Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 1:00. I will call this meeting of the Douglas County Planning Commission to order. Paul, will you please lead us in the pledge? I pledge allegiance 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. Thank you.

It is now time for opening public comment. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker on matters over which the planning commission has jurisdiction. The planning commission wants to encourage respectful consideration of all views by members of the public. If content is disruptive, disrespectful, irrelevant, or offensive, the individual will be asked to stop speaking. Public comment will also be taken on agenda items that are identified for possible action, and we will have closing public comment. I will now open public comment. Please sign the roster. Say your name for the record into the microphone. First speaker, please. Good afternoon. Oh, that's way too loud. Good afternoon. Um, Ellie Waller, I'm looking forward to uh this body of people uh having a better understanding of uh upcoming zoning changes for the Barton proposal up in Lake Tahoe. Um it it's be an interesting process for you because you won't be looking at the hospital project. You will be just looking at the resoning um being generated by that project. Um, there'll be lots of information, I'm sure, coming forward as the environmental document uh gets released for public review. It'll be a 60-day uh review and um I'm hoping uh at that time uh you'll start taking a look at the project and how it's evolving. Thank you. Thank you very much, Elliot. It's nice to see you. Seeing no one else rise, I will close public comment. It is now time for approval of the agenda. Are there any changes? Seeing none, Bryce, do you have a motion?

Is there a second? We have a motion by Bryce, a second by Lori. All those in favor? I. Motion passes with one absent, Dan St. John. Approval of the minutes. Any corrections? Jim. Madam Chairman, uh I gave the corrections to the clerk on page 19. The word uh spending should have been descending area in relation to uh the flood plane. So she has that correction. With that, I'd like to move to approve the minutes. Are there any any other corrections? No. Is there a second? Second.

We have a motion by Jim, a tie for a second, but I think Paul slid in there. All those in favor? I I motion passes and Dan St. John is absent. Item one. Are there any disclosions for item one? Paul. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am a VHR holder, but I don't think it will it will modify, alter, or bias me in any way. Okay, there's one Kirk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to disclose that I do not have any financial interests in VHRs, nor do any of my immediate family members or close personal friends, but you do live in Tahoe.

And I would like to disclose that I attended two of the VHR board meetings when they were discussing changes to the ordinance. And I did speak at one of the meetings and asked that the VHR board consider a change which they did incorporate into the ordinance that we are going to review and that will be brought forward by Ernie later in his presentation. Are there any other Jim? When I was running for uh county commissioner last year, I did express support for VHRs and I did get financial support from people who do support them. I don't think that's going to affect how I'm going to vote on this, but I want to disclose that.

Thank you for that. Seeing no others, I will read this into the well, I'll use this instead of what I typed for possible action discussion regarding ordinance 2025-1655, an ordinance amending chapter 20.622 of the Douglas County Code, the Lake Tahoe vacation home rental ordinance, VHR. amendments to the VHR ordinance, including but are not limited to, consolidating renter requirements into a new section and referring those requirements as a code of conduct, clarifying restrictions on VHRs and residential communities north of Cave Rock State Park, amending insurance requirements, amending regulations regarding weight lists and renewal applications, revising requirements related to local contact, tax and amending and reorganizing certain penalties and procedures for violations. Affected properties are those within the Tahoe basin. The applicant is Douglas County Ernie Stlo presenting. Oh, also I would like to acknowledge VHR chair Keith Buyers and board member Mickey Hampler. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Ernie Stallow for the record. Um the program manager for this is one of my projects that I get to come to work and look forward to every day. As you can tell, my boss is sitting far away from me. Um and uh the district attorney that supports me is far away from me also. Um so um I appreciate your time today and I apologize uh for last month there was a noticing issue that occurred that for forced us to uh postpone this meeting to

to this month. I know storm water and VHRs in the same month would have been more fun but um here we are. Um so what I'm going to go through is uh mostly minor changes I think to that have been proposed for the uh the code the VHR code. Uh this is I think that we're going on the seventh change in four years on the on the code. Um the VHRs um if you're not familiar I think most of you guys are familiar with the VHRs by now, but if you're not uh all the VHRs in Douglas County are colllocated in the Tahoe Basin and Douglas County is there's other counties around the lake and municipalities that have their own programs that they run independent um under their own rules. Um but our our program we we uh we've been we we formalized it in 2005 um and it was in title five and then moved to title 20 a few years back and um so because there is ZTAs involved we we bring it to through you um so you can review it. Um so I'll go through some pages here. I think you might have read the packet um that talk to uh some of the individual changes that are in the code. The the uh 20.622 622 is the actual code where you see the red lines. Those are the those are the where the changes are. Um what the presentation does here is summarize most of those changes. So um there may be changes that were in the code that I didn't put in the presentation based on time or or or you know how it might just been a word smithing uh change. But if you have questions on that ask and uh one of us should be able to answer that. Any questions? go ahead and start and then stop me anytime. I mean, this isn't this is kind of a a process. So, this is the uh the calendar. I I like to kind of educate more of the public on on the the process that we're going through

right now. So um the VHR advisory board of which a couple of the members are in the audience here today um spent uh around 10 hours along with additional time for appeals that were going on at the same time to talk about some code changes that uh were asked for by the uh the board of county commissioner chair and one of the commissioners um to take a look at and they did. And so, um, they spent a lot of time debating and talking about the different things. And, um, as we go through this, you'll you'll see some of the things that were in the code that, uh, were proposed that they may may have agreed with or may not have agreed with. Um, and, uh, and so right now, we're coming through you. The we anticipate to do a first reading next Thursday uh, here at the board of county commissioners meeting. I expect it'll be just a reading, but you never know with VHRs. Um the second reading would be in Tahoe um at the courthouse on uh in October. That's anticipated dates. Could change. Um but that's what we uh were hoping to get done. Um I'm I never change this map too much, but because it doesn't really change. So this is kind of where the density is of where the VHRs are located up in Tahoe. Um so 70 72 73% of the VHRs are located in the KGID uh area of responsibility along Kingsbury um through Tahoe Beach Club and so forth in that area. Um so that's where the the bucket is. Um some of them are in Elks Point if you go north and Round Hill and then there's some in Zephr Cove. Um, and then as you are probably aware, north of Cave Rock Cove, uh, on the beach side, there's really no VHRs except for the HOA part of Glen Brook. Um, so there's, uh,

currently, I think I have a little map here next, there it is. So this I updated, uh, I think a month or two ago. Um, this is the the VHR trend over since November 2022. Um so the peak that you see there about a third of the way through is around June 2023 when we did the massive code change for um the most of the code that you see today um in when we did the joint uh uh code enforcement VHR board and uh BOCC meeting up in Tahoe at the uh Hard Rock Cafe or at that that time the Hard Rock Cafe um and then and then TRPA subsequently we made massive code changes is um this has been the trend of the VHR permitting. So right now we're at 535 um it's seems to have plateaued while it shows the trend uh going down down down it's actually starting to level off. Um um so you know there's there's a variety of reasons why the permits change hands. You know they can you know if you sell a property the permit has to close. Um they can have a permit pulled and they lose it. um which we do frequently based on the appeals that we deal with. Um but we typically net uh we were netting about um minus two a month until last couple months and now we're starting to it's starting to net out at zero. Um, yes sir.

With an apology, no apology burn on your uh density uh map and with the comments you just made are the yellow dots 15% by all of them by uh the uh ordinance the current ordinance or is that just the number that we see reflected uh the distribution of the number that we see reflected in this? It's a distribution of the number. Okay. For the record, has nothing to do with permitted uh density? No. Under the code,

no. So, the the trick the the so just to explain that a little further, the the density is explained. There's 39 neighborhoods that have independent uh density requirements, right? And so there could be a there could be a neighborhood uh for instance over by um uh stage code. You know, if you go skiing, it's 40%. Is the designated limit for that neighborhood, which is around 450 properties, right? While we're only at 16%, but it could go it could go that high. Um there's other neighborhoods, most of the neighborhoods are 15%. There's a couple special neighborhoods like Lincoln Park that actually have density requirements. their their house house spacing requirements. Um, so it's a little bit different. So I I do I do a measurement on that. I just don't show it because most people don't know all the neighborhoods when I show it, but there is a cap in Tahoe and numerically of 600. Um, we've never hit 600, but it it I guess you could hit it if you fill up Taho Summit.

Thank you.

You bet. Good. So, I just kind of throw this in here because it comes up every time I go through this code change. Um, this is uh I think it's the fifth part of the fifth uh paragraph uh second to last sentence of of the uh the operating objectives. You know, when you go into uh 20.622, 622. Um that the intent of the Lake Tahoe ordinance uh is to make transitory lodging activity permitted in the chapter resemble existing residential uses made by resident owners of leis. And I don't normally like to harp on it, but it comes up a lot and I think it's important that that this is what the VHR board looks at when they're trying to think about how to create density and how to make adjustments into the different neighborhoods when they're looking at the code. So, what I'll go through here is um I'm not going to read all this, but this is kind of the different um focus areas that we'll talk about from Glen Brook down to uh ending with the vacation home advisory uh membership requirement changes that um that the board talked about uh that the the board of county commissioners asked the VHR board to take a look at and so they came up with a recommendation and we'll talk about that. So, I'll kind of jump into the first the first section here. Um, so this is probably one of the easier ones. So, in Glenbrook, um, there there's a the way we designate the neighborhoods in Glenbrook is there's a north, south, um, uh, there's, uh, condos, um, and there's a one or two other neighborhoods. And the way the code was written unintentionally is it it it um that particular area of Glen Brook, we only allow homeowners uh to rent their houses to fellow homeowners in that in that that live in that area. So they can rent to family of

a homeowner, but they can only um they can't advertise as a normal VHR like they do the rest of Tahoe right now. Um and that's been the that's been like that for many years. Um, and the way we had documented the code, um, I guess a year and a half ago when we were making changes or it got we we determined we figured it out is that it seemingly eliminated um, if you own a condo in Glen Brook to be able to rent your condo to a single family owner of an HOA property in Glenro. It the way the the way it was worded, it looked like a violation. And so we uh we actually wrote a letter, a county letter to permit those neighborhoods to rent to other Glenbrook homeowners in the Glen Brook area because that was actually an omission on our part. So what we proposed to do is we made a change to the wording from within the same residential community to following residential communities. So, the following communities, and if you read the code itself, it'll name out the the particular neighborhoods in Glenbrook that we're talking about. Um, but the intent is is just to clarify that they don't need a letter anymore to do it, but that they can um, you know, rent to, you know, somebody in a condo can rent to somebody that's a single family owner in Glenbrook or or one of the other surrounding Glen Brook communities that are HOA driven. So, that's all that does is clean it up. And I put a little note on there what that was. Any questions? Okay. The next one is Lincoln Park. So, you heard me talk a few minutes ago about Lincoln Park as one of those density driven neighborhoods. It's actually, I think, the only one that's a density driven neighborhood. What we're what we did is we wrote a whole half a page about that neighborhood and how we select weight lists and all that stuff.

that stuff is staying in there. What we were proposing to remove is the introduction part, how you get started. Um, and so because it doesn't um it doesn't apply anymore. It applied only to the first time that when we implemented Lincoln Parks uh density restrictions, um it's not going to be ever applicable again. So, we mar marked up the code so you can see that and then we just kind of noted it on there that generally the VHR board agreed with that change. Um, and that's about it. That was pretty easy. That that that's it's only changes like a paragraph or something in there, but we left everything else in there. So, we still go through the revocations and the allocations and all that stuff, right? Any questions? Okay. I guess you're going to save the good questions for last, huh? um weight list. Surprisingly, as you're going to find out about uh the chair's uh comment too of what she found, we didn't have we we have weight list defi listed in the in the code, but we actually didn't have a definition of what a weight list is. Right. Right. So, when in our in our uh excited excite excitement to change the code often, we didn't actually put a definition in there for the weight list. Um, we added a section that codifies what the practice of a weight list is, right? So, you know what we're talking about. You have a place to look at. I know Commissioner Bruno would love to see that, you know. So, so that's pretty simple change. You okay with that? Okay. If you think of some later, let me know and I'll see if I can answer it. So, this is this one generated some discussion. So, um, there was some, this has come up a couple years ago, too, and I think I have it in the backup slides of a proposal back in 2023, 2023 rel related to insurance changes. Um, we we've had a couple

insurance companies come come and recommend because the VHRs are typically insured as a commercial a commercial enterprise. Um, whether we call them commercial or not, it's doesn't matter. That's what how they insure it. Um it's a little bit more I guess it's a little bit different in terminology and cost and so there was recommendations that we change it um to a million dollars for all tiers and just make it one. Yes ma'am. I would like to acknowledge that uh Commissioner Dan St. John has joined the meeting.

Thank you. Ernie Strao for the record. Welcome Commissioner St. John. Good to see you again. Um, as as I mentioned, you know, the the this was it was recommended that we go to to a million dollars. Um, some of the arguments that were discussed that are very valid nowadays with, uh, fires, um, wildfire safety and so forth. Um, is that it's difficult to get insurance in the basin as I understand it. I don't live in the basin, so I don't know, but from what I'm told, it's difficult. Um, and it's much more expensive as it is, right? So, um, this was something that because of that and because of the difficulty getting insurance and the cost associated with it, um, the VHR board was not inclined to support that change, um, to a million dollars. Um, that's fine. Um, the that's one of two changes. The second change was um to change the wording that's in our code from named insured. Douglas County was a named insured which meant that we were getting copies of everybody's policy even though we get copies of everybody's policy when you apply for your permit right so I was getting a lot of policies and we were in we were doing a lot of shredding um so to change it to additional interest additional interest does is it um we don't get notified when you um have insurance we get notified if your insurance gets canled right so we want to know if you if if you've had insurance. He applied for a permit and then we get a notice that says um you know Paul didn't pay his insurance and so we canceled it. We pull his permit, right? You got to have insurance. That's part of the part of the deal, right? So we still get notified if you make changes, if you cancel your insurance, we can come back to you and say, "Do you have a new policy?" If you don't tell us

it in on your own. Um, so it helps helps us not get notified whenever you're changing your insurance on your house that you're renting out. Yes, sir. Commissioner McCallip,

um, on the discussion whether it was 500,000 or a million, and I I know some insurance agents, I understand the problems. Was it ever discussed that it should be more than 500,000 even if it couldn't be a million, or was that kind of look at as a one or the other? Um I I think uh Commissioner McCall Ernie Strao for the record. I I don't recall that particular argument um because we were going through a lot of material at the time. Um a couple years ago I think it was discussed and like I said it's in the backup. We had discussions up to 2 million um at one point but that was a different time. Maybe insurance was different then cheaper, easier to get. I don't know. But um I don't recall I don't recall that particular conversation where somebody suggested, "Hey, let's do 700,000." I don't recall that.

Thank you, Commissioner Bruno. Uh this I take uh responsibility. This is the second Bruno amendment having to do with the insurance from long ago. But, uh, I'd like to ask our, uh, district attorney, uh, whether the additional insured, uh, versus, uh, the interest, uh, language, uh, changes the rights that the county may have with respect to direct action against the insurance company.

ZJ HS with the record. I think that this is this is sufficient to cover the county's potential liability. Like Mr. Stlo stated, was never really the intent of this provision to protect the county from a claim. The county has other protections already. Um we have insurance. There are limitations on a government entities liability. And so really the idea was we just wanted to get notice. So, we're still covered under our other protections and now we'll still have notice. We're just making it a little bit easier for people to get their insurance policies. Thank you. Oh, good. Ernie trailer for the record. We'll move on then. Okay. The next one is toot. So, um, so it was suggested earlier this year that it was, well, it started off that it was insinuated that there might be one or two people out in the population that like the hog permits when they apply for them and um that uh the one night minimum for renting per year is not sufficient um because it's blocks up permits. Now, I don't have a lot of data that indicates that's happening for real. You know, that, you know, cuz we do look at toot collections. Um, mainly to make sure that they're current, right? We don't I don't really study them for how many nights or as long as they rent one time a year, it shows, you know, that there was a bill and they paid it. Um, however, um, the idea was to in there was a suggestion to increase it to eight nights a year. um to show that um the property is being utilized properly and that the county can collect toot for the

purpose of the permit, right? So, you don't pay the 2,000 or whatever it is you're paying for the permit and then lock it up and that's the end of it for the county. Whereas, you can be have a homeowner that's renting it out to the public multiple times a year and the county collects multiple toot collections per year. Um, I think that the uh the VHR board uh I I want to use the word agnostic. I I don't there was there was some talk about this. I I don't know if there was a a clear majority on this one one way or the other, but um I think that we just moved on after that. But I for this purpose the the eight days is it's it's uh it it doesn't you know you can make it any days really. You can make it four, you can make it 10. I don't know if there's a really a right number if you want to add any if you did want to change this or if you're inclined to do that and it might be interesting to see if you guys have any thoughts on that or no thoughts on that or

any questions Paul um I can suggest to you the genesis of this uh and that is with respect to condominiums that are considerably different from single family dwellings and yet we're all under the same code. uh condominium owners if they have a limitation let's uh suppose 15% of the community can be VHR

if you have a number of uh single unit pardon me single day rentals in a condominium you have a tremendous turnover and it's a little bit more disrupting uh going against the guiding principle that you began your discussion with so the one day I can see as being a detriment with respect to the overriding objectives and guiding principles of the VHR. Now there are certain individuals within developments that might also see that if you have a management rule uh where an individual takes a uh VHR permit and only rents it one night as kind of cheating cheating not only the revenue to the county but the revenue to the management company with respect to their role on a given VHR. now that uh or or condominium complex. So I would say you've struck a nice balance here because the condominiums are in a completely different circumstance. If you have five or six in a small building that has 10 units for example, but within the community it's not 15% because a community is larger. uh it would be and has been proven to by my perception disruptive, problematical, particularly when there were one night um one night uh uh stays. So I think you've done a great job in striking and so did the committee in striking a balance with the eight days because then you have to be a sincere renter of VHR while at the same time you don't multiply the single use the single day use which would be very disruptive in an economy uh circumstance. I think one of the if I may I apologize to go one step further. One of the reasons why we did

not this time compared to last times uh that the ordinance has come before us have a tremendous number of opposition. One of the reasons there are others which I will talk about but one of the reasons is because uh the ordinance protects that guiding principle and this is just another example. you won't have uh disrupted uh condominium projects uh by individuals trying to protect themselves either by grabbing all of the VHRs and renting it out for one night or renting say five of them one night each and uh and I have to commend uh the committee and your department and you sir uh I I didn't get any comments this time and the other one I had 32 comments on our last Thank you.

Any other comments? Thank you. You may continue. Er, for the record, I guess I won't revoke your permit.

Okay. So this one um uh this one uh the the chair of the VHR um committee and and I we like data and so we we actually pulled data on this and so what the proposal was right now what we have is we have a property manager requirement for 10 occupancy or higher. Um, and how that works is that unless you live uh within an hour of the VHR and have an emergency contact within a half an hour of the VHR, you're required to have a property manager. Um, the eights, the nines, the eights and so forth all the way down to z one. I guess zero wouldn't matter. Um, do not require a property manager. They require an emergency contact. So, you can live anywhere in the world as a property manager. Um, nine occupancy or lower. Um, but as long as you have an emergency contact within 30 minutes and has taken the test and all that stuff. And so the thinking I've had a couple appeals and this was more probably personal experience. Um, I had a couple appeals where people um, I don't think have ever been to Tahoe that owned property and were renting it out. And, um, the the properties tended to be disasters um, when we got involved in it, you know, with some violations. And so for me, it it seemed like, well, if I had a if these people had a property manager, I wouldn't have that problem, right? And so, you know, that was the discussion. Um, however, when I went and I pulled data and looked at, you know, incidences and violations and so forth on property managers versus non-property managers, I couldn't draw correlations. Um, I couldn't draw correlations that one is better than the other. And so, and I'm quantitative in nature and statistics. And so, it's hard for me to, you know, kind of make an argument that if I can't prove it, it's not, you know, is it maybe it's just my head. Um, I think

it's more there's some qualitative experiences that we've had. um that we just don't document real well to measure it. But um um so the intent here was to think about you know lowering um well what was happening is people would uh uh apply for a permit up to nine. So if you have nine well nobody rents nine they rent eight or 10 but they do nine because it circumvents the system. You don't have to have a property manager then right? Um but uh you know the same same argument can go for you know for anything. So the proposal was to move it down to seven. Most of the calls that we get tend to be eights and 10 occupancy. So if everybody had property managers that live far an hour or farther away, you know, all the problems would go away. The data didn't show that out. It it may if it played out, maybe it would. I don't know. but it didn't based on the data that we looked up and and cross reference and stuff. But something to think about in the future, you know, and you you guys may have some different different thoughts on that. But all in all, I I I you know, we just couldn't come to we we couldn't come to a data driven conclusion on this particular item to, you know, require a lower amount for property manager. Um, you know, I kind of have to admit that if it was a private industry, I probably would have made it seven anyways, but it's not. So, um, so that's where we're at on there. So, the the VHR, um, advisory board, uh, inclined not to be supportive of that change. That's what the red act thing up there.

Comments. I guess my my take on it does not doing anything leave the discretion up to the manager of the program to require property manager.

Ernie Stlo, this is the question. Uh Ernie Stlo for the record. Yeah, it typically does. And so the you know there there is language in the code right now that um if there's any uh you know that that the director designate has um has the the power to make changes you know to do things that make the uh and I know the exact wording but to make the the uh the program run efficiently right and so we have done that with like cars we've done you know we could require um like if somebody loses a permit you know, I I make them come back and tell me what they're going to do different if we give them a permit back or are we just going to do the same thing? And so, a lot of times I would require them to have a permit or noise monitor or, you know, something that um changes the behavior. I just want to ensure because I was president at the VHR board when they discussed this and two of the members, one was lazy, you know, we government interference and the other was a VHR property person. and and I you know I understand point both points of view but I want to ensure that code enforcement and the sheriff's department is not I want to make it easy on the county and if we need to add language age that says after an incident where the owner was nonresponsive, the

manager of the VHR program has the discretion to require a property manager. Let's add that language. I would support that. I I think that's that's important to have in there just to codify it instead of leaving it up in the air and kind of willy-nilly. I respect all the work that the board did, but I, you know, let's take the air out from under it and just put the words in there. That's my feeling. comments. Jim,

actually, I like that. I would concur with that. J Dan, it sounds like he's already got the authority to to do that. But I think by underlining as you suggest just makes it more clear. Any other comments, Lori? I support that. I I was going to suggest lowering the number, but um that's not necessary if we have a problem property and we can address it by requiring a property manager specifically for that problem property. Paul,

thank you, Madam Chair. I uh think that the suggestion is particularly cogent and right on target with respect to Ernie's commentary that he seeks uh prophylactic measures sometimes when a violation has come to him and one of the measures that Ernie could impose is a property manager for example. So, I think it gives the department the flexibility uh that you seek without having it mandatory for all of the units, many of which have no violations whatsoever.

Kirk, I think I'd like to hear AJ's comments. Okay. AJ,

thank you, Madam Chair. AJ HS for the record. Just to provide a little context, I think the rationale that persuaded we have our advisory board members here so they can speak on this as well. But I think the rationale that persuaded the board was mainly if you are an owner of a VHR and you are non-responsive and then the director tells you you have to have now a property manager. might you as the owner actually have more incentive to respond quickly than this brand new property manager? So, I think the the rationale was if I'm an owner, I get in trouble once for non-responsiveness. I know my permits on the line. I want to be that first responder, so to speak. I don't want to hire somebody new to come in and now be the watcher over my potential second violation because once you get your second violation, you lose your permit. So, I think there's a there's a good rationale on either side. I'm not trying to persuade anybody, but just uh providing some context based on what I heard at those meetings.

Uh I think that a great comment, but that also gives you uh more of a menu. the first time you now have this problem. If you get another, you're going to have a property manager imposed upon you. You see what I mean? The alternative is no permit. But I suppose I'm way too lean elenient and just ask my son if that's the case. Yeah, I I do remember that conversation and and I respected that conversation, but I I think depending on the owner, they may go, "Oh, just a warning." And cuz I've seen with some of the appeals, you know, it, "Oh, just a warning." And then they come back, you find them and they go, "Oh, they mean business now." So I agree with Paul. The hammer is raised and Ernie's not going to be here forever and we need to have language in in here for the next person that comes after you. I'm sorry, but you know, we all are getting older and and the sunset comes for all of us and you know, we love you, but we know you've got bigger fish to fry at some point. But still, you know, I I do want to have, you know, ducks lined up. And I think we should have language in there that gives the manager options. Bryce,

thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I don't disagree with you or my colleagues. I, you know, the struggle I have is is when these things become overly ownorous. And you know, I I think a two strike rule already, I mean, if you get the one warning, you know, and if you're not, you know, responsible enough to heed to it, then the second time you're done, you know, I I I just think imposing additional regulations, which I'm for the most part opposed to in general, um it it just it just becomes more more paperwork, you know, more ownorous. I mean, at the end of the day, this is a good concept, the VHR program. It's beneficial to the county. It's beneficial to the residents and and I I just don't I I just don't see where where we need need to add that. That's just my opinion

and I agree. But on most of the incidents, it's not second time, you're done. It's just second time, bigger, fine. If if I may, Ernie Staylor for the record. So to clarify, we don't do warnings. Uh we do fines, right? We we don't our code is not written that way for this particular program. We do warnings for weeds and stuff like that as you guys know. But the uh that the VHR program, you know, we I there's very little warning out there. We if it's substantiated, we find them and then they appeal. That's usually what happens. So that's what keeps us busy.

Well, it seems we have a majority who who want to do something. Jim, um I I believe that we need to give Ernie the the flexibility of having that because we know that there's going to be appeals and uh there's things can drag out and I've sat through some of these appeals. I would like him to have that hammer that at least says even you win your appeal. This has happened. Therefore, we're going to require the property manager. So, uh I'm in favor of of doing this. Kirk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think if I heard AJ correctly uh and I was trying to look through the ordinance uh as it exists that that am I correct AJ, you're saying that uh the director uh or his designate does have the authority now. It's just not specifically uh enumerated. Uh so I I wanted to clarify that point.

AJ HS for the record. I don't know if it says that specifically. there is a specific provision about how the director can um has has some discretion to impose requirements during the application process. And so it could be that during the renewal process the director might be able to then say last year you had a problem, this year you you need a property manager. But I don't think currently there is a mechanism that would allow the director to impose it in sort of a penalty-like fashion. So if you wanted it to be a reactionary measure in response to this, you now have a property manager right now. I don't think that the code allows for that. I think you'd have to wait until the application came time to renew as it's currently written. As a practical matter, uh I am also in favor of the proposal that has been articulated by uh one, two, three, four, five of us. And uh the one of the other reasons as a practical matter is what if you had a violation then you threaten to pull a permit or pulled the permit, you have an appeal. If you have a violation and then you imposed a property manager and then there were an additional violation on this issue, what is the chance that the appeal is going to be successful with the process that's been articulated by some of us? I think very low. So, it's a it's a learning exercise and and yes, it seems lenient. I'll be the first to admit it. As again, you ask my son, I'm kind of lenient until you cross the line.

I think we're getting into VHR board territory here. So I there are six of us who said to add the language to give the director the right to use his discretion to uh impose a property manager and I think it's you know depending on the violation and we can move on. Lori.

Yes. I just want to clarify that this would be in response to a violation, the first violation, not at a time when nothing seems to be going wrong and the person that follows Ernie after his departure has doesn't come in and say, "I just don't like you or you have to hire a property manager." So, as in response to a violation, that that authority would be granted. Next. Could Could I clarify? Sure. The language in the U

in the text there makes it a requirement kind of a regulation. Whereas what I heard the discussion, we're wanting to give him the discretion to make that decision. Is that am I understanding the direction? Yes. when it goes to the BOCC next month, he'll have the proper language. Okay. But we're we're recommending or the six that you you mentioned are recommending that we give him the discretion of doing it. It doesn't mean that it absolutely has to happen as it says here uh to require property managers after an incident for nonresponsive. We're

proper language. Our recommendation will go to the board of commission. But our recommendation is to give him the discretion to do that. Yes. Not the absolute authority that he must do it after every incident. That's correct. Thank you. Next,

Ernie TLo for the record. I get through this before the eloquist wears off. Apparently I'm going to die here. Um so this is a local contacts. Uh so the um there's two pieces of this and so one of it was uh had to do a local contact contacts must report violations to the county but they are not obligated to respond or speak with the complainant. So, as it currently stands, if if uh if u if I'm a neighbor of Commissioner Bruno and he's renting his property out and he uh he and I don't get along or, you know, there's some sort of conflict or I don't want to talk to him, whatever that he's too nice to me, I don't know. Um I can I can call in a complaint, call the sheriff, I don't have to call him, right? It's I mean my my name and number is on record even if I I call in anonymous to the county and the sheriff will I think record it anonymously but they um I don't have to talk to him. Now what the proposal change is on the right side there is that it was suggested by um a VHR advisory board uh person member um to add language that they instead need to promptly respond to a complainant regarding any questions posed by a complainant. So, um I believe this to mean that if if if um if uh and the the example was given is uh if uh uh Commissioner Bruno is uh clearing his walkway and the snow is blowing onto my walkway and I call the VHR uh code hotline to complain about that this problem that Commissioner Bruno would need to call me back and and talk to me about, you know, what are you going to do to you know, whatever questions I have do are you going to clean it up? Are you going to Why are you spraying it on my driveway, on my

walkway, whatever. Um, we, you know, just a little history lesson. Um, it's a good idea and and it probably works for most people. There there is situations where we do get calls, nonVHRs, VHRs, you know, usually people will call in on a neighbor on a VHR complaint. um it's usually because they can't talk to those people or you know if they call some people call the sheriff directly which they can do right and so um I I would argue in this particular one um just to think about is that there are situations where uh individuals don't want their name given out which they they can have their name given out if it's a public record. Um and so it does come up that people want to keep their name hidden. um they don't want to have to go call somebody, call the owner of the property or call um you know or have somebody call them back. In fact, I have an appeal coming up where I have an audio recording about this very subject. Um and it didn't sound very good on the recording that that we're going to listen to later this month. So, just be cautious on this one. Um I I understand the the reasons for it, but it's it's not quite what it seems sometimes on these things. Um and then the second one is just the locate colllocating um the emergency contact information. Um while it sounds kind of uh audacious that you would why would a rental person need to know the emergency contact for the rental they're renting, right? But there could be something that happens with the property while they're renting it and they need to contact I need help. You know, where's the fire extinguisher? where's a um you know where's some you know where's the the rule book on how you know what I can and can't do. So there there are reasons that you would post um um an emergency contact. So somebody rents the property they need to be able to get a hold of somebody you know. So

so we uh we don't have really a rule. We have a we have a a permit itself that talks to that we want it you know close to the door and we do that on purpose because when the sheriff comes we have trained the sheriff to look for the permit when they knock on the door and the door opens they ask for that and they look for that and they write it in their sheriff report to make sure the permit's hanging. This is another thing we want to make sure that we have by the door perhaps with the code of conduct that we'll talk about in a minute if you agree to that. So, um, that's kind of what the the number three is up there is that we just it just kind of outlines a conspicuous place, not the closet, inside the closet, under the bed, in a drawer. You know, believe it or not, that's people don't know what conspicuous means. So, you know, that's where it ends up. So,

questions, comments, Lori. So, as a person who has dealt with code enforcement a lot in the past, I strongly oppose the contact person responding to the complainant. I think that sets up some potentially very dangerous encounters. Unless that person is really trained in how to deal with confrontational situations, that can that can be very dangerous. So, I would I would oppose number two strongly. I feel like, as you said, if there's a reason why someone's calling the sheriff's department or code enforcement about this, that person does not want to interact with the the personing the problem and probably has a history of not interacting with those people and probably has talked to the local contact in the past and it didn't go well. So I think for the the safety of the local contact person and the local complainant, I would say that this is not a good idea. So that's my position on it.

Dan, I would absolutely agree with that. But u my question or my comment is on number three, it would seem like that's valuable for a neighbor. Yeah. If somebody's walking by and they're noticing something they don't like, there's a number they can call and I think that would be helpful. Yes. No. Thank you. Ernie Stra, for the record, is that as a question? You're asking me a question? Well, you said yes. No. Just just as if if you think for some reason it wouldn't be helpful for the the public to know who the contact person was,

well, they they could well, they would I mean, think about it. They would have to knock on the door and the the renters would have to give them access to the contact information to you know I don't know what we do what we do have is I was ass I'm sorry I was assuming near the entrance me meant outside maybe by the door or or in front of the house but you're saying inside. Okay. Well, for single family homes, what we have done is we've uh we we have magnets on bear boxes up there

and we we have IR codes where you can scan the county website to report if you're walking the dog, you see something, say something, right? Because the the complaint I was getting a couple years ago is we don't know how to get a hold of code enforcement, right? And so now you have a way, right? It's posted everywhere, right? So, um that that was kind of the intent. Now, if you're in a multifamily house, I don't have a way to post on a mailbox that way that, you know, because all you have is the big trash bins and that's probably where the thing is going to end up anyway. So, and so from what Michael tells me, most of the magnets stay on the m on the bear box. So, does that answer your question, Jim?

Um, I think I think number three is just common sense. I think it makes total sense to have that um inside on the by the entrance. And I have the same problem with number two. Not everybody's a reasonable person to deal with. Um we've all at some point in our lives had neighbors were with full-time runners who were problem. So um I don't think we need to uh kind of force that confrontation. So again, I have the same difficulty with number two. I think number three is perfect common sense. Paul,

I agree with the comments of my uh colleague. I don't think we should encourage confrontation and I will tell you why. In uh phase one of Tahoe Beach Club building two, to give you an example without using names, uh it was a rental and the rental um said no dogs. And unfortunately, the federal government says if you call it a service animal, you will put that dog in with that individual who has rented the condominium, even if that person is insincere and there is no condition that the dog is improving for the individual. This particular dog was not a barker. This particular dog was a yapper and it was a constant yapper and the individual around the individuals around this rental called the individual directly and it was an unfortunate confrontation circumstance of which I commend to you. It's anecdotal but I saw it with my own eyes. I don't think it should happen again and so I agree with my colleagues. Kirk.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I appreciate my colleagues comments both for and against some of these ideas, the ones we've already gone through and these before us now, but I guess I'd prefer to to uh, uh, sit on the fence until I hear public comment and then we can try and build consensus on some of these items. uh because I would like to hear public comments particularly if the uh advisory board members have uh reactions to some of the things that they are hearing us say uh or rationale as to why they uh moved in one direction or the other. So I I think I'll uh kind of withhold my comments on all the rest of the ons and this one as well until we hear public comment. Same

Ernie. Next

Ernie trailer for the record as we move on. Code of conduct. Well, so what does that mean? So code of conduct. Um AJ and I were having fun with this. When you Google it, um it's really your rules and regulations, right? And so, um, what I did is I put, you know, when you walk into Harris or you walk into a, um, a restaurant, no shoes, no shirt, no service, that's a code of conduct, right? So, when we went through and we were putting together the code of conduct, I put together a little sheet and the VHR board did a nice job of putting in an order, and this is two pages, so there's a second page of this. Um, so the black part of the code of conduct is already in the code, right? So we don't, unless you want to change something there, there's really nothing there. But the red is the suggested updates. Now, um, some of these updates, uh, if you watch the county board of commissioners, you you may recognize some of the comments in there that are in here from the commission, um, that we added in here to have you have the VHR board take a look at and have you guys take a look at. There's a lot of discussion um when I focus on number three and number four um especially number four um from the public we had we had some individuals talk about smoke odors marijuana so forth um one lady as I recall um was uh a resident uh complained that we can't control the resident smoking how you going to control the renters smoking And then there were comments uh you know there was thoughts that uh you know you know there if people are going to smoke they're going to smoke somewhere you know and maybe you go out into the woods

and they flick the cigarette button burn the forest down you know so um you know the so this is an interesting discussion we don't um from a code enforcement complaint standpoint I it it's I have gotten com a complaint I think over four years that I've been here um about smoking floating in a Um, it's really hard to, as you can tell, I don't know where it originates. I, you know, it, you know, it's really hard to enforce those type of things. And, you know, you can, you can come up with ways to do it, but it's a, it's a, it's a taxing proposition. So, um, but, uh, it's nevertheless up there. Um, some some uh a lot of VHR renters I I don't know if some of you guys have your own VHR, maybe you don't allow smoking in the premises anyways. So, it's a moot point and that that may be what you don't want. Um the the disorderly lewd and indecent one above it is um related to um situations where a VHR a renter um urinating off a deck um you know right out right in plain view of you that live next door to it. Uh we've we have uh gotten complaints mostly from commissioners about, you know, LWD hats. Um people walking around with LWD hats and uh over by the lake. Um I guess you can come up with a lot of examples of what you consider indecent or um um indecent behavior. But um you know, there's there's a lot of questions and I' I've also been sent a lot of video on this stuff. So then there's questions about am I getting you know, is it legal to even videotape this type of stuff? you know, I mean, are is the person videotaping it violating something, you know? So, I don't know. It's it's a it's an interesting thing. It might might be okay to be on on the uh the code of conduct itself. Um uh enforcing it um it can it can be enforced under certain circumstances, I

guess, if you you know, if you have enough data to prove it. Um um and then the the fifth one on here related to fire pits and stuff. the fire, you know, surprisingly, um, I heard from residents that didn't didn't even know some of the rules. So, um, it's kind of interesting. It's probably pretty important to have the fire department requirements up there, especially when you have red flag warnings. Um, I bet you, you know, that you're you're not supposed to be running gas fire pits up there during a red flag warning. I didn't who knew that, you know. So, it's it's important to it's important to know that. So the second page here is pretty much the same except for the ones you know as you can see on number 11 any other rules and regulations required by the director based upon the unique characteristics of a VHR or address complaints received. So um you know that those would be uh something and then the homeowner themselves can add additional things. So, they can use this, they can add to it, um, not really subtract to it, but, you know, we want to make sure that they're at least listing these type of items onto their code of conduct. We don't have a method right now where, you know, I don't think there was an intent that we were going to go manage a code of conduct like we were going to go read everybody's code of conduct, make sure it follows this. um much like we don't you know we we do to a limited degree on permits hanging on a wall you know we send the permit but that's about it you know or if they come up with a welcome packet um but these are things that for you guys to discuss but this was this was this and the I think the next one uh or the one after that is are are the two bigger bigger things I think on here so I'll pass this on to the chair

Kirk uh thank you madam chair again I'll reserve my uh comment on the specifics, but uh just a general inquiry for you Ernie or if the VHR advisory board people would care to make uh their comments and public comment. Would it be your intention to do a draft of a model code of conduct and give it to uh to everybody for their use or are we going to have 535 different codes of conduct all written by individual VHR owners? Ernie Straa, for the record, oh, I didn't want to get into managing a code of conduct. Um, I don't blame you.

I I think that, you know, my intent was to we we'll put it in the code in the for, you know, like this. This is kind of the format that we would put it in the code and you follow it, right? And that would be the intent. I don't really don't want to police that. Um, we could we can ask for a copy of it for our records just like we asked for pictures of the inside, you know, but you know, just remember that, you know, a lot of this stuff is while it's in the code, it you know, you know, I mean, where they put furniture, you know, that it it's just not something that we spend a lot of time looking at. we look more at the um you know the the the written documentations, the work with the HOA because the the the major the major complaints we get are noise uh parking um those type of things. So we want to make sure that we have those covered and and uh we understand that they have everything documented at the HOA is permitted the proper things uh for their for their VHR to exist and that they signed the documents and that they went through the training. this here. My intent was that we put it in the code and they follow the code

Jim. Couple questions. First, um, at least the basic code of conduct, is that required to be posted visibly inside? Ernie, for the record, yeah, it would be required to be on a wall. So, next to the permanent, it means it's not just the person that rent it, but every guest can see it. I'm sorry. Can you

So besides the the person that's renting being the official renter of it, the other people can see it visibly and um a three and four. I don't I don't know how you do that.

What I would like to do is ask ask questions, not discuss the code of conduct. I'd like to get our questions out of the way. Uh specific questions, then bring up the VHR board members to if they would like to comment on the items that we have questions of them on how they came up with the items we have questions on and then do public comment and then we can discuss. Okay. Okay. Does that work? Yep. Are there specific questions for staff?

Specific question. Thank you, chair. Um, did you say that the use of wood burning fire pits is always against the law at Tahoe? I forget. Is that correct, Ernie Stra? For the record, I don't say that. The fire department does. I don't. That's This is This came from the fire department. Oh, okay. That suggestion came from the fire department. It wasn't a suggestion. That is the that's the fire regulation. Well, that and then you answer my question. So, the fire code says no wood burning fire pits at Tahoe basically or for the record as I understand it. That's that's

all right. Thank you. That that helps that question. Is there a legal definition of obnoxious odors? And I guess we can ask this. We'll get into that when we have our discussion. Oh, okay. Okay. That's kind of a question because I don't know how you enforce that.

Yeah. AJ H for the record. So on this point, this is this is mostly verbatim from the code except on number four. So the the advisory board had the same question and they said, "What is an obnoxious odor?" And there was a long discussion. And so if you look at page 94 of your packet, that's the actual wording that they settled on. So they settled on guests may not generate odors that neighbors would consider to be obnoxious. So I don't know that they loved that wording either, but that's that's where it ended up. So the the onus is on the neighbor to decide what is obnoxious, which is probably not the wording I would recommend to include in code.

Thank you, AJ. So let's go through uh the last two pages. They're very short. and then bring up the members of the VHR board and then public comment and then we can have our discussion. Okay, Ernie Ernie for the record.

Um, so this one has to do with parking plaque cards. So, um, if you're familiar with the parking plaqueards, so there's an 8 and 1 half by 11 parking pass. It's uh each renter is required to put on their dash um that rents a VHR property up in Tahoe. Um the VHR board looks like they considered and rejected a proposal to remove the requirements to take the placards uh requirement away from single family renters. um they would like to wait. They want data to you know kind of understand if it makes sense to make further recommendations on changing that requirement. So they rejected that idea. But uh I'm not sure if you had any questions on that or not or agree. You can disagree. You can agree with it. It's okay. Okay. Okay, moving on. Okay, this just cleans up our code enfor. So, this is uh towards the back of the code. Um it's uh as if you've read it, it's a little hard to read. And so, we're trying to as every time we do changes to the code, we try to fix it, try to fix it incrementally. We're kind of cleaning a room at a time here when we're going through this. So this just uh structurally updates a little bit of the uh the way the process works in section 050. So it's 622 o uh 20.62.050. That section is more organized into categories. Okay. Promise I'm almost done. Um and then this again um we just added um on the clarification of fines.

Believe it or not, there is um concatenations of violators that we actually don't have specifically written into the code. So technically they can appeal even though we send them a fine and they don't appeal, we take a chance. So, this on number one, this kind of corrects um one part of of the fine section that talks about having a VHR permit, but the permit was revoked and they were illegally advertising still. And so, some of the wording is omitted and we're just trying to clean it up. Number two is um that fines may be assessed to the owner only. And this allows us to the the modification allows us to also andor assess um a fine on a property manager. Sometime it's the property manager that's the problem, not the owner. And we just don't technically have that in the code written properly. So, we're trying to fix that. Okay. No questions. Moving on.

One thing you did not mention and and I will mention I will I promise to mention it. Yes. Page 97 040 13A. Runners must be personally present during each night that the VHR is occupied. You beat me to it.

That's very very important to me and it should be important to everyone. So the logic is right now the code is written in such a way where um if you're taking financial responsibility for the rental and you're not physically there that's okay. And so what um the chair mentioned is she says, "Hey, wait a second. How come they have they don't have to stay there the whole time also or they should be staying there the whole time? They're financially responsible. They're the renter." Um and so and that doesn't explicitly say that in the code. So, good point. So, uh AJ redlinined it into the code. Um so for your discussion,

I've been married to a lawyer way too long. Any discussion on that?

Okay. And then lastly, um so as you know the as we've been talking about VHRs are they're in Tahoe Tahoe Township and there's none in the valley um as of today. And so there's been a desire for a while now to you know limit um the participation of the VHR advisory board members um to people that have a residence in Tahoe, not in the valley, right? And so what it essentially would do based from the current right now we have two we have four people in Tahoe and one in down here in in the valley here these four and then we what it would change is that all five of those members would be in Tahoe and then um the the makeup of the five would be two would residents would be permit holders and two would not or three would not be permit holders. It also has been discussed that you can do either or. So, but that's this is what the VHR board um talked about and and defined and and says uh this is how they'd like to see it. Um and so and then there's a definition of what a resident is because Nevada has um kind of interesting NRS related to what a resident is. They have different definitions based on different things, right? So if you're going to UNR, the residency requirements are different than if you're running for office or if you move here, you know. So um what they're defining as a resident is a person that lives in the residential community. Now it's important designation because residential community where the VHR permits are allowed. There is not VHR permits allowed in some areas of the Tahoe res area. So, we talked previously about north of Cave Rock in some of the neighborhoods like Krock Cove and nonhoa uh parts of Glen Brook, they would be

ineligible to be on this board on the VHR board according to the definition that they propose. So, just want to make sure you understand what that means. Back to the chair. Is that it? Just just to clarify and thank you, chair. Um let's say you live in Gardenerville. you have a second home in Tahoe and you have a permit at that second home in Tahoe, you would not qualify under this definition to be on the advisory board. Correct. Ernie Stelo, for the record, as is the defined it um who you would uh a resident, you'd have to be a resident in Tahoe.

Any other questions for staff? Lori, just looking at the redline code. Um, it doesn't look like it says you have to be a resident of Tahoe and a current BHR permit holder. So, we might want to clean that up. Oh, I I see when when you're defining resident, then that says you have to live within that code. Okay, never mind. Um, I did have a question and then it went right out of my head, so when I think of it, I'll come back to it. Okay. If there are no immediate questions, AJ, sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. AJ, to the record.

I just um I I know I'm I'm I made light of the obnoxious uh wording in the code. Not the obnoxious wording of the code, but the way that the code tries to define obnoxious, and it wasn't intended to be a knock at all on the advisory board. The advisory board was given the task of reviewing a number of um recommendations from our board of county commissioners and then also looking at other topics and they were tasked with doing that in a very short amount of time. They were trying to finish by July and I think they were given the directive to start that process in late May. So it was a very quick turnaround. Um there were many many issues that were discussed that didn't make their way into this presentation and I in included didn't catch everything that I should have caught during those meetings. So that my comment earlier was not intended to be a knock on the advisory board really more of just a knock on myself for not catching that but um they did an excellent job in the amount of time that they were given uh to be able to do a very thorough and very good review of the code. Thank you, AJ, Keith, Mickey, please. And I do extend my greatest thanks to you for the marvelous job you did with the short amount of time you had. Thank you. A couple of comments. First of all, this VHR advisory board, we have had a little bit of turnover, but four of us have been on this board for three years. We've sat through hour upon hour upon hour upon hour of public comment as you can probably imagine. We've sat through appeal after appeal after appeal and I believe we have a very good basis for the recommendations before you today. Some things uh for you to consider

before you consider making changes. We spent quite a bit of time talking about the ability to require a manager. First and foremost, we could not see a correlation between professional management verse owner management and in and code violations. One thing you may need to consider is, by the way, currently we have two VHR permit holders. A third who was a VHR permit holder was put on the committee as a VHR permit holder, uh, but is no longer. So we have two who've never had a BHR permit, three who have. There was a very strong position that the ability to require a manager at a lower level isn't just uh preuncter. It cost you 20% of your revenues. And so one comment could result in if you if you make 200 $200,000 a year running a VHR, four $40,000 would be going to a manager. It also then takes the takes the ability out of the anowner. There were a lot of owners who said, "I made a mistake. I was out. I wasn't answering my phone. Something was happening this time." And now all of a sudden, they have to hire a manager who's now responsible for that second violation that could remove a couple hundred thousand revenue from you. So, it is a very significant issue to require a manager. And we believed as a group it would it was not on lines about VHR permit holders or not that we would not want to get in the position of requiring something two violations they can have their permit removed that was sufficient uh incentive for them to be responsive. So that's how we got to that comment uh on emergency contact. Uh, I know there was a a reaction about, oh my goodness, we're have to call disgruntled neighbors, and that's true. What we're

trying to get to, and we heard from permit holders, they see that people are immediately turning to the sheriff and the county instead of handling neighbor by by neighbor. Many of our emergency contacts are the people who own these con these these VHRs and they would much rather prefer their neighbors to call them to resolve an issue. However, the way the codes worded now, if I call the county, I'm going to need a response. If I call the sheriff, I'm going to see a response. If I call the emergency contact, I may or may not get a response. More more likely than not, I will not. We thought requiring the emergency contact to respond to the complaintant made sense because we want to encourage the communication to stay within the neighborhoods as a first pass. Now I I don't know about danger. This is a phone call. This is not going and knocking on their door. It could result in a negative conversation. There's a lot of negative conversations. By the way, you are not going to omit negative conversations by changing this one way or the other. There is a lot of emotion around VHR complaints. We thought after a lot of deliber del deliberation that having that emergency contact called call that complaint and said, "We got your complaint. Here's how we responding would be beneficial to the community staying as a community and not involving the county or the sheriff." Now, they don't have to. They can end a call. It doesn't say they have to stay on the call and be browbeaten. It doesn't say have to give their home address. So, we thought that was a significant change that would encourage those conversations to stay amongst neighbors. And again, majority of the emergency contacts are neighbors or they're people who know the neighbors. And we thought that was a very good uh situation.

Uh the code of conduct uh noxious odors. It's the worst except for anything else. Do we want to go into which foods create noxious owners or not? Are cigars different than cigarettes? The what came to us was that you were not allowed to consume marijuana. And we said that's not true. We you know marijuana is legal in the state of Nevada and if you want to do gummies, if you want to do something that doesn't create an odor, that's your business. But when you are uh when you are affecting your neighbors via noxious odors, uh there isn't the same. It goes back to hierarchy about what we're trying to do. We're trying to get these look like other houses in the neighborhood. And part of that ownership in that neighborhood is not continually irritating your neighbors. Paul's my neighbor. He's constantly irritated by me, but you know, we get past that. But this noxious odor, they're different people every weekend. That's why we put it in there. We would be welcome any other definition of how to describe a noxious odor. If you had noxious odor at the at the uh determination of the renter, there are no noxious odors. So, it's the worst of all except for everything else. Uh Mickey, I guess if you that's all the comments I had. Like I said, this is based upon I would say 25 or 30 hours of public comment over our three years. at least more than 10 where we are hearing by the way as much from the the permit holder as we are the complaintant and this in fact I would say these are very pro- VHR permit holders we thought every one of these was in a position to benefit them. Uh again the what you had the I think they had the biggest uh

response to was this the the emergency contact and complaintant and we believe that was very good at creating a neighborly feel these things are being done. I know what's happening rather than pushing it off hoping it's good for the best. That's all I had. Mickey. Thank you Keith.

Mickey Hempler. Um, we've been on this board close to four years now and as Keith said, we have listened to hours and hours and hours of testimony. Um, my feeling on a lot of these things where we rejected the ideas was because if it's not broken, let's not fix it. Let's not make changes to the um code on a whatif basis. And I think that's why um we didn't want to change uh well the insurance thing has to do with insurance being a problem for people at the lake anyway. But uh there was a few rejections that we we were brought these ideas. These weren't ideas we came up with. We weren't in a position to want to redo the code. We want to see how things flow and things seem to be going fairly well. So that's kind of why we took a kind of a a stand on the side stance on this because it's important that the code keep rolling along and we see how it goes and we not make changes that really aren't necessary right now. Some of the changes and the noxious odors or whatever. It's just one more thing to give code enforcement another little nail in case they need it when they come up to a property where there's been a problem. But um other than that, you know, I think these were fairly um benign changes. That's all. Thank you, Mickey. I will now open public comment. Please sign the roster. State your name for the record.

Uh, good afternoon, Ellie Waller. I participated the last three to four years um almost every event that was held and al and when I wasn't there, I sent in written comment. I want to thank the two members here. I commend that advisory uh board. Please pass that message on for their due diligence. I support hefty fines like the 20k mentioned in the background information. I think the heftiness of the fines sends the message that there are serious consequences uh when those fines are let. Um just to go through some of the other things. Um I want to thank the I want to thank Ernie for all he's done and that the final decision meeting will be in Tahoe. I think you'll have a better audience of Tahoe people and I think that's important. Um I strongly um urge that you allow the advisory planning commission to further look at what was on their parking lot. That's what they call what they put for the next year's efforts after this is um proven to work as it is. Um, there's always the question that didn't come up today about VHRs in the valley. That is something in the parking lot that should be further discussed. Um, calling it a code of conduct is nebulous in my opinion. It should be rules and regulations for renters. The three Rs. I think there would be confusion if you call it code of conduct. Um, I I just want to make sure it's understood. It's just a title. Um, but I really think it needs to resonate with the renter as well as the owner. What else did I have in here? I didn't want to go too far into um any more

discussion because I think um you guys all have seen this before. This is just another round, but we do need to let it stand the test of time. Thank you.

Thank you, Ellie. Dan Ainsworth. Um, I just have four things I want to comment on. Um, on page 93, I agree that uh the local contact person must also promptly respond to a complaintant uh should not be put in there. I agree with the comments um from the majority of uh the commission here. Um on page 94, um as Keith so eloquently talked about odors, I think the U item little Roman numeral four there is a real tough one. I think you're going to have to have some pretty good conversation on that. I think you can really go down a rabbit hole on that. I'm I'm okay with three. That's probably uh state law anyway. Um but I think it's okay to have that in there on page uh 97. Um Madame Chair, you're not going to like this comment, but I think uh renters must personally be present during each night is an issue. Um, it certainly would be an issue in Glenbrook, for instance, where they can only rent owner to owner. And if an owner rents another home to have a a wedding in the local area there, um um he's certainly not going to move from his house to the house he just rented um to have some guests come into town. So, I think that needs discussion, too. I'm not quite sure why you're so adamant about that, but I'll just leave my comment there. And then on page 102, um I do have an issue with uh the uh definition of a resident. I think you're going to be missing out on a number of

good people. If you uh require that they live in a community that does allow VHRs, I'm not quite sure the background for for this one. It might be um to eliminate possibility of people from the valley. Um if that's the background reason, uh that's probably a bad reason, too. So, um I would uh recommend that you u not make that particular change. Thank you.

Thank you, Dan. Anyone else? See when no one rise, I will close public comment. Do you want to answer any of his questions? I will answer the one on reners being present on numbers page 97. The reason that I brought this forward is because of bait and switch. That someone can rent a unit for someone else just like parents rent hotel rooms for their teenage children and that is an issue. So, I thought that it was important that we had language that someone with a credit card can't rent a room for their young children, teenage children, high school children, or an out of town guest. And AJ explained very well to the board that the definition of renter and definition of guest are two different things. Correct, AJ? and that needed to be clarified in the ordinance. Ernie, do you want to tackle any the others? AJ, the definition of resident in the uh VHR advisory board changes.

Um, I can Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. AJ HS for the record. Yeah, the there's no there's no specific definitions for renter or guest, but those terms are not used interchangeably throughout the code. Generally renter means the person who actually rented the property and guest means just the guest. So the person who paid is the renter. Everyone else is a guest. The renter for example has to be 25 years or old but 25 years old or older but guests can be any age for example. Um, and then on the definition of obnoxious, I think it would be fine to keep the word obnoxious in there, but the standard that would typically that you would typically see um in in that type of a situation would be a reasonable person standard. So the law sort of implies a reasonable person standard um in the absence of an express standard. And so if you just had the wording as it's written on the slides, that might be legally more defensible than uh adopting a more subjective standard, which is the neighbor's own uh interpretation of what is obnoxious. So if you if you were to go with the slide language, it would be easier to enforce legally.

Bryce,

thank you, Madam Chair. Uh thank you to the advisory board for all your work. Um you know the nice thing is is uh you guys do all the leg work and then it's presented to us and the last thing I'm going to do is go through here and butcher a bunch of of language uh when you've done all the leg work. Uh just a couple points. Um Madame Chair, with respect to the page 97 changes, I guess I just want clarification. So, if I rent a VHR and so I'm the renter and I have my family up there with me who are the guests. Um, and I rent that for 7 days up at the lake and I have some friends down in the valley that I want to go visit and I choose to spend the evening with them down in the valley, then technically I'm not present at the VHR, which under this would prohibit that. Is that correct?

No. The issue is if you rent the VHR and you rent it in name only, it's to prohib prohibit that for you renting it for someone else. So, it's to prohibit people from doing a bait and switch. I'm renting it for someone else. So, you're only carrying the financial responsibility and you have no control over what's going on in there. It's to prohibit that. If you go down and visit your friends down in the valley, it doesn't prohibit you from doing that. Nobody's in the VHR.

Well, in that particular case, the guest would would be in the VHR. Just if I could for a moment just take it at and we can have AJ answer that question from from your clarification. I guess when we talk about the the the financially responsible party again I think I think we're just getting overly ownorous and latigious here. I I think if I rent the VHR and somebody first of all and somebody else stays there that's against the code. Is that correct? And I'm not there. Yeah. AJ. Okay. So, today currently that's not prohibited. I can rent it and somebody else can stay there. Right.

Um, however, I'm still financially responsible as is the homeowner. Correct.

Ernie, for the record, yes. So then I guess I'm I'm concerned as to why the planning commission in Douglas County is trying to regulate that when the homeowner and the person who's financially responsible as the renter are ultimately responsible for whatever happens at that at that rental property. So I'll leave it at that. um as it um what was my other thought? Going back to the to the um property manager issue, my position hasn't changed on that. As a matter of fact, it was it was even further validated by the comments uh regarding uh just the cost. I think I think you issue a violation that there's there's reasons, you know, probably good reasons why maybe that first one wasn't dealt with and uh uh and that particular homeowner will pay the price for for that. And you know, two strikes are out potentially, potentially not, but that's how it's written today. And and I don't think that we need to add um again, we can give the discretion. I get that. That's that's just a pathway for the director to do that. And I guess in concept I'm not opposed to that. I'm just opposed to um I I guess I'm just opposed to it altogether. Um I think that's those are my only two comments for now.

Kirk,

uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I uh have a couple of introductory comments and then I want to comment on five of the specific areas that uh we're dealing with. Uh, first of all, I agree with Bryce. I want to thank Dr. Stalo and Deputy DA HS for their excellent work and work in putting this package together. And also Ernie, uh, you have an excellent team uh, behind you doing all the for enforcement and that makes the job a lot easier. So, I appreciate that. And I also want to thank Chair Byer and member Hempler uh, and the rest of the VHR advisory board uh, for their efforts. They've done a lot of work on this and uh, I think I'm in agreement with almost everything that they have done. So, I appreciate uh your good efforts. The areas I want to comment on are one uh insurance. Um I do agree with the VHR advisory board that there shouldn't be any changes there. Uh number two, the eight night minimum. I I think that's problematic in my mind because you can have a straw renter. If uh if you would like to to have a permit and you want to pay for eight nights of rental, uh you can just say my uh my brother is renting it and not really rent it. Uh, I prefer to just have some flexible language in there that just says if the director finds that there is a abuse of occupying a permit for the purpose of blocking other people that they can revoke the permit. That would be my preference there. Uh, number three on the comment uh that Bryce just made uh requiring a property manager after uh problem occurs uh I again agree with the VHR advisory board. I think Keith your comments were right on point. um it's not the kind of thing that we want to uh put a heavy hand on. Uh again, discretion would be uh uh the solution I would have there. Uh third one, the code of conduct. I think that's very problematic. I think we're just running uh a risk of the county being u uh the

moral judger of what is going on. And I don't think that's a a wise course of action at all. Um, I think uh Ellie made a very good point. Maybe we just ought to rename it to rules and regulations for renters or something like that would be a little more acceptable to be. And I don't think we need to rewrite everything. I do have specific problems on on the two points that were mentioned about uh behavior and uh and odors. I think those are just not what I would like to see in uh in county code. And then the last one on the composition of the VHR advisory board. Again, I agree with Mr. Ainssworth. I I think there's valid reason to uh allow a member of the VHR advisory board to uh uh not be in an area where properties are rented. Whether that's the valley or whether that's the other properties north of Cave Rock. There's no reason to block them from being on the VHR advisory board if they have something to offer. That's up to the board to to to determine where they have something to offer. And then I also think the language that we have uh not just the red line language in uh that section is is very confusing and I have some some uh uh language that I could offer at the appropriate time. We talk about uh um people being registered voters. I think I don't think it's necessary to have to require you to be a registered voter to be on the VHR advisory board. Uh and I think the residency uh language could be cleaned up a little bit. Right now it says you have to physically reside at the residence for six months during a calendar year. Well, if you move from one location to another location, uh that would disqualify you if you're not uh at the residence for 6 months. Um so I think there's there's some problems there that we could work out. But those are my thoughts. Um and I appreciate the rest of the uh uh members of the planning commission, the points that they take even though we may disagree. Thank you,

Kirk. What about the uh responding to a complainant?

I would tend to think that's uh not something we want to put in there, but I'm not that strongly. Paul,

thank you, Madam Chair. uh preliminarily uh chair Byer and member Hempler uh I know uh what kind of work that it took have as I've attended a couple of your meetings and and I was kind of glad uh you were on the committee and I was not. Uh I would also say that uh and thank you for your service. Um Director Delair and Ernie uh Strablo, Dr. Strablo, you too both have tremendous staffs that put together a program that is um in my opinion uh probably one of the best balancing all of the interests of those uh that uh want to deny VHR completely. And I'll admit, when I first heard of the concept, I was kind of there to a concept that can generate revenue for the county and for homeowners that really does not violate the guiding principles of changing a neighborhood. And all of these regulations we're talking about, um, this room would have been full should it be any different. And for that, I have to say, not only thank you, but I'm very, very impressed. I did not forget our district attorney in uh going through all of our changes, all of our creative ideas when we were coming up with the uh the uh ordinance originally. I thought that uh that the help has been substantial. But through the years it's proven that um strict enforcement um the issuance the removal of the permits uh when necessary uh has provided a good revenue source for the county I hope and indeed for the homeowners uh and has not degraded the

neighborhoods. I have not seen the evidence of a neighborhood that has been degraded with respect to the presence or absence of VHRs. Now we're down below the uh number of 600. That helps. Uh we're also with restrictions on 15%. I know that helps particularly with condominium uh uh developments. But all of the factors stated together uh make this a program that I think the county should keep for years to come. It's it's really beneficial. Now on the particular issues uh there may be a on the renter being present and not present. I understand what the chair has been talking about. I understand uh Bryce's uh why do we want to create this uh more difficult uh circumstance and create more laws or latigious? By the way, I made my life uh my life's bread and my career out of being latigious. That's that's another that's another that's another subject. But I listened to uh to everyone to Mr. Ainsworth's comments, Mr. Strabel's comments. There may be a uh there may be a compromise where certain and I'm I'm just suggesting this. I have no idea of how the language would go. Uh that you make certain exemptions. Uh Glenn Brook, he I think Mr. We've brought up a a substantially valid point that you can't have the renter in there when you are renting out the house particularly for an event. There's a an instance at Tahoe Beach Club. There's the beach club suite which is rented for days or a week and you have to have a sponsor who is a owner of property within Tahoe Beach Club by TRPA declaration. And I tell you, I've

sponsored like many individuals and I swear to you, I don't want to be in there uh sleeping with them. But I So there has to be uh exceptions, I think, to to a hard and fast rule there. Uh second uh issue was the u professional manager. I think leaving the discretion uh to Mr. Strablau or his successor or her uh who may come into Mr. Strablo's position and the staff really need that discretion. They've proven time and time again exercising discretion in that department has proven to be really well done. It's not arbitrary. It's not capriccious. I I think that uh that that is the solution with respect to to the violation. Um, I realize and I'm mindful of the dollars that uh that Mr. Buyer has uh suggested that the owner uh loses, but that's only for the calendar year as as I envision it. That property manager doesn't last um off into the future when the permits renewed. But that was just my thinking and I hope I'm not wrong on that. Um the contact I have to I have to say that I I don't want the uh uh renter the violating renner contacted directly just because of personal experience. I know it's anecdotal, the yapping dog, the two renters uh pardon me, the two residents that were around that uh rented unit, but it it wasn't pretty. And I think uh encouraging confrontation of that sort, even though I I listened intently to Mr. Byer's commentary, but I just can't countenance that they almost came to blows. And I I don't think that's

necessary in a community. As a matter of fact, that's the antithesis of creating a community. Um, those comments, did you want me to comment on anything further? I think those are the most substantive comments I have. Madam Chair, conduct

do you know uh code of conduct if we call it a code of conduct and I can't envision how the enforcement of that will be. All of the enforcement aspects of our current code um have a pretty good path and they have been as I've just complimented uh the department uh good consequences good consequences that fit the violations. these um I mean I think they're great to look at and that people should follow but I just I have trouble with the enforcability and whether we're casting another set of rules that are outside the ordinance some without definition some with good definition is it a good idea do you know it is a good idea and and perhaps it should be published but I don't think as a u requirement that will have specific consequences upon violation.

Thank you, Lori.

Thank you, uh, Madame Chair. I also really want to compliment the, uh, vacation home advisory board or vacation rental advisory board, please, and, uh, the staff. um your efforts are clear in how this um ordinance has evolved. Looking through that list, the fivepage list of the meetings that have been conducted to discuss this ordinance, that's impressive. I don't think I've worked on anything in my entire career that took five pages of meetings. So, um please accept my gratitude for all the work that you've put in. Um I do think our ordinance is a living document. And I think it is evolving as we move forward with everything. We see how things are um working and what's not. I think a lot of the um components of this ordinance are to respond to things that maybe weren't quite as clear as we'd like or as um uh maybe we hadn't thought of when we started off here. So, just going through um I don't see how changing the the um insurance at this time is going to affect our ability to sustain this ordinance. So, um I would entirely go with the recommendations of the vacation home rental advisory board. Um I think as some of my other colleagues have stated that um the eight nights per year of rental may may be a little bit arbitrary. Um I think I I really like the idea that the added statement that the director if you if that's determined that this permit was not intended to be a real permit. It is a ghost permit. Um and it's and it's impeding real property owners uh from um renting to um and renting to renters and also generating that revenue that is important to the county. I think that's

a problem. And if the director has the authority to um revoke that permit, I think that that's really important. The eight nights, maybe it's eight, maybe it's one, maybe it's two, maybe it's 27, I don't know. But um I think that that number, you know, if that number was gone entirely, I don't think it would change the result of this because if there is a an understanding that this is not a real permit, then that permit can be revoked. Um I think the licensed property manager issue uh for the uh tier 2 units, um I don't want to make it a mandate. I don't think that it should automatically kick in at a certain level, but I think it is just another tool in our toolbox for property owners that um we're going to be at a point maybe now, maybe in a few years where property owners that have been revoked are now reconsidered and now they're also maybe um not as responsive as we'd like. And so, um, that's a tool that we can place on them to, um, put them back in the system. So, I would have it as a as an optional, um, requirement that the director can impose mid mid permit uh, for um, properties that are experiencing difficulties. Sorry property manager if you're going to lose some revenue for it but you know you have put yourself in a position where your unresponsiveness has caused us to have to have some issues. So this is the result of that if the director feels that that would be appropriate. Um again I want to reiterate my my concerns about requiring the complainant and the local contact person to interact. Um there's I don't believe there's anything that would not allow them to do that. I think that

that certainly is something that can occur. My experience in code enforcement is that if you have a complainant, they are and it's something that that is occurring near them or next door to them or across the street from them. They are going to be a serial complainant. So every time there's a noise issue, they're the ones that are going to call. It's not going to be the random residents in the neighborhood. That complainant is going to be the complainant. So you're setting up that local contact person to always contact that complainant, which will after a while not result in that happy correspondence that we're hoping for from a neighbor to neighbor standpoint. It's to me it's it's not a good idea. If that local contact person chooses to do that or is encouraged to do that, I don't have any problem with it. But I think the requirement that that contact be made on every single complaint, I think that's not a reasonable requirement. Um placing the information, contact information at the entrance of the VHR, absolutely it should be right there. Um, let's see. The code of conduct, I I have some issues with the code of conduct. Um, so the code of conduct basically says that the renters may be subject to fines. So, I'm assuming the county would be finding the renters, not the property owner. But we're kind of blending our code of conduct with the property owner's code of conduct, which makes it potentially seem like we are going to find the property or the renter for non county code items. Um I I I don't like it as a code of conduct. I

think rules and regulations on the renters would be a better um better way to handle it. I think having a code of conduct is really good. And I think even though it is very difficult to enforce and to um to uh describe to um explain some of these I think that having some prohibitions or some something in there that talks about some of these problems that we've had the the marijuana smoke the lewd behavior. I think that just helps remind people that to be responsible. And I also think that the renter, if they think that they're the ones that are going to be on the hook for their boyfriend peeing over the rail, um that might deter that behavior. Um it it is going to be very difficult to enforce and I get that. But I think having it out there might might deter some of it. Um, let's see. But again, I just don't see how we can meld the two, the private code of conduct and the county's minimum code of conduct. So, I think that needs a little more tweaking. Um, I agree that maybe some of the the way the language is written for the um resident being on or renter being on site, I I yeah, I get that we need to have something in there, but I think the Glenbook um example is one that we need to um maybe find a work around and then um there could be exigent circumstances where that renter has to leave for a day or two. I think it needs to be have a little bit of flexibility in there. So, um, with that, I just want to thank you again for the the really excellent work that you guys have done to try to

address these very difficult issues. I think it's it's a lot and I really I think you've put in a lot of time and a lot of good thought on it. So, thank you for that, Dan.

Wow, what a what a piece of work. This is great. And again to reiterate the congratulations to the advisory board and the hard work you've done. And that really sort of opens me up to remind me that I I believe that the people who are closest to the issue are the ones that know what to do with it. And I would uh I would state based on that I'm going to go along with the advisory board's recommendations. Um, so as we as we blitz through them, uh, I think you've covered a lot of things. I don't think uh I think you've looked at it long and hard. You you're the ones who've taken the 10 to 20 to 30 hours of public comment. So I I'm going to defer to your judgment on that. Um, the eight light eight night minimum, you picked eight nights. I'm good with it. I I think there's a reason that staff needs that and quite frankly for the scenario where the owner is going to rent it from himself for eight nights to qualify for it. County still gets the transit and occupancy tax. So, you know, it's a win-win, right? Uh I I'm going to change my earlier comments about the property manager and defer to your judgment on that. I think uh staff has adequate uh discretion now if it's really gets out of hand particularly at the point where permits are being renewed or requested to be renewed. Um you know the the local contacts I think is important. I I would okay the properly respond to I don't know how that would be uh enforced and my my fear is uh the the item number two requiring the local contact to then promptly respond to complaintant. I will defer to your judgment on that. It it

kind of goes against some of my grain in terms of uh the comments made by my colleague to my left here. But uh again, you're closer to it. I can see your argument. I don't know how it'll be enforced, but certainly anytime you can resolve an issue at the lowest level, and I agree with you that most local contact people want to resolve it at the lowest level. And so I'm going to I'm going to def I'm going to defer to your recommendation even even though I said something differently uh different earlier. Um, I don't really have a problem with the code of conduct per se. I would u I like the comment about cigar smoke. So, if you're going to say marijuana smoke, you should say cigar smoke, too, because I don't like that. Um, I would say if we're going to leave that in there that uh the the suggestion by the DA on how you define obnoxious odors, the the reasonable person judgment argument, not the neighbors argument. Uh, and I think that would be fine. Um, I might I might just beef up your your item 12 where you say renters may be subject to fines. I think that's fine, but I think renters and property owners uh may be subject to fines. It's it's a minor point, but I don't have a problem with that. And uh I recognize it's going to be hard to enforce, but I personally would rather read a code of conduct when I go into a place rather than rules and responsibilities or or whatever. It's the same thing in my mind. Um, and I think it's good, as somebody mentioned before, just to remind the renters that, hey, you know, behave, uh, fit into the neighborhood. Uh, I think I've hit everything, haven't I? Did I miss something? Renter. Oh, the

renter on site. Uh, we we've been given two scenarios this afternoon where the current wording on the renter on site really doesn't doesn't fit. Uh the one presented by the chair I think is valid one. I I asked the question about that owner to owner rental within the Glen Brookke area. It seemed unusual to me when I learned about the program. Um but you make a good point. I mean how do you do that when you you got your house here, you're renting another house for your family to come in for an event and you can't be in two places at one time. And to Bryce's scenario, of course, Bryce, I would say, if I'm going to spend the money to rent a place at Taho for a week, I'm going to be there. But I was thinking the same thing where where it would be very easy to get called out on business emergencies. I mean, lots of scenarios you can imagine where that renter is going to be offsite. I certainly understand the chair's concern. Maybe there's some language that fits all these scenarios and works. Um but again that's that's my comment on that but thank you very much for the opportunity chair.

Thank you Dan. Great comments. Jim

I also want to thank the work of the advisory board and appreciate two of them actually coming today. And uh Ernie, you're not getting old. It's okay. You'll be around. Um, I kind of scribbled all over this paper, so I'm kind of going to go all over the place. Um, I think the, um, with the chair talked about in terms of the renter being present, I think what you have to avoid is my little brother is 20 and I'm 25 and he needs me to rent it, but he's not going. me and my friends are going to have a party and I'm not ever going to be there but I rented it for them and I think that's what we have to find and and as people mention exceptions like Glenbrook I'm not an attorney and I'm not ready to to for the language I don't know what the language should be I think the point is that you will have people just like you have your older brother go buy beer for you it's the same thing we all did it um well maybe not all I shouldn't say But um so I think I think we have a a a reasonable requirement that we want the renter to be the person that's coming up. And of course it might be when somebody comes by he might be down the street at a party. So we can't expect the renter to be there the whole time. We can understand why he might get called away on business or whatever reason. But I think what we want to do was find language that prevents somebody who's not planning on coming up from renting that property for somebody else. I think that's a worthwhile goal for that. Um um the requiring the property manager, I think I like that discretion for for the director to have. It's not something I think they just going to willing, hey, I

don't like this guy. Let's do this. It's something that we solve a problem should a problem arise. I like him having that power. The um the eight night minimum, I'll go with the discretion of the advisory board. I get the purpose of it. That sounds right. Um the uh the code of conduct um you know when we when this was discussed we said noxious but this says obnoxious. Obnoxious is kind of hard to define. Noxious is harmful, poisonous, or very unpleasant. I think, and I'm not sure how you enforce this anyway, but I would change that to noxious if it were me. I think that more defines what we're talking about. It's unpleasant. We could be something we're not even thinking of here. As an example, I think that that definition would cover what we're trying to do here. So, that's a suggestion anyway that we just make it noxious. Kind of fits the definition. Um, disorderly, LWD, or indecent behavior. I think we know what that means, but it's kind of hard to pin it down what somebody thinks it is and what somebody else thinks it is. So, it's kind of hard for somebody to come up and say, "Oh, you were disorderly." Well, I'm on vacation, you know. So, I I don't know quite and I can't even think of better language for that. I just think that that's going to be a hard one. Um the the fire pit should have always been there in my opinion. So, I'm glad to see that. So, um again, um I think that's what I have, but I just again thank the work of the board. And you know, and sometimes when

we look at this stuff and we wonder about something, but we realize you guys have been there and you've been through this and you have the examples. And so I really respect what you presented today. Thank you very much.

My turn. I'm very quick. The VHR board knows how much I respect them. each and everyone. Even though we don't always agree, I I admire you for your dedication and all that you've put up with from the public, from the board, from me, from from the politics and the emotion. It's phenomenal. And you will always have my respect. never ever forget that and I think this board has uh also agreed with that. It's it's just it's beyond words and what we have in front of us. You spent what 24 hours it seems back to back doing this, going through this and your conversations and your discussions and your debates. There was a lot of emotion argument and listening to the public. It was uh quite interesting, sometimes entertaining, sometimes frustrating, but you made it through and your recommendations, most of them I agree with. They were very, very thoughtful and I think the board of commissioners will agree that you put so much thought there's very little to uh to disagree with. Uh the only things that uh I have to say is yes, I do want to give the director discretion on program managers or property managers.

I like that you came up with the eight nights. I think that's a wonderful balance. It's enough to make people serious about holding a permit, but it's not overbearing. It's just enough. Nice nice number. the quote of conduct. I don't like number four. I thought the discussion that you had over that it was very good. And I I must say that the uh discussion over marijuana was very interesting between vaping and and edibles and and all that whole discussion. And then when cigars came up, I had to chuckle because that was an excellent point. Well, I like smoking a cigar. My wife doesn't like them. What am I going to do? And then when the person from the public got up and said, I don't like marijuana. What's what if the neighbors smoking marijuana cigarette? Who do I complain to? That's an excellent point. So, we can enforce that and it's legal. So, I really don't think that we're going to be able to enforce that. I think that's up to the owner of the property. Obnoxious odors could be incense or a diesel engine. Somebody's idling in the driveway waiting for people to bring their their baggage out. You know, I I don't know. I think that this one number four was insisted on by someone who is thinking politics more than anything else. Number three, again, a lot of that that is already in

code, disorderly, lewd, or indecent behavior, that's already against the law. So, are we just reminding renters to behave appropriately, to act your age? And I like when AJ brought out that what he's done in this code of conduct is take all the things that were scattered throughout the ordinance and is just placing them in one place and they're going to be put in the code of conduct instead of having them in the permit, having them in the ordinance, having them here, here and there. They'll be in one place posted in the unit for the renters. But I think we should get rid of uh number four alto together. That's that's just my opinion. And responding to the complainant uh majority says no. I don't like confrontation. That's not something I would like, but I'm going to leave that up to the board of commissioners because I I respect what the board is saying that we want to encourage the owners to talk to the residents and the neighborhood. I respect what Lori is saying that it can get ugly. So, I'm just going to leave it up to the board of commissioners to decide. And uh same with the composition of the VHR board. And that's pretty much all I have to say. Ernie,

ask.

Sure. I I just had a clarifying question coming back to the to the reners's presence. Um, I guess one of the struggles that I have with this is that this isn't part of the presentation. So, I'm curious if this has been vetted by the advisory board, if there's been discussion, if there's been public input, etc. Because I hear what Jim is saying about, you know, I rent the property for my 20-year-old brother so he can throw a party. Bad, right? Although, I don't know, maybe I rented it and threw a party, too. I mean, I like party, but um I I I'd like to think about it in another instance where I want to rent it for my son and his wife and children and they can't afford to rent a place in Tahoe, which we've done a number of other times in other VHRs. Um, and we rent that for them. They're incredibly responsible, but they can afford to do that or what have you. there's a contract with the homeowner in in terms of what you can and can't do. I'm on the hook for whatever they do financially. The home the the the VHR permit holders on the hook for whatever they do. And um and I just don't I don't see where it's the place of the county and the purview of of this body to be dictating how that should be done. And so I just I have just a general concern with it in the sense that this this was not part of the presentation. It wasn't brought up um by the advisory board. I don't know where where you see it. I don't know where you all see it. I don't know what public input there's been on this, but I think there could be unintended consequences of this that have not been fully vetted. um nor do I am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am I aware of I don't even know if the public is aware

of this being a potential item that we were going to discuss here today. So I I would just like the board's input because I respect the board and everything that's been put forth here and and and all that and the fact that they haven't had an opportunity to weigh in on this is probably my biggest concern. So, it sounds like just by the shake of your head, Ernie, that this has not been vetted by the board. Good afternoon, Ernie Stlo, for the record. Um, it was brought up in uh the chair of this committee was uh present at a VHR meeting. I think I think it was our last one, right? Jul July 22nd and it was brought up uh in public comment uh or in this I believe at the beginning of the meeting and the VHR board did discuss it uh as part of their towards the end of the process of going through the other prescribed things that were already on the on the meeting agenda. Um I can't speak for really what they were feeling or thinking. I think it it I can speak for myself. I mean I my uh it hadn't it hadn't been an issue in the past you know where this issue particular came up but um I did note it was a good point that you know maybe it should be in the code I I hadn't thought much about it um that was my personal first thinking um I hadn't thought it through like you know you guys I didn't sit like this and talk about it um um AJ can speak for himself and um you have a couple board members here that can probably talked to what they were thinking. Um, but that's they did talk about it. I I don't believe there was a lot of discussion on it. It was towards the it was in our final meeting.

I mean, look, I don't want to delay this any longer and and I'll I'll defer to my colleagues and whether they want to hear anything about it or not. Um, but it it it just seems to me that there's a presentation that addresses a number of points here today. This is not one of them. Um, so I don't know what the what the the discussions are and it it's something that we're going to make it we're being asked to make a decision respectfully by the chair today on whether to include that or not include that. And I I just feel like without your input and and that of of the stakeholders, you know, I I just feel like it's this is not the appropriate time to do that unless there's a compelling reason why we should. AJ

AJS for the record. I I can say just as far as the presentation goes, well, first of all, I'll start with the noticing. So, the noticing in general for the um ordinance, I think, is sufficient to include a discussion of this topic because the ordinance encompasses all changes to um chapter 622 of title 20 including and then it lists a number and this is not on the list. It's also not in the presentation, but it is in the ordinance and it's on page 97 of that ordinance. So, it's included within those changes or excuse me, page 97 of the packet. I think going forward to the board, we'll probably make it a a point of presentation as well, but not every single change. Um, changes that that Ernie and I deem to be minor. clerical, for example, those are included in the ordinance but not in the presentation because they didn't warrant discussion. This obviously did and I think it was just oversight on our part to not add it as another discussion item, but it's certainly reasonable to discuss it. As far as the board, they did discuss it. I I agree. I don't remember that the conversation was long. Um I don't think it was a big I don't think a lot of thought was put into it. I think the idea was presented and and everyone seemed fine with it, but there wasn't a big discussion. Um I that's my recollection.

Well, I like I said, I'll I'll defer to my colleagues if they want to hear more about it. Otherwise, I'll I'll state my position at the vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't remember my question. um the uh change to the board composition. I'm curious whether that change would occur immediately upon the um implementation of the ordinance or if that would occur as the BHR advisory board member um their terms are are up. Uh I don't know what the current composition is, but I would certainly hate to lose people who have worked so diligently on that board. um within the next 6 months or so.

Yay. AJS. Again, for the record, the appointments have already been made and they were lawful when they were made. So, there's nothing in the new ordinance that would undo any of those appointments. They would be there is one board member who is not who is a valley resident, which is our current requirement. So, she would be ineligible to renew, but she would continue to serve out her term because her appointment was valid. Any other comments? Do you need anything from us or do you just collect our comments and you will come up with a sheet similar to what the uh VHR board recommendation sheet is?

Uh Ernie Stler, for the record, I I think AJ and I were making notes. Um it's however you want to do it. I you know we uh the VHR board they kind of did what you did. They went through the process and at the end they they did have a vote to affirm you know one way or the other where they were going with all the discussion that they had based on what you guys were talking about. A little bit more people here so and everybody has opinions. Um but I did I did put some notes in here. I think you did too. AJ did too. So uh it's up to you. AJ, tell us what to do.

Madam Chair, my suggestion would be that on maybe some of the more um contentious I guess that's not exactly the right word, but on the items where there was disagreement or possible disagreement with the advisory board, maybe it would be helpful to do a vote just to see if there is some kind of consensus. If there isn't a consensus, then we probably would not present that to the board. So, it would be helpful to know if there is a consensus on those items where you might disagree with the advisory board. Okay. It's a good thing I made some notes.

Madam Chair, I know you were making a lot of notes and I was trying to too. I have an alternative proposal. AJ AJ, we could certainly do that, but I think some of them may be even nuanced where we might find three people on one side, two people on another side, and two other people on another side. Um, uh, my alternative suggestion would be just that we follow the recommended motion and then that we, uh, uh, say that each, uh, planning commission member should submit their individual recommendations to the board of county commissioners. That way we would avoid having you to speak for us in tabulating comments and providing them in a in a uh fashion that the board would find useful. But I'm open to the idea that AJ has. If we want to go through the four or five items and say up, down, yes, no, alternatives, we could do that. Uh I just I'm not sure we're going to get to a resolution on uh if we do that, but that's an option.

Paul,

there are two options that were just discussed. One is going through all of those matters that did not have agreement with respect to the BHR advisory board. The second uh by my colleagueuh to the left was that we each come up with our list and our positions on the various matters. Uh and the third that we should consider is just leaving it with uh Ernie and his forces to uh discern what has been discussed and what where there were areas of substantial disagreement. The reason why I say that is because if I were a board member, I just want to know what people disagreed about and why. And I don't care about the rest. I I mean, I do care and I don't mean to to make a light of it, but I don't think I need it regurgitated to me or in front of me. Uh so that that would be the third alternative I'd suggest. And I know that's putting a burden on you, sir, and your staff, but I think you have the record to look at as well.

I would like that better. There there was only there were only two items where we had a majority voting no. And that would be responding to the complainant and the uh code of conduct. and the rest we went and then the discretion we voted against the or the majority went against the um VHR board. So, uh it may be a little unclear is our next uh planning commission meeting before October 16th, I believe it is. Would it be appropriate to continue this until the next planning commission meeting and then we could vote on it then when we have the tally the official tally? Could we do that?

Uh madam yeah madam chair it's your item. Uh the first reading is going forward in two weeks to the board and I suspect that if the board they they can request changes to the ordinance between the first and the second reading and so long as the changes are not so great that we have to redefine the ordinance we can continue with the second reading. If they make significant changes, we'll have to probably redo the first reading. But um if there are changes that this board wants to see made, my recommendation is to present them to the board in the first reading so that if they're minor in nature, they can still proceed with the schedule. So if you want to do a tally today so that we can present those differences of opinion to the board at the first reading, I think that would be the most productive. Okay, then let's just go ahead and vote and let's go. Um, let's go uh on the ones that we are most contentious, so to speak. and then um and then do uh the recommended motion on the others. So far as giving the director discretion to require a property manager when a property owner is nonresponsive. All those in favor

I I sorry madam chair if I could just for a second. Yes. Are are we taking these individ I know there was comments about insurance and those type of things. Are we taking each of these or we are and and feel free as the chair I mean do as you may but are you just picking the ones that Right now I have a list of the four that we were in disagreement on the other ones we we had discussion but we were still in agreement with the VHR board. So, anything that we don't discuss, excuse me. Anything we don't discuss is basically that we we're proceeding with the recommendation of the advisory board. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Um, Madame CL uh chair, if I could just make one clarification. Right now, we're just taking a tally of opinions. This is not a formal motion at this point in time. Yes. Okay.

Okay. This is on 622.0. 040 A 2 item two it's on page 39 require a local No that's that's the wrong one it's on giving the property or the director discretion to acquire property manager after after an incident where the owner was nonresponsive. All those in favor, excuse me, Madam Chair, you use the word discretion. So, are we voting on the modification or are we voting on what the VHR board considered and rejected on our modification? On our modification.

Yes. Which is give the direction. Our modification. Given discretion. All those in favor? I I I those all those against. So it passes. Dan St. John votes against. Just to be clear again, it wasn't a formal motion. So it nothing technically was passed. It was just a tally of votes. Six to one. Six to one.

Okay. Eight nights. The recommendation of the VHR board was for eight nights. All those who supported that in favor I I all those against nay. Nay. So that's a six to one code of conduct. All those who support the code of conduct.

Could Could I just make a suggestion? You you made a very good point about item four. Yes. Because I might support the code of conduct, but I might also support not having item four. So since that got a lot of discussion, would you want to just maybe do a tally on item four? Yeah, let's first code of conduct as written. Those who support code of conduct as written? I apologize. The code of conduct incorporated as an enforcable document or something that should be included as written as written as an enforcable document.

As to pass that as written to the board of commissioners. All those in favor? One person. All those who support passing the code of conduct onto the board of commissioners minus item four. I.

All those in favor? That's four in support. Three against. Madam Chair, I would favor uh removing three and four. So, it's again, we're nuanced on on some of these

as well. Okay. Can I have a point of clarification? Who were the nays on that? Hi. Let me just go down. Item three. Item four. Oops.

Okay. Responding to the complainant. This is a biggie. All those in favor of requiring the local conduct to respond to the complainant. Those in favor, Dan St. John, those against, six against. Actually, I'm neutral. That's uh Jim Mallalop, Lori Lyle, Paul Kirk, Bryce, and I'm Neutral. And those are the most contentious ones we had.

Madam Chair, just for the record, could we discuss the um reners? Yes. Just so that it's on the record, please.

Yes. and uh 13 A which is uh 97 96 there's page 96 which is under item It's on page 97 of the packet. Yeah. Yeah. I'm looking for the the total item number. I know it's uh 040.

You won't find it up there, Ernie, because it's not there. It's C13.

Okay. C3A. The minimum age to rent a vacation home rental is 25 years. The addition would be renters must be personally present during each night that the VHR is occupied. I asked the VHR board during their last meeting to consider adding that language because I had a concern that it's very possible and it has been done not on a continuous basis that the program director was aware of but it had been done and I was aware of others who had done this that renters are renting units and then allowing their children to who are under age under 25 to come and use VHRs and that's a consideration one it's fraud and two there are liability issues AJ clarif clarified that renters are not necessarily guests. They're two different things. Renters sign the contract with the county. Guests do not. So, I thought to clarify that language in the ordinance made sense. And I asked the VHR board to consider it and they discussed it and they added the language. Would you like to speak to this?

Sure.

My recollection was that we this was presented last minute like as as m as Mr. said first we had a very short time frame and we were getting through a lot of conversation. We went through these point by point that made absolute sense to us. It makes absolute sense to me from from both a neighbor and a VHR permit holder. I would like a county code requiring the person who I think is going to be there to be there. And if you want to rent for someone else, you can reach out to the owner and say, "I want to pay, but these are the people who are going to rent there." All those things are possible. But when you have someone who signs up over 26, that VHR permit holder needs to be aware that that's the person. Of course, they're financially responsible, but that's a hard thing to figure out later on. It's the conduct. It's your community situation. To me, if if someone wants to allow someone else to pay, they ought to have that they can change their contract to say this person pays, but this is the person who's going to be there. And the way these contracts are written is it implies the person who's paying and renting sign the contract is going to be there. It's not explicit, but it's implicit. And to me, this is a great protection for our ver VHR permit holders that I'm not reing on for someone's behalf. You know, uh Mr. includes was saying that, you know, he's rented for his children. I don't have a problem with that. I've done the same thing. But when I check into a Marriott, that Marriott knows who my kids are and they're going to be there. And I think it's we need to be transparent whether the person who's renting is going to be there. And I I think we may have shortcircuited the system of saying that you have to be on site. I understand the Glen Brook issue. We can make an exception for the Glenrook issue because that that's a different thing. What's on

site? We didn't define that either. Well, if you're in if you're in Glenn Brook, you're probably looking after that VHR as well. Hopefully, we can agree on an objective. The objective is that someone is not renting for someone else who cannot. Someone under 26, someone that you know is for a bachelor party, but we don't allow bachelor parties. So, to me, uh, hopefully we can agree on the objective that it ought to be transparent of who's going to be in that VHR. And if you're not, if you're going to rent for someone and they're not going to and you're not going to be in that VHR, it ought to be transparent to the VHR permit holder who's going to be there and who is not going to be there. Like I said, we didn't, by the way, this is Keith Byer for the record, and that is my personal opinion. We did not have this debate. It was brought up. It made sense. It was in our mind what I think the objective was and that's why that's why we thought it made sense. All of the other things is is my personal opinion. We did not have that conversation to my recollection. Uh Mickey if you would like to add but any questions.

Uh no questions just a comment. I I don't disagree with you. I think that the now that I understand the objective it's clear the red line does not say that. And I guess that's my issue. Um, and so my recommendation would be for Ernie, the board, whoever before this is presented to the county commission that you get clarity around the Glen Brook issue, around the the objective. Um, it says that the person will be there each night. I don't think that's the intent. Um, maybe it is, but I don't think it is. So, um, I think we just we got to get clear around that. And it was to me it's kind of one of those things. It's kind of inserted in there at the last minute. And as you can see, when things are are well thought out, as all of these others are, and there's good debate around them, they're a lot easier to discuss and and try to get to an ending on. So that that's my only comment. I can't support the way it's written, but I do support the objective.

And it's always easier from a concept than to see it in wording. You know, that's that's all that's why this was not by accident. the reason we stuck here uh because it's very easy to apply a concept. The words can be smiththed. Paul,

um I totally agree with the concept. I totally agree with the objective, but there has to be exceptions as you've pointed out. One is Glenn Brook and the second is where we live. TBC has a lake suite and I'll be damned if I'm going to sleep in there with Some of the folks that have rented it now I just won't do it. Uh you know the weddings for employees and things like that they've rented it out and uh they always need a sponsor of an owner who is a resident of owner who lives at TBC. So I think that there has to be exceptions. I think that the overall intent purpose objective is excellent.

Jim I concur. I think somebody should be able to um to give their kids a honeymoon in Tahoe and have their name of their kids long they're over 25 listed on the lease, but somebody else is paying for it and taking the financial responsibility. What I said before we started this uh in my comments before this just needs to we just need to have the language. This is just a a good it's a good solution that's going to require language to make it work. If we can do that to take into account Glennbrook and uh certainly if somebody's in the casino when somebody comes by and they're not there, you know, we still account them as they're they're not an absent renter. So I think if we can and my recommendation is that we find the language that that fulfills the idea the concept of somebody not renting it out for someone who isn't legal to be there that this is a really good thing to have. Dan,

just a suggestion u notwithstanding the comment that was made that there are two unique areas that need some specific language and I would ask staff if they it sounds like there's a consensus on that and I agree with everything that I've heard here Bryce thank you um but I would think staff could write something about those exceptional areas everything else I'm just wondering renter must be personally present during each night and then a caveat or a responsible guest over 25 or something like that. So, you're never left with a situation where you don't have a responsible 25 plus year old in the in in the rent or in the unit. It might be just something as simple as that. But I guess my question of staff, it sounds like there's consensus. Well, it sounds like there's consensus up here and does staff have enough information, input to take our consensus and put it into words,

Keith. Well, yeah, that would be my recommendation is we have agreed on a concept to let that staff do it because it may be sometimes you reverse it, right? It must be apparent in the rental agreement who is going to be resident. That's what we're trying to avoid. Especially I got a strike. I I don't want uh you know I don't as a renter as a as a VHR permit holder. I don't want someone to rent and anyone else can show up without their you know without my knowledge. The the VHR permit holder is responsible for the for the performance the the operations that VHR. They need to know who's going to be in residence. Thank you.

Thank you so much Ernie. May I Ernie trailer for the record? I I have a question. So I I did make notes. The Tahoe Beach Club U Commissioner Bruno brought up. Um so I'm not I'm not as familiar with a testing to a a sleeping area or something in the main the main area. So you know I I if you can send me a definition of what that is because there's to my knowledge Tahoe Beach Club is treated like any other neighborhood. Glen Brook is unique. I know I know what Glen Brookke is, but I don't know about this situation as as clearly as you do. So, if you can send me what that is like, you know, there's cuz you I think that if I understand it right, the Tahoe Beach Club HOA or association or they they they own they own that area. Oh, the residents own it.

Tahoe Beach Club is a separate corporation entity with separate ownership that it resides with the developer. the building on the beach, the beach, the pier, uh, all are Tahoe Beach Club, separate entity from the HOA and from the condominiums. And to to rent to to use the ballrooms or the space over there, they have to have an space over there called the lake suite. And it's got four, five, six. It it it probably sleeps eight.

Okay. And it has a little kitchenet. It has a table. Uh living room. Uh and you must be a owner of a unit in order to rent that suite. So if you can send us language for that, I'll send it to you. It's in a declaration from the TRPA and they said we'll allow this use. By the way, this I think came before any of the statutes on uh on VHRs. No, I'm sure it has because I remember reading the declaration and I sponsored one of the employees weddings at it. If it's not a VHR, it's not ours. See, it should be.

Okay. But if it's not in this discussion, if it's not a VHR, I I'm not the developer. I I Okay. Trust me, I'm not the developer. Okay. Thank you. Do you need anything else from us? Think can we do a a motion to a motion to have Ernie and AJ craft our recommendations to send to the board of commissioners. I'll move so move.

Yeah, I think that's fine. I I was going to recommend that that the that the motion be to recommend that the board consider the the m what what what you said is fine. Okay. All right. Did you get that? Second. Motion by the chair, second by the vice chair. All those in favor? I I motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Closing public comment

one more time. Good afternoon. Um this was interesting how this planning commission did the de deciding factor what goes forward what doesn't to the boc. Um I think there was some confusion in the public and with you how a vote should have been done. Um I'm hoping this gets I'm sure Ernia will do a great job with staff um on some of the confusion of this. On the last item, it said the advisory board rejected this. That piece should have just come out in my opinion and it goes into the parking lot. That's the term they use for the next round. I I know it's urgent and it's there was a violation because of children on one of these VHRs. So, some of this resonates if you go to these meetings. Um, I'd just like to see that one be withdrawn. Um, but I I'm sure you'll do a good job and it will come back up on the 18th. Um, I also uh want to bring back uh um that one of the commissioners asked for the advisory commission to be abolished. I hope that has been changed. I believe that that needs to be very clear and I will bring that up at the BOCC um next meeting that I think there are so many things to be resolved and that this board um you would benefit from their um input on that. I'll get back to Barton. I'm going to urge all of you to go up to that site now because you are going to be asked to change zoning for

height. The current height allowable is 56 feet. The Lakeside Casino was 63 before there was actually code in place. Barton is asking for 80 plus feet which could go up to 90 100 ft with a pertinances. I will let Bryce explain that to you what those mean. Um, I'd really like you to see what these people will have to live with. And you can get a preview of that now with the Kale project and the end dot striping, the noise, the dust these people, etc. are going to have to put up with for two to three years. I think it's very important to understand that those homes are 15 feet high. You can do the math. you got an in excess of 60 or 70 feet taller than their what they're living with. I would appreciate it if you would take the time before it's winterized. Thank you. Thank you, Ellie. Seeing no one rise, I will close public comment. And I would like to thank Keith and Mickey again and Dan Ainsworth for all their hard work on VHRs. Thank the staff and I would would like to make an announcement that in October on the I believe it's the 23rd and 24th the Nevada chapter of the American Planning Association is going to have their 53rd annual conference at CVI and the rate for the two days for elected officials which you all are, is $100. And if you go to their website, the APA website for Nevada, you can sign up. So,

I wanted to make that announcement for you. Have a wonderful month and we will see you in October.