City Council - Regular Meeting

are you the mayor? [laughter] I said, "Yes, I am." He's like, "I thought that was you." Pissed and went on our way. So, anyway,

no, it's it's great. I I I tell you and it's it's really nice being able to go to the um you know, once a month when we do the employee appreciation for uh you know, just service and all that stuff. It's really good because you get to know the folks and they get to know you. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes that's bad, but hopefully good. Anyway, but it's it's great. So, again, for before we jump into it, thanks to all the folks that have been out and about, uh, fire and police and public works and parks helping pick up the the slack. You guys have been doing a lot of work. So, appreciate everybody that's there. No hazardous duty pay. Um, but appreciate it. All right. So, uh, good evening. Um, we're going to start off the evening with the pledge of allegiance led by uh, Mayor Prom John Holmes, the Texas pledge by Matt Bates, uh, and then invocation by Stephanie Oan. Please rise.

Please join me in the pledge. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Now the Texas pledge. I the Texas flag. I aliance to thee Texas. One state under God. One and indivisible.

Join me in prayer. Father, we just come to you tonight, Lord. Praise your name. Father, we thank you for the provisions that you've provided. Father, thank you for the team that we have here in Belton, for the protection you've given to our first responders and our community members. Father, we know that other communities throughout the state and nation have faced much harsher um results with this storm and we pray for them in their cities that they as they recover. Father, I ask that you just continue to watch over our first responders and their families as we go through a few more days and just ask for your protection. Father, I ask that you guide this discussion this evening and that may our uh that you may give us wisdom and that our commentary and our discussions glorify you. Father, we just thank you so much. In your son's name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Amen.

We'll call this uh Tuesday, January 27th meeting to order at 5:33. The first item after the call to order is public comment. Citizens who wish to address the council on any matters um not related to the agenda and matters that we actually can do something about may come to the podium and state their piece. If there are no public comments, we'll close that and we'll go to the consent agenda. Consent agenda are items 3 through six. And these items can be enacted by a single motion. If someone on the council wishes to remove these items and discuss them separately, we will do so. Uh for the record, I will read them in and then if someone wishes to remove them or make a motion to accept, we'll entertain it that at the end of number six. So item three is is adopting the minutes of the January 13th city council meeting. Item four is authorizing the city manager to execute a contract for tourism marketing services. Item five is uh adopting resolutions authorizing submitt of grant applications to the office of the governor criminal justice division for the following a rifle resistant body armor and be a general victim assistance grant victim of victims of crime act fiscal year 2027. Item six is amendments to the building life safety grant program. Those are the items. Any comments, questions? Uh wish to remove or make motion?

I move we approve the consent agenda items. Second. We have a motion, a second to adopt items three through six. Uh any other comments or questions? All in favor say I. I. Those opposed? Passesly. Item seven, hold regarding the annexation of the rights of way of the following item. A Wheat Road from Sparta South, Sparta Road South to the city limits in the vicinity of Digby Drive surveying surveyed at 25.02 acres and B Sparta Road from Wheat Road east to the city limits at Dun Canyon surveyed at 4.92 acres. Mr. Vanill,

thank you. project uh here. Our goal annex the rightway of Sparta Road and Wheat Road. The way you described it, it it amounts to about 20 acres in total. Uh from Dun's Canyon down to Weed as we go down Sparta and then as we go down weed, it goes from uh from Sparta on down to near Digby Drive to the northern city limits down by I-14. Our our goal tonight is to conduct a public hearing as required by state law when we annex rightway and the um the ordinance that would um annex the rideway is scheduled for the 24th of this month. We have to separate those two items. So, mayor, I'll step back and head it back over to you.

Thank you, Bob. Uh since this is a public hearing and not action, uh we will uh close the deliberations and open the floor if anyone wishes to speak in favor in opposition to uh this annexation of the rights of way on Wheat Road. They may do so at this time. There no being no public comments, we will close uh that and reconvene. Uh any comments or questions? I know this is just a public hearing, but do you all have anything to ask before we take action at the next meeting?

All we talk about this morning, just put on record is this is not anybody's yard or house or just straight up the streets for future planning purposes. So, anybody that watches or reads or listens later, we're not we're not doing anything to your taxable value. So, and thank you to the Yeah. Yeah. We definitely want to appreciate our appreciation of the county. And so again to Daniel's point um it's bounded we we gave the end points but the width is from property line to property line. So this is the existing county right of way that is now transferred to the city. Correct. Okay. Correct. Exactly. So again no taxable value. It's just changing owners from the county to the city.

All right. There being no action we will u proceed to item eight. Receive a report and provide direction for future revisions to short-term rentals. Um Mr. Rogers. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Good evening. Good evening. Let me get out my trusty John Madden pen for you tonight. [clears throat]

We're here tonight to kind of give you uh give council an update on our short-term rental um ordinance and you've heard some discussion. On March 14th of 2023, city council adopted ordinance 2023-10 to regulate um short-term rentals within the city. You may recall that we had another meeting on September 24 of 2024, which was the 18th month, the 18 months later when this when the original ordinance um needed a sunset review. Um so we talked about that time. We talked about it again August 12th of 2025. Um so you've heard some discussions about um this short-term rental ordinance for a while now, but some things have changed since then um that I'd like to tell you about. U mainly since our previous discussions, we have implemented new software. We purchased uh software from a company called Granicus LLC. Um, this is the same company that the county uses for short-term rental compliance and monitoring. Um, we're going to talk about that a little bit. Um, I'd like to tell you about the actual true number of short-term rentals that that we have in our community. And then there are systems that we seek direction from council on. Um, separation is a big topic. um the collection and enforcement of hotel occupancy taxes as well as an owner occupied designation that's in our current ordinance. So, Granicus LLC again um this software I'm going to give you a peak of uh it is kind of comprised of two different parts. There's there's a a user portal that someone who has a short-term rental can use that to go in and and uh to register or apply for a permit and to make payments. And then there's then

there's a host compliance uh module which is what we see to um to monitor our short-term rentals. So, first let me let me show you a little bit about the user side. Again, this is this is what somebody who wants to apply for a permit um this is where they would go. Just to let you know that all of this software is actually live now, but we have not pushed out these addresses and things um out into the community because we're kind of pending this discussion tonight. Uh you'll see. So, someone who wants to to apply for a permit would go to go to a website here. again they would they would they can either register uh there click that button to do that or if they already have a permit they would click that link existing one um to move forward when somebody goes then and and wants to apply for a permit we're going to ask for certain details from that from that particular person one we want to know about them we want to know about the property they would kind of select a location I just you pick what street you're on and it has a drag down to where you select actually your property. We're going to ask some property details um and and some emergency contact information from those owners and then they'll move forward. It'll go then to planning. Planning will review the process, review that particular application. If there's a need for additional documentation and stuff, they can send that communication to the owner. And all of this happens electronically which is which is a nice way of doing things instead of so much paper. This portal also has uh we'll have a site or a section that they can then pay their hotel occupancy taxes. It looks something like this. They'll they'll um select a period that they want to pay.

I'm just going to circle this January 1 of 2025 to put that in your head for a future discussion that we're going to have shortly. And then they they would enter the gross receipts that they had for that month. They would enter the any exemptions if they had any um from hotel occupancy taxes. And then they would have the ability to actually pay with a credit card on all using this software. Then on our side it's called host compliance. So this is where Granicus um is benefits the city. So, all of these previous discussions we've had about short-term rental um properties, we've always said we know we have them, don't know how many we actually have or where they are. Um we it was an arduous process of going into to the various websites and you can see a general location and that kind of stuff. Um but we really couldn't nail anything down. Well, what Granicus does um very well is they scrub the internet all of those sites to kind of identify those locations that are in your city. And I'm not picking on anybody in particular here. I just wanted you to see what it looks like on our side. So, what what their software has they what they've been able to do is identify an address there at 8:16 Northville. Um, this is all from the from the listing that they have on the various rental sites. They even do a little comparison of of what it looks like. Is this really what we're talking about? I mean, is it is this truly the same address? But we have an identified address. That's the actual STR location. Then down here, it tells us who the owner is and where that owner lives. Um, the partial ID there you see comes from Bellcad. So here we've identified now that an STR

exists at a particular location which we we did not have before. One of the very uh most most beneficial things or one of the beneficial things for us is this software also captures what they call documented stays. So for each for for July of 2025, there was one documented stay at this particular STR. Um that STR is at that address right there. That website address would take you straight to this particular property. Again, I'm not picking on anybody in particular. I don't even know who this is. I'm just showing you what's in the software. But we have the ability through this software to to identify how many stays have been at this location. And that helps us when when we need to start um I would start to have some expectation of getting a hotely tax from this particular owner for this particular property because they've had documented stays. So, what did we find out of this stuff?

Is Yes, sir. So, you showed an address and an owner and the stay documented in the website. Is there anything that says like it's listed at $72 a night or $150,000 a week or is there anything that ties it to a financial? I I can dig into that and sort of get to that. Okay. So, but you have access to to understand what's what total rentals would have been for a period of time. I would say I can't get super specific. I can give it one of these because yes, I can actually book one of these and it'll tell me what the rate would be. Okay. So, you can but they don't they don't go pull that data for you. I I think I can get it through I suspect

like an average. It's an average. We stayed in Fredericksburg in a short-term rental. It changes based on the season, etc. But yeah, what I've seen them I was just kind of curious like for that one documented stay in July, was that a $10 stay or $500 stay? What I think they can provide in the software is average listing, not necessarily maybe what they finally paid, but it would be for this unit. Your average listing price is and Mike, a stay doesn't necessarily mean a day. A stay may be a week. That's also true. I believe that's so that's another component of that.

Yeah, this is not getting us it's still the obligation of the right owner to report accurately. Um what I do have the ability to do in our ordinance um through STR ordinance as well as the hotel occupancy tax ordinance is to audit their figures if I suspected that it was way wrong. Um not saying I would do that. I'm just saying we have the ability by law to do that. Um, so yes, so there there is some this just assists us when we um to to identify. That's kind of what this whole thing's trying to do. But here's what we found, guys. We said we didn't know how many we had. Well, when I looked at this, it was 52 that we have in town. Um, we've got about 19 actually registered uh with permits. Um, but we have we have 52 actual uh rental units that Granicus has identified. As you can see,

52 rental units that we now know the addresses for that we can invite to a meeting or something. Yes, ma'am. Um, you can see there's there's a concentration of that. Bless you. Supposed to

go ahead. You go again. Um you can see this is our actual map from the software. Um so you can see there's a concentration kind of in the center uh parts of town. Large concentration of these units. Um you can just see those squares scattered out throughout second to 15th and kind of get a feel for that um where those STRs are. And so we have 52 of them, but the vast majority of those are not compliant um with our our current current ordinance. Again, we the process is they're supposed to register getting a permit for those locations and only about 29% of those again that's that 18 out of 52 or so um are doing that. Even less than that are are paying taxes. So um even those a few of those that are registered um have not actually remitted taxes. Let me show you some examples and this is purely for example purposes of separation issues. Um our current ordinance as it stands today requires a 500 foot separation for nonowner occupied short-term rentals properties. So, what I want to show you is those blue squares you see there is is an actual short-term rental that's an active listing. You can see this the circles there and how that overlaps other short-term rental properties. That's one example. Here's a second example of not meeting that 500 foot separation. Here's another example. Um, one thing I do want to point out while I'm looking at just this particular one, again, I don't know streets. I'm just showing you pictures of circles. Um, but I'm going to put a red circle there because that one is someone who has a valid registration,

but you can see there's other short-term rentals who have not been permitted that are within that particular guy's 500 foot circle. So, just I'm just showing you that. [clears throat] So, that's our kind of our separation on the 500 foot side. So, what I've told you is I got a bunch of squares and a bunch of those squares are not registered or not compliant with our current ordinance. So, we're where we are kind of is um we need some direction. Staff needs some direction as to as to whether and how we need we can make those folks compliant with our ordinance. And that's that's kind of more of a policy decision. And that's why we haven't pushed out this software and just said, "Hey, everybody, come and register." because we needed some guidance from you guys first um before we just started pushing that out. So, here's some ideas. This is just an some some ideas for how we could do this. Um again, we currently have um this require this, let's just call it this way. You could race to city hall and whoever gets here first and has a permit and gets the permit gets the 500 ft and then anybody else that comes in after would not would not get a permit at all. um one option that we could do. Um, another option is, um, you could just grandfather all of those, which is a similar process did when we adopted the ordinance back in 2023, is everything that was here, we kind of said, "Okay, everybody here is going to got your spot." Um, but you're still required to get a to register and get a permit. And 19 18 of those did that. Um, we could do that again here.

What you would then be doing is who you have now would would wherever they are uh there's no that that whatever that circle is is not relevant to them any longer. Um and then from that point forward we could we could keep the 500 ft. Um another option honestly you could just do away with a 500 foot separation all together. Um that's the council that's kind of the the the council um policy decision. What what we were leaning to as far as a recommendation might be was going more the route of grandfathering uh the 52 or so that we have and that's as far as separation. It'd still be required to come and get a registration and do that sort of stuff and then pay taxes. Um that's kind of our first issue. We want to come through council and get get some thoughts. Our idea is what we is to take your feedback take feedback from this discussion tonight and then especially related to the 500 ft because that's in our current current ordinance. Um if you want to change that we'll bring back an ordinance revision at a future meeting. Um, but this is this is I'm seeking feedback regarding how do we make these currently non-compliant properties compliant or if you want to make those compliant. Um, the option is you could say you can't you can't operate. I mean, our current ordinance says you cannot operate if you're in that circle.

I mean, if somebody purchased that as a short-term rental, they've been in existence. Um, we haven't taught them up until now. Uh, I don't know how you can tell them that they can't have it. Uh, 500. We'd rather I'd rather have the tax revenue. Um, and grandfather those in

I agree. And having been on the the original committee, I think grandfathering those in is the right answer for for these existing. Um, I'm not opposed to revisiting the 500 feet, but I would recommend that go back to maybe our original or not original, but one of our committees where we get some feedback from because if I'm not mistaken, when we did this, we said in a year or two years, I can't Bob, I can't remember what we said, but that we would review and see how how it's going. So, that may be part of that process. I don't think we did that change and bring to us and we would do without

Yeah. or at least at least a governance subcommittee or whoever you know those types of I don't know if it has to be an STR committee or the same one or um just some eyes to Atlanta that's kind of community oriented would be we did say we'd come back goal yeah but um I I I firmly believe the grandfather when we when we were first on this committee um it was the intention that there would be software at some point yes

and we didn't know when that would happened. And I know we grandfathered those at the time, but I think that still applies now that we know exactly who they are. Um, you know, for I'm all for collecting that tax. It's not I don't I don't want to be somebody up here that says we want more taxes, but this is a you're breaking a state law at this point. So, correct. We're just using a tool that's there for us to um capture tourism and marketing revenue for those types of things. I did have a question about the software.

Um, slide 15. I noticed it's pulling a hotel as an STR. So, I was just wondering what is that just mean they're listing their hotel rooms on like Airbnb or or is do we have a hotel that's not actively paying hotel motel taxes that that Bob do you I don't remember the exact story there. I think they were I don't know the answer to your question. There was yes I think is the answer to your question. Okay. To some extent maybe a room or two or something. or they're just listing it. They may be listing it as under some of those websites.

So, Mike, have we had any complaints about from anyone about short-term rentals being too close together and a follow on? Um, I think there's a letter that you probably have received some concerns about the 500 ft. Um, I don't know if that went out. Let's see. Um, so that's that's so there's some Pearl Street there issues that also stem around owner versus non-owner occupied. Well, I think the follow on question then is should we consider if they're the same owner? Because if an owner owns two homes or two houses

non non-owner occupied next to each other and he chooses would like to make both of them short-term rentals, but they're not 500 ft apart. Now, if you extrapolate that out and he buys everything on one side of the block, but the folks on the other side of the block don't like it, then you know, I don't know how you stipulate that, but yeah, um that's that's Bob's department. He would be better at working that into some sort of ordinance, but yes, that's that is So, I think the issue was parking, traffic, in and out, trash, uh and not having those just piled up in a neighborhood. Yeah, we there's been two incidences that we know of.

Yeah, there was two incidences that we're aware of. Um and and Chief Berg can can speak about that if you'd want to hear more of the stories, but um we know of two incidences where, you know, somebody came in, rented the whole place, had a big party, tore the place to pieces, you know, that sort of stuff. Um but it's only been two out of the 52 that we have. Well, I think you're going to stop listing your properties if they get vandalized. And I think that's self-regulating. I don't think we have to get involved in that. I agree.

So, so my my first question is one that regardless of what decisions we make in all this stuff, whether they're too close together, they're paying taxes or not paying taxes, or they're tearing up property, what recourse does the city have to go in and enforce whatever those rules are? So, what's our like how do we go and do we have we give them a like a we can go through our municipal court and we would go through our municipal court for enforcement um because they're violating a city ordinance. Um this would help with like a parking ticket. I'm sorry. Like a parking ticket. Um it would

it would be I mean it's a misdemeanor offense if you if you um like failure failure to register um is a misdemeanor that would go through Yes. Okay. a parking ticket. Okay. A complaint would be filed and then it would go through municipal court and then that would be due process whatever the court system it would run through that. So this ordinance would allow us to use that as an enforcement. Yes, it does. And it kernel ordinance. Yes, it does. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Well, I just wanted to make sure that as we're discussing So, I think I think number one is I just want to make sure that we can enforce. So, now that we've got the 52, we can now send them these letters. Yes. And Okay.

Yes. So the the second one is I think that just a general observation I think whatever the box we want to put it in what whatever our ordinance in that box 500 ft not 500 ft this not that single owner multiple owners duplexes count but two houses next to each other whatever that box is I I think it's going to be wrong um I think it'll be closer to nothing but I think it'll be wrong so I think when it comes to the distance And the density, my personal opinion is it probably needs to be if it reaches a critical density, whatever that is that then we we put a moratorum in that region, whatever that region is, the street, the block, the neighborhood, uh, whatever something instead of I think this, you know, gold rush, everybody coming in to file first and they were second in line just because they got stopped at a stop. I that's just that's not a good answer, but it's the legal answer. So, I think we need to have something more intelligent than just a number that if if there's two or three places close to Mary Harden and Baylor that always get rented around football games and nobody complains and they're all in the same little culde-sac, I I don't think it's a big deal.

But if it's three at Riverplace and they're partying when you drive through and every com every person's complaining, well, then there is. So, I think our ordinance needs to be more intelligent that probably dealt with something. I don't know. I I don't know the answer, but I know that I think that to your point, I think those are all good things we need to discuss at another maybe at a deeper uh workshop type thing. Yeah. Or the committee. But for this particular item tonight, yeah, for these folks that are existing and non-compliant, they're asking if we want to grandfather them or Thank you. because or that's why I'm kind of going with the 500 ft. It's like first to obtain permit.

So I think well they're asking do we want to do that or do we want to grandfather or do we want to wipe it all out?

Current ordinance has 500 feet. So if you if we said, "Hey guys, I mean again this is just one option and that's and that's somebody needs to come get a permit." So you hit the exactly where I where what I need to know, Bob needs to know is we have two issues. One, I have to send out letters to the existing folks that we know that either says you can operate, you can't operate, or you need to come get a permit, blah blah blah blah blah. Um and so and then you have those registrations that we already have that are going to be expiring and being renewed. We've got to get a feel then for what what are we going to do with those guys or even somebody new that comes along? How are they fitting into that into this whole process? So yeah, I I'm specifically tonight asking for some ideas on on those that we know of today that are have not registered um in our system because because they need to do that unless we're going to say you can't or you you're not going to be eligible anyway. Um

I think I just can I can I ask real quick just so I know I wasn't here on council when that took place the first time. Was that a thing where you made a new policy, an effort was made to reach out to everybody, so you grandfathered them in, or were there all people out there that never got like, are there people on that map that are not paying taxes, are not registered, that were operating before your first round of grandfathering it? I could not tell you, but yes is what I suspect. Our first meeting, hardly anybody at it. We threw so many restrictions into the proposed ordinance, we had 30 STR owners show up the next meeting. that was good.

And so that that's what we needed. And so we got them there and then we basically backed off of a lot of stuff. Um so yes, they know this they know this is out there. Whether they've done it or not is really at this point they've kind of been most of them have been warned. So I mean I ask that because I in my mind I don't feel good about another round of just pure across the board grandfathering in if it's someone that should have already been that already knew. The discussion was though, we didn't know exactly who they were because I mean you saw he picked one listing and it was it was one of one we've seen that and it's owned by a corporation.

So we don't know who's who. We knew software was coming. So the original discussion at at the committee meeting was hey once we do have an identifying opportunity at that point we feel we should probably grant that was at least two of us that that were there plus the the community members. And so I feel it should be a grandfather at this point up to a certain time. You got to put a time constraint on it. It can't just be a open-ended hey your grandfather to come by whenever you want type thing. I agree because I mean at this point they're they're they're charging for a state ser well they owe us they should be charging sales tax. They should be charging hotel blood cell tax. They're not. So violating state statute at this point too. So

let me just call to the council's attention that we've distributed the letter that Dominica Gars has sent. It's in your email and if you have a chance to look at that, it might in have some impact on your decision. One of your decisions, the 500 foot one. Just wanted to make sure y'all had that in advance of the meeting. She could not make it and we wanted to be sure you saw that.

I don't want to touch the ordinance itself tonight. Just so my direction if if we're asking for seven opinions, just grandfather. I think it's easy for me to say the 19 that are registered and paying taxes if they're too close together, great-grandfather. But the ones that didn't get a permit, aren't paying taxes, that could have been there for the past 10 years that we don't know about, it's hard for me to just say they're fine. Go ahead now. You're good. It's for 18 months. We have, but my understanding, Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, we've not known where any of these folks are until this software. Not until about Yeah, we feel comfortable.

It took about a year to implement the software, but um and yes, we've known doesn't give you an address until you book a property, right? It'll show you it general location, but not it's it was challenging. We did our best to really find all that we could and I think now that we know exactly where these are now, grandfather, but no more after. And even that letter goes to the owner, not the address. No, it's where it's going to go with the owner. Yeah. What's we didn't have any of that information. Owner versus kind of going back to the thing about whatever we have in the box is set of rules and then we're going to enforce those rules. So I think number one, we have the enforcement mechanism. I think number two is our goal is compliance.

Correct. Our goal is not identifying this person or that person. It's just compliance. So I think the best way to get compliance usually is ask nicely, right? So send everybody a letter to let them know that we now know

in as nice a way as possible and that you are not um and we encourage you to become in compliance and give them the notice or whatever. I think the first one is and give them a period to say if you come in but in this period then it's the lowest penalty like no penalty or a little penalty or pay a little bit of back tag whatever the minimal is right so I think we give them that period and know um in 30 days we will be sending you a second letter and this is the escalation and if we get all the way to the other letter then that is subject you need to know that this is a misdemeanor offense and you know it's it's like they do roundups with parking tickets, right?

Fully agree with that. I'm not I'm not recommending that we grandfather in um these folks that are not registered and but it's the 500 foot requirement if I'm not mistaken. I mean, we're not going to go tell No, I don't think Bo that he needs to close now cuz he's Yeah. No, my thing is whatever grandfathering, right? Yeah, we're grandfather of it. It's I think we're grandfathering that they can do it. I think it has to do with the distance. I think it has to do with how much have they paid in taxes or not. I mean, I think it's a it's a list of things the way and I'm not disagreeing. I'm the way I'm reading it. It was separation. Grandfathering the separation requirement is what's read right there. They need to register and and pay their taxes.

Yeah. There's Yeah, there's no Yeah, without a doubt. That's grandfathering of that. Yeah. And it's and the letters really, I think, have already been written and they're in this. All we have to do is click a button. So, I just need to know who to click the button and send to. To David's point on the catching up on taxes, I I don't think it's unreasonable to say, look, if if you come in within 30 days, you will not pay penalties or interest. This is your this is your no back tax, your free ticket to catch up, okay? Whatever you owe us. And if you don't do it within 30 days, then and I don't know what kind of penalties and interest um it's we don't know 68. We can tell them we want their taxes back to, you know,

Mike had said January when I was talking to him about it of last year. And so, I mean, there's ways he can get a a roundabout estimate because he knows they've rented it. And so, at that point, it's just a dollar amount. No, you used to could be see who was registered through the state website on bed and breakfast. I don't know if this is different, but you you we used to go in and look at what they submitted to the state and then we knew what they should have be given us. Is that state took that away several sessions ago? That's unfortunate. Yeah. Transparency. Yes. Um

so you're going down towards the second question that I have um as far as enforce. Well, here we can do that now. So um and we can come back. Um, so yes, they have to register and then yes, they have to pay taxes. You, the discussion that's already been started is different than what I have here. This is my recommendation and this I'll tell you why I had that, but we certainly don't have to do that. Um, I showed you in the software where they go to pay taxes and I it started the first quarter of January of 2025 and went from there. Um, I selected that first quarter of 2025. Um, and and technically they owe all the way back to the it's not even it's even before we had adopted a short-term rental ordinance because the hotel hotel occupancy tax ordinance has been around since 1985.

And so really it all applied anyway. But because I can get a a reasonable amount of data again to those documented stays um for the most part back to to at least January of 2025 because that's as long as we've been working with Granicus, right? Um then I would use that as the when they said, "Well, I didn't no nobody rented I didn't rent this property for this entire year." Um I could go back and check to see if that's true or not. if just but if you want to go forward or have some version of this I'm perfectly fine with that. Um um that's the council policy that I'm looking for.

Try to collect 2025.

Yeah, I think you know you won't get what what you don't ask for. So I think we should ask them to make whole the taxes that are due. But I think and I'll just use if I were to rent and I had no fat clue. I had did not have a fact clue that I was supposed to be doing that and I didn't make any money on it anyway and you're now asking me to pay $1,000 in taxes. It's going to really encourage me to not be compliant and find a way around the rules. Then then I and I think our goal is to get people in compliance and registered first and then get the taxes if we can. But I and this I don't know maybe I'm getting nicer in my older age. It's like if if if we can just get everybody on the list and paying taxes from here on out, I think it's a win. What we do backwards, I think we ask what we can get for, but I don't think we push it too hard. I don't think we bring the full force of a misdemeanor because you owed us $42 in taxes.

Yeah, we didn't have a very good mechanism for their tax. You save that for a year from now when we're still saying it will now. This one now. I fully agree with that. So, make it effective on January 26. Is that what you're saying? Okay, easy enough. Grandpa, so make it effective one January 26 or a 90-day window, you know, grandfather. Well, I would ask grand I would leave it open of existing. Okay,

I would leave it open that we have record of your renting and not being registered. We wish you know and just give them the thing. And the thing is is if they come in in the 30 days, not giving them a date. I think if you they come in in the 30 days, you give them all the leniency at all. But anybody you start having to put the screws to, well, you didn't put a date in. Now you owe us for 2025 and now it's negotiation. Okay. Well, you know, you could give that up later. But I think we just need to allow you to have a couple of stages of putting the screws to them before we go to municipal work.

So we so we would leave it as as with those dates to report something um with probably no penalty and interest or penalty and interest wave or refunded or however we work. whatever nice language you can do on letter number one. Okay. With a you don't want to go to letter number two and grandfather 500 ft. Yeah. Yeah. Mike, can you go back a slide? Yeah. You're ask asking us to grandfather effectively eliminating separation requirement for existing properties. That's that's the grandfather request for this evening.

Yes, ma'am. Um and then the way the way we were the thought process was there is then just keeping the current number of 500 ft until then we revise the ordinance. The much larger discussion we can have later. Yes. Have to recommend committee. But as you said the grandfather is just for the the 52 the 500 ft right. It's not for the taxes. It's not saying correct. I just want to make sure. Well, it's it's 500 ft and we we're we're grandfathering you in to allow you to use this ordinance, right? Because you need to register. Yeah. Well, try and get those 52 in compliant utilizing the tools we discussed this evening.

Yeah. But the legal thing, Luke, that I think your P&Z mind is probably going around is we're only grandfathering that separation piece. We're there still need to register and pay taxes going and how the tools we use to get them to do that. That's what I think I'm hearing David and y'all talk through. Okay. We will still have some who don't register after we send them a letter. I agree. But then we'll send letter two, letter three, and then we can we'll have you know Well, then the research you have to do and click and see how much average rental you you only have to work on 12 of them instead of all 52.

Exactly. But that's where I would tie the grandfathering, not into a date, but it's based on we will grandfather them if they register and start paying taxes. Yeah. Without going and that's exactly the way we did it previously. I think we said we you have 90 days or 30 days or some number to come here, get register and pay taxes type of thing that and that's probably the way we would do it this way. Okay. Can you remind me what our rate hotel motel tax rate is for a short-term rental? 7% of the cost of the room. Perfect. And then uh to make that payment online, is there a credit card fee? There is. Yes, sir. What's the percentage?

Um Oh, geez, I don't remember exactly because we haven't started yet. It's It's a little less than the counties. I'm sure Granus charges that though on top of the payment. 2.5. So that's 10 and a half%. I'm sorry. To get that paid low. And they're collect They collect this from their customer. No, I'm that's fees they'll collect from their customer and they register with us through granicus. Does it help them remmit the state's portion of the county's portion? No, it does not. All entities stand alone. Um so the county the county they'd have to if they're delinquent on hours they're likely delinquent on the state and

but if we're getting them to register and do that we're we're actually asking them to pay county and all the other not just the 7% different site in a credit card fee. They only pay us in that site. It's like 20% to pay both. Okay. Yeah, that's Yeah, it's only ours. And do we share our list with the county? Um the county has the exact same list because they're using the exact same people. They're using the same grand. And do we I don't know where they are in the process.

Well, it might be good to know that we're not I don't know if they're going to get two demand letters and they're significantly different. I don't know. Just thinking,

yeah, I uh I would like to say I I think that it's worth considering getting rid of the 500 foot separation altogether. Uh I've not been a fan of it from the beginning. Um the STR ordinance was initially adopted before I was on council, but when I was not on council, I wrote a letter of opposition to the proposed ordinance. Um, I think that our ordinance is a solution that's looking for a problem. Um, I think from what I've heard, a lot of the issues that have come up are things that can be solved with code enforcement or if you have 18-year-olds drinking in a house alone, well, let's make it illegal for 18-year-olds to drink in a house alone. We already have that law.

I think there's other ways that we can enforce the problems that we're having. Um [clears throat] and over and over again we've sat in this room and had difficulty um understanding the 500 foot separation, interpreting our own 500 foot separation. Um every variance request that we've gotten we've approved and so I think uh I don't know that it does us any good. I think it just causes us headache. So if this if we're going to kick this to governance subcommittee for review or something else, I'm I'm fine with that. But um personally I I don't I think it's unnecessary.

Well, some of this started with I don't know that code enforcement uh you can cover parking occupancy and trash. Um and that was a big issue for I think residents on a state. It was a state. That's where that's fishing tournaments. And that's the only one I know of. It's the one on estate. That's where it all started. Um, but so, uh, I'm not opposed to that either. I think it just needs a probably a deeper dive, a little bit of a deeper dive. So, struggle at the get from the getgo.

Yeah, I agree. Especially because you think of, as you were saying, people coming in to a game for UMH. Well, if there are 10 houses right next to the football field, why shouldn't we let all of them rent that out on a game weekend versus just one because they're within 500 foot? Yeah. So I, you know, I can see how it needs to be individualized. So yeah. Yeah. And I think that's where it's more if if there's an air if it becomes an issue in area, I think it triggers some level of restriction. It's like, hey, there's already too many. And but I but I think, you know,

from what I've heard and to land the plane, I think I think we're all in favor of what you've recommended. I think we're all in favor of getting them registered. I think we're all in favor of grandfathering them and since though it's currently the 500 foot ordinance is in place grandfathering the 500 foot and then what we can do is review all of this stuff later at a governance subcommittee let them or another STR or whatever we whatever group let them kind of go back and look at it now but I think the goal is and you know whatever you guys need to do to ratchet up the pressure to get them in compliance without killing them. You're stopping me there. [laughter] The law for that, Mike. Oh, darn it.

There's hot taxes and I am there's no no motion input. Was that Yeah, Mayor I'll I'll be sure to tack on as you land that plane. I'll just ride there with you. We had a couple of other uh just cleanup items from mayor remember the duplexes multif family. I think that since you all want to have that 500 foot talk, let's just save that for another day. We'll land the plane and we'll kind of get on our way. Thank you generation. Thanks. All right, that is it I think on this my agenda. Uh now we're going to be in executive session. No action will be taken at the end of executive session. Mayor, yes. We need to do the affirmation of the emergency. I'm sorry. I had the um Oh, yeah. It's right here.

It is right here. It's this emergency is all right. So, the emergency addition to the agenda is um give me a second. It doesn't say anything about it other than con confirming affirming a local disaster declaration for weather related emergency in the city. Do does it require a vote? Yes, sir. A motion second. And is it roll call or majority? Just just a majority. All right. Chair would entertain a motion to affirm. Second. Second.

We have a motion, a second to affirm the local disaster declaration that was signed by staff and the mayor. Uh, all in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed.

Passes unanimously. All right. Now we go to the executive session. Sorry, Amy. I had the wrong agenda in front of me. All right. Last item. Executive session. Pursuant to the provision of the open meetings law of chapters 551 government code Vernon's Texas codes annotated in accordance with the authority contained in section 551.087 deliberating deliberation regarding economic development negotiations and section 551.071 with the attorney no action will be taken afterwards. Um so everyone may go y'all be safe. Yeah.