyle preference, really, because there was a lot of people, there was a handful of people that come to these meetings that we've seen every single time for the last five times, six times for all the same complaints, but they prefer to be living in the HOA, that's for 15 over that don't have the kids that have more quietness, but instead they're living in a non-HOA because they don't want to be controlled, but yet the irony is they're trying to control those around them.

And so that was kind of the conclusion.

I think we did a really great job.

I think we all um looked at the facts and came together and we put together what we offer to you guys.

So thank you for the opportunity, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you, Sherry.

Okay, so no seeing no one else come forward, I'm gonna turn it back over to the council, councilman oneness.

So I'm actually gonna ask legal.

My feeling is if we put another moratorium on this, and we still deny those rights to those homeowners, that we're still doing an injustice, and we we would be open to a lawsuit.

Same with distancing and everything.

I'd like to know your opinion.

So as far as the moratorium goes, there's an agenda item on our next council meeting to address that.

And so for the purposes of this meeting, uh it's not agenda is it's something that I think we should avoid talking about, if we if that's gonna be extended or not, or the legalities of that.

But obviously, what the committee has suggested, and um especially the distancing is definitely something that obviously we're discussing.

And I'll try to describe how I look at it based on um review of the the applicable case law.

And I've been I've tried to be careful, hopefully I'm being consistent.

Um, but I've tried to be careful not to say, yes, I think this footed footage is okay or not.

Um the the operative case, at least in Clark County, is this um the case by the Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association against the county.

That's really a case that we're carefully looking at.

In the opinion, it's by Judge Dew.

Um, if you look at the kind of the overall concern that the judge had, it's in the licensing and issuance of permits in Clark County.

It was done in a way where no one could basically get a permit.

And that's where she came down and said, hey, this is this is a problem.

In part of the in a portion of the opinion, she called out some different some of the regulations that are at issue.

One of them she said was, or they see she just mentioned it is a thousand-foot um uh restriction.

And then there was also a 1% cap on the amount of licenses that could be issued during a given year.

She didn't go into detail of if those particular issues are inappropriate or not, but went into further detail saying, hey, when we've got a system set up where no one can get a license, then that's really the issue.

Um as far as distancing goes, I look at it on kind of a sliding scale.

If as that scale goes up, as the distancing goes up, that can result in effectively eliminating the opportunity to have a short-term rental, which I think the courts are having issues with.

We're saying if you if you set up a system where you can't do it at all, then that's unconstitutional, at least in the case law that I've looked at.

And so I don't know where the number is on the sliding scale.

What I can say is as it goes up, there's more risk.

As it goes down, there's less risk.

And so that's for you as members of the council to say, okay, we want to do this or we don't, we want to be safe, or we're okay with certain distances.

But as it goes up, you know, I think I've mentioned in prior short-term um in some of the committee meetings that if you know if it was over a thousand feet, I might be saying, Hey, you know, that might cause more of a concern uh for me because as it goes up and over that, then that could create a situation where it's could more easily say that where you're effectively eliminating the opportunity from the city, but again, from from just a straight kind of legal risk standpoint, as that number goes down, less of risk as it goes up, there's more of a risk.

Um the other thing that I wanted to address that's come up a number of times is the issue of whether or not this is a um residential or a commercial use.

And um, interestingly, uh there's been kind of two areas in the case law where I've seen this come up, and one doesn't directly apply to us.

Um there's cases out there throughout the country where, like, say there's some C C and Rs, there's an HOA that says, hey, look, in our HOA, you can't do commercial stuff.

And someone starts doing an Airbnb, right?

And so there's a lawsuit, like, hey, is this commercial?

Is it gonna fit with our C C and Rs?

And in that context, the judges usually come down and say, Yes, this is a commercial thing that's going on.

It's it's rented out, there's a website, you know, that people log on to.

This is a commercial thing.

And so it's against the C C and Rs.

So there's that type of case law out there.

What does more directly apply to us is within the context of zoning, and the judges come that at least the case law that I reviewed, they come down the same way.

They say, Yeah, this is this is a commercial thing that's going on more than a residential thing.

But that's not the end of the story.

That then the next, you know, the next part of the opinion is okay.

It's a commercial thing going on in a residential, therefore that justifies the city in regulating it, right?

Which is exactly what we're doing here.

That's what the the subcommittee has done.

That's what they looked at.

They're saying this is how we're gonna balance it.

Here's the rules, and so the cases don't say, hey, this is commercial, therefore you cannot do this at all.

It is this is a this has a commercial feel to it, therefore you can regulate it, you can put rules in place.

And then that again, that's what comes in here, and that's what the committee's recommended.

Um overall, at least from my my review of the committee's recommendations, there wasn't anything in there that caused me heartburn as far as from a legal standpoint.

Whether it's a good idea, bad idea, you know, that's that's up to you to decide if you want as far as legally I didn't it didn't cause me concerned the dissing the distancing issue that they we've kind of set over here to this side of the room again, just uh it's a sliding scale in my opinion right now in the law, it's an indefinite spot, but as it goes up, it could create a situation where it's effectively you know banned throughout everywhere, that could be an issue as it goes down, there's less of a risk.

So does that help answer some of those questions?

No, it just makes it more confusing.

That's what we try to do.

Yeah, that's you are an attorney.

But thank you.

That that actually did help.

In one of the meetings, I did say I try to answer without answering sometimes, but I'm trying my best.

If the law was clear, I'd have a more definite.

Yeah, you're pretty good at it too.

Um every person that stood up here and talked on both sites.

I completely understand.

But until there is something definitive from the courts that say a city block is is good, or is it next door, or is it not at all?

We we don't have any idea as as a council.

I think the committee did a good job, and I'll stand right where I was when this whole thing started.

And I will tell you, I I understand what you're saying.

I understand you moved here 20 years ago.

I understand you moved to an area without HOAs, so nobody could tell you what you could and couldn't do with your properties, and then 20 years later, you're trying to tell people what they can and can do next to you.

That actually is ironic to some extent, right, wrong, or indifferent.

There are areas in the city that have HOIs now that are in that have short-term rentals that are considering taking them out.

Communities, I'm not sure about this, but I'm sure there are communities out there that could vote to make themselves an HOA.

And it doesn't mean you have to pay a hundred dollars a month.

It could be 10, it could be five, and you come up with your own rules and regulations.

And if that's possible, that's something to look at.

You don't have to have strict rules and regulations.

The HOA I live in has strict rules and regulations, and if I do something my neighbors can't, I get fined or told I can't do it.

To me, that's part of home homeownership, and I and I hope however this turns out that that people will consider their options too.

You can have control outside of this city council if if you get enough people together and just do that.

But I I stand by what I said to start in this whole conversation.

Thank you, Councilman Wallace.

Councilman Ennis.

I'm not gonna be quite that long, sorry.

Just I just have a couple of questions to you, Rick, and maybe to Jeslin.

Did you guys come up with a percent uh when you went on the neighborhood to get okay or let the neighbors know what's coming on board here?

Did you guys come up with the percent where if so many neighbors say no, then they can't come in and get a conditional use permit, or how's that working?

What's what are we doing there?

That's not really how conditional use permits work per our planning code.

So that was not something we addressed, it was outside the scope of the committee as their scope was title two chapter 13.

Oh, conditional use is our address in a different chapter of the code.

So basically, what we're doing on that on that one there was just letting the neighbors know that the STR is coming in.

Correct.

Notification on how to resolve any complaints they may have.

Okay, thank you.

Then my next one is more or less towards our city folks enforcing people.

What are we doing about the and this was my whole intention way back when?

What are we doing about the violations of the current STRs?

Are we following up on that?

Or are we because somebody already said out there that their next door neighbor they found out didn't even have a license?

What are we doing about that?

Yeah, yes, we we found them and we issue the citations.

Okay.

And so are we doing that methodically?

Are we going to each one of these grandfathered STRs and making sure they're compliant?

Or what are we doing?

I know we don't know that power, but yeah, we we know who uh to whom we issue the uh the licenses.

So uh whenever we find uh illegal, uh we go out and chase them and issue the citation.

Okay.

So do we go by word of mouth by someone who says that it's illegal?

I I guess I'm I guess what I'm asking.

What both cases um actually some somebody can uh talk to us or be somehow find it?

That's public, that's public anyway.

They can go on their site and see who has a business license in the city anyway, right?

Right.

Okay.

Then my last thing is the AB6363.

Um to be honest with you, I'm tired of hearing that one.

Um I realize that we got to pay attention to it and all this other stuff.

Uh then when 2030 comes around I'm gonna be on a freaking golf course somewhere, I'm sorry.

But when 2030 comes around, that's when we have to start worrying about AB 363.

We gotta get ready for it.

But like everybody else has said, if we wait for these lawsuits to come to fruition, whether yay or nay, we're gonna be waiting for a long time.

So I don't think it's fair to anybody that we do that.

Any other questions or comments from council?

Councilman Parrish.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, question for the attorney.

Um, the way the agenda item is written here, is this a final vote, or do we give it a preliminary vote and then do a final vote?

Um, um this is an ordinance change, so I don't know exactly how that all plays out.

Yeah, no, it's a good question and for the benefit of the public.

So this is just direction to staff on what to do in the next step.

So the next step would be introduction of a bill that would create and amend the ordinance as however it's decided.

So there'd be direction tonight saying, okay, yes, let's move forward or let's not move forward, or you know, whatever the the motion, and if it passes, then the next step would be that there'd be an inter introduction of a bill to as an ordinance to amend the code, and and then there'd be a subsequent meeting after that um with a public hearing in order to f formally adopt it.

So there's a number of steps to go.

This is just direction to staff on, you know, yes, let's accept the committee, but we're gonna add distancing or not, or we're gonna change some of the other things that have come up, you know, all of those are options.

Okay, thank you, Councilman Parrish.

Thank you, Adam.

Um in that case, we have a motion.

Uh this is Patty Gellow.

Can I make a couple of things?

Yes, go ahead, Patty.

Um, there was there's such great information um that came out tonight.

Um, I think the comment that everyone is right and everyone has rights, we have to really take that into consideration.

Um ultimately I want to thank the committee.

Um, and we have to trust the committee.

We pick them.

Um they are residents within our city, they come from different um backgrounds, whether it be uh you know neighbors of of renters of short-term rentals, uh, maybe they own them, maybe they're for them, maybe for against them.

But I really do think we need to take um what the committee has to say.

Um people do have rights, um, and ultimately, I mean, I think the city we need to wear Patty.

If you can hear we lost you, and they're trying to get you back.

I don't know.

Bills councilwoman, you think can you hear me?

Yep, you cut out about five minutes ago.

So if you want to pick back up your thought.

Nope.

Tyson, while you're getting her, I'm gonna go ahead and let's councilman in a stuck.

Oh, okay.

Councilwoman Phillian.

All right.

Sounds good.

We'll wait and see if we can get her back.

Can you hear us now, Patty?

Um, yes, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Let me uh get my notes.

I don't remember where I left off, but you were saying about the city needed to do something, but well, I I think ultimately um since this is becoming such a big topic as we move forward.

I really think we do need more code enforcers to uh to help with this topic since it it is such a big topic.

Having one person to try to take care of all this is really putting putting a lot of uh weight on um some of our employees, but I do think you know John Rosen made a great point about um ultimately we need to have um separation, so we it's kind of willy-nilly like with a lot of things, and I know that some of our committees have been working on um sorry I'm running out of breath.

Um we have uh committees that are working on setting up the city in certain areas, etc.

And I know that Simon worked uh diligently with his team on um some of the areas which were gonna be industrial, et cetera.

So I just feel like moving forward, I think we need to trust the committee on what they think.

I think AB Um 363 is not something that we need to even be discussing right now because it's the future.

What we just need to decide is how we how are we gonna move forward, um, keeping everybody happy, which is never gonna happen.

But homeowners do have rights, and um, that is my I guess my main concern is that they have they have the right, we do have the right to um maybe control it somewhat.

So I think moving forward, we have to trust the committee.

And that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilwoman.

Um councilman Ennis.

I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to uh accept the committee's recommendations with no distancing uh to move forward with this.

Okay, do I have a second?

Or you can increase the notification of neighbors.

Yes, and to increase the notification of neighbors to 300 feet versus 100 feet.

Okay.

Do we have a second?

I'll second that.

Okay, call for the vote.

And a parachute.

Okay, motion passes, and that brings us to our final public comment period.

Just briefly.

This this was a I already said this and I'll repeat it because it's it's worth repeating.

This is a great committee to work with.

And if you ever have another issue that's as thorny as this one, you ought to put that same group of people together because I thought they did a beautiful job of working together through it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rick.

Dave Newfeld, uh, Mesquite residents.

Um thank you guys for what you do.

Honestly, I came here with a two and a half page speech.

I was pretty frustrated after last meeting, feeling like what we as a committee had done was kind of disregarded.

Um and uh so I came ready to express my frustration.

Um I'm not on either side of it.

Um I get both sides, and uh, but I do just thank you guys for taking the committee seriously.

Um we put in a lot of hours.

I don't think it was 150 though.

Um I think it was about 15 hours of sitting here that we put in.

And so uh thank you for taking the committee seriously.

Um we put a lot of work into it and I appreciate that.

And thank you guys for what you do.

Thankless job.

Thanks, Dave.

And I just want to say thank you as well to every single one of you guys for uh putting your trust in the us and um helping guide us through this whole process and everybody that was on the committee with us.

I want to say thank you guys for coming together.

And um it was a great experience, so thank you.

Thank you, Cherry.

I try to shut up, Mayor Dominic Olivetto.

All these rules do not solve anything.

You should listen to what John Rosen said.

Because all you're gonna do now is you're gonna go one direction, and homeowners like me that thought they bought a house and single family residence.

And it wasn't because I didn't want an HOA.

The HOA wanted $500,000 for a garage for me to put my toys in.

That's why I live where I do.

But that was single family zoning, and I can't find anywhere where single family zoning describes an Airbnb.

I thought an A or B and B was bed and breakfast, but I could be wrong about that because I'm not that bright.

All that's gonna happen here is if you don't do something similar to what Mr.

Rosen said, is you're gonna be back with the same problem again and again and again.

And we're getting a bad habit, a bad reputation in this city for going over the same problem again and again and never really resolving it.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dominic.

Amy Gardner, uh committee member, community member.

Um, I don't know if you'll have a chance, if it's even a possibility to discuss between you before it actually goes into code that guest count.

Um I just I see some problems coming.

And um, the other thing is when you have a group of people who get together.

Um are knowledgeable in one area, some are knowledgeable in the other.

I think it's a really good, I don't know if you call it a focus group or whatever, to come and bring you guys the knowledge that they have because you can't be experts on everything.

So I really appreciate that chance.

When you do that, if you could let the committee members know what to expect.

We had no idea that it was gonna be a formal committee like that.

We were ready to sit around a table, argue.

We want this, you want that, this doesn't work, this does work, and we weren't able to, we weren't able to move easily like that.

So it was a little bit more cumbersome, I think, than it needed to be.

If if we just had that understanding of what was gonna be expected of us, thank you.

Thank you, Amy.

Natalie Hafen.

I just wanted to clarify one thing, and I don't know if Amy made that clear on the um the occupancy.

That wasn't just for the guest inside, that was the total guest, even at the pool during the day.

If you invite people over, so those we took out the overnight, and that was for the total guest while you're there all day, all night.

Whoever you invite over, that was that was that that's a limit on that.

So think about that.

Thank you, Natalie.

Okay, see no one else step forward.

This meeting is adjourned.