Sides being drawn over SLT vacation rentals
By Jessie Marchesseau
Residential neighborhoods in South Lake Tahoe being used for tourist lodging are beginning to divide the town.
More than 100 people packed the City Council chambers for Tuesday’s vacation home rental workshop, while still more looked and listened in from outside the door. The meeting, originally scheduled for 1½ hours, lasted twice that long, with more than two hours taken up exclusively by public comment.
Dozens of people voiced their opinions on the subject, including residents who do not own vacation rentals, and residents who do, property managers, contractors, real estate agents and business owners.
While there did not appear to be a unanimous opinion on any of the topics, it was generally agreed upon that stricter enforcement was needed. However, there was a divide when it came to who should be fined, the owner or the renter.
City Manager Nancy Kerry outlines proposed changes to South Lake Tahoe’s vacation home rental ordinance. Photo/Jessie Marchesseau
People weighed in on the proposed amendments and some proposed their own. Many shared experiences as neighbors, owners, renters and managers.
Non-VHR-owning residents voiced the most concerns and complaints with some going so far as to request a moratorium on VHRs altogether. This is not likely to happen though, as City Attorney Tom Watson said such a move would almost guarantee a lawsuit.
In the end, no final decisions were made at the March 24 meeting; however, the City Council received myriad comments and feedback with which to move forward.
“This is to have all sides heard,” Watson said. “Both opinions are important to the community.”
City Manager Nancy Kerry reiterated how residents as well as VHR owners have property rights that must be respected and taken into consideration when creating new ordinances. She said the city is aiming to balance the needs of everyone, not just serve one group. They are considering how any changes will affect real estate values, the tourist economy, the environment, the community, and the quality of life for residents and business owners. Taking all those things into account, Kerry presented the city’s proposed amendments.
According to the city’s research, there are four main issues with VHRs causing a negative impact on the quality of life for local residents: noise, trash, parking and the commercialization of neighborhoods.
Increased enforcement of regulations would include possibly hiring an additional enforcement officer for one year and conducting on-site visits to check for compliance. Increased fines, citations to renters and owners, and the elimination of the first time violation warning in lieu of a fine are all on the table.
Another proposed amendment is to provide incentives for owners to use local property management firms as opposed to doing it themselves through services such as VRBO. This incentive would be in the form of lower permit fees for locally managed properties. The proposed fees for properties not having a local manager would be double those of locally managed properties.
The new fee structure would also be based on occupancy, meaning larger homes would have higher permit fees. The council suggested changing the occupancy limit from two people per bedroom plus four, to just two per bedroom, exempting children under 10. The hope is this will help to reduce both the noise and parking issues often plaguing vacation rentals.
Also addressing the noise issue was the proposal to restrict hot tub use after 10pm as well as any use of outdoor speakers or other noisy equipment or activities. When it comes to parking, the possibility of neighborhood permits was mentioned, but Police Chief Brian Uhler pointed out that it is not possible to limit public parking on public streets. Any enforcement must be limited to illegally parked vehicles.
To help remedy the issue of vacationers leaving trash on the curb for days, the city could require VHRs to have bear boxes. However, there was some concern that this could become unsightly.
The Council will discuss the topic further at the April 7 meeting. The first reading of the new ordinance will likely be April 21.
A bear box is nowhere near as ‘unsightly’ as trash bags and trash strewn across the neighborhood. If management companies picked up garbage every time there is a checkout as a condition of the lower permit fee trash could become less of an issue.
A couple years ago after similar public outcry the City raised vacation rental permit fees to hire a full time VR compliance officer. What happened to that position and that person, most certainly the funding is still being collected.
City Manager Kerry stated the professional agencies are doing a better job of monitoring their rental homes than non- local individuals, and the city is considering giving a fee break to owners who hire local professionals. An audience member stated there is absolutely NO data that backs up the statement that the pros do a better job and a second audience member stated instead of punishing the individual owners the fee raise should be complaint dependent. This made sense to many in the audience. Perhaps the council believes the Professionals do a better job because one of its own members has been involved in the business for many years. Do they allow Tom Davis to have a vote when this issue is discussed or is he no longer in the business?
They really think bear boxes are unsightyly? LOL!!!!!what about the unsightly garbage strewn all over the neighborhood and empty lots that ends up being picked up over and over by locals and Clean Tahoe folks. Maybe we need to have a “fine”given to the propertys that have the garbage issues. That might help the Clean Tahoe Program keep on doing the great job they do.
The Bear box issue is addressed in the current ordinance, My feeling is that bear boxes should be required if Clean Tahoe has to clean up after a property twice in a year whether it is a vacation home or local resident.
Steve you are right community service officer was hired and then he quit, expense was covered by the annual fees, but the police took it over. They spread that amongst 3 officers and no enforcement is being done. This seems to be a way to add another sergeant on the force as well as a community services officer position that supposedly had already been funded.
The true issue is that the city has been collecting money that was meant for enforcement and then did not do any enforcement.
Nature — If you call Clean Tahoe numerous times for a certain property they will first fine them, then require them to get bear cans. They do keep a record of trouble properties.
Karen White, if I’m not mistaken Tom Davis has recused himself from voting on this matter.
Bear boxes are not “unsightly.” If properly closed and latched by the resident and the garbage man after pick up day, they work just fine at keeping the bears out of your trash.
Be it full time residents or vacation homes or rentals they do work. A little pricey, but they work!
I take care of the vacation homes trash around me just so the trash does’nt get spread around the neighborhood and out into the street… why? Because it’s the right thing to do! OLS
I, as a VHR owner who “remotely manages” my Tahoe home, am very picky about who I rent to. I use my home myself as often as possible, and don’t want it trashed. I’ve never received complaints from neighbors. In fact the only complaint that I’ve ever had was from a renter who said that one of the neighbors (a full time resident) was up partying until in the back yard past 2:00 in the morning.
Local property managers have an incentive to rent to anybody they can to maximize their commissions. They may claim to do background checks, but that’s hogwash. If the renters trash the house, it turns out the property manager makes MORE money by charging the homeowner a management fee to coordinate clean up and repairs.
The idea of charging more TOT to owners who manage their rentals remotely is a cynical way for local property managers further line their pockets. It’s also arguably illegal restraint of trade — what next, a sales tax discount for “locals”?
This is a zoning issue. Certain City leaders have been successful painting this as a nuisance matter to divert attention from what the law says. The TRPA land use Code, which the City adopted years ago for zoning purposes, defines a “tourist accommodation unit” as, “A unit with one or more bedrooms and with or without cooking facilities, primarily designed to be RENTED BY THE DAY OR WEEK AND OCCUPIED ON A TEMPORARY BASIS” (emphasis added). Seems pretty cut and dry – the City is allowing tourist accommodation units (aka, motels) into our neighborhoods. Why – to collect TOT and pad the City’s budget. Enforce the law and the problem goes away, or change the law and deal with it…but don’t put up smoke screens and confuse everyone about the real problem here – lack of enforcement for a law already on the books. Enough harm has been done to our little town. Another option would be to call in the County Grand Jury or the State Attorney General.
The entire VHR nightmare is for the collection of TOT. Guess what? There are no rules or regulations for the tracking and collecting of TOT. It is all on the honor system. Remember when the Chamber President, Betty B Gorman, got caught not paying her TOT and she was instructing other homeowners on how to manage their VHR’s !? She settled for $1000, how much did she really owe. And she is still President ! What is the purpose of collecting TOT if it is all spent on enforcement?
Just move all the VHR’s into certain areas like Stateline and The Keys and give us back the rest of the neighborhoods. No one lives here full time wanting strangers renting next door every weekend and often for a week at a time.
Renters should be fined period and our SWAT team should meet them at their front door for a disturbance. Enforce what we have!!
If a new home is built with the intention of using it as a Vacation Rental, is it permitted and taxed as commercial property? Can it be built on residential, not commercially zoned land?
“Renters should be fined period and our SWAT team should meet them at their front door for a disturbance. Enforce what we have!!”
Lets make a deal. 1 uniformed officer, being polite, with a citation.
Everything comes down to money and economics. Many people who might want to live in SLT can’t because the vast majority of jobs are minimum wage hospitality and recreation related thus there’s minimal economic future here. People wanting to own a little piece of paradise that buy a second home in SLT can’t afford all the associated expenses so they rent out their home as a Vacation Home Rental (VHR) to defray their costs; the City allows VHRs in neighborhoods as a method of enticing tourists to come visit thus pumping money into the local economy and increasing revenues to local business; the VHR Management companies make money and hire local people to work for them and other businesses to do work for them; and the City collects the TOT and sales tax revenues. People wanting to eliminate VHRs need to be willing to address all the economic consequences of doing that and identify ways of replacing the lost businesses, jobs and revenues of that action because the expenses of operating the City and most importantly of making needed improvements will not go away or cost much less. Unfortunately I haven’t heard anyone suggest a way of supplanting those losses if VHRs were eliminated, and the people of SLT have amply demonstrated their unwillingness of paying any more money out of their own pockets for anything as evidenced by the condemnation of parking meters.
This is quite a conundrum.
“Lets make a deal. 1 uniformed officer, being polite, with a citation.” Yes. When a uniformed officer shows up, most people get the idea that they need to stop. This problem doesn’t require an extreme solution, just a little common sense.
Duende +1,
Call the police if that doesn’t work complain about the police.
We had one complaint in the city the entire year and asked the police to evict the 40 people in a 5 bedroom vacation rental and they would not do it. They were clearly violating the rules. Since the SLTPD won’t even enforce the current rules… Why put in more rules that they won’t enforce? The bear box thing is good and I think a lot of locals that don’t have vacation rentals are just as bad as the people coming from out of town and renting houses.
Long-term renters next door to me were making a horrible racket at 4am – I called SLT PD, who responded and the neighbors got quiet…. they subsequently moved. The PD did a good job. If there is ever a 2nd call, the renters should be issued a citation. We have a noise ordinance in the Bay Area city where I live – 10pm! If a neighbor wants to have an “exception” to that rule – they contact (& invite) adjacent neighbors to the function.
PD does have the ability to enforce the rules but you have to call. If the city chooses not to take care of our neighborhoods we the voters may want to put this issue on the ballot. Another can of worms opened by the city. Should be happy with 1500 TOT earners.
It would be nice if the voters put something on the ballot that would generate revenues instead of eliminating revenues. Nothing’s free in this world and like it or not it takes money to maintain and make repairs to our town and its failing infrastructure, or else it’s going to continue forth with its deterioration and ultimate death. But I guess that’s what some people want.
the real problem is that with 6500 second homes, a good half of them(at least if not more)augment their expense with vacation rentals, that means at least 1700 are not registared and paying TOT, go after those and you will have 2 million more in the general fund to have more police for enforcement of noise.
We should not have our neighborhoods treated any different than a neighborhood in the Bay Area. Rules and common sense behavior should be expected here, just as much as it is in a suburban neighborhood in the Bay Area.
We should not allow our city to be treated like trash, for the sake of the mighty tourist dollar, yes we should encourage tourists, but we need to educate/remind them that this is not an all out party zone for them, civilized rules still apply, and there are places, like clubs, where they can really let loose, and get their holler on ;)
Yes there’s money to be made both by individuals and by our City Govt. by allowing Vacation Rentals. But do you have zoning or not?
Vacation Rentals are commercial enterprises in residential areas. Period! Taking it to an extreme, there’s money to be made if you choose to allow pot dispenseries to openly engage in business in residential areas. Or even liquor stores.
And have you seen some of these new homes being built in certain
neighborhoods? They’re being built
maybe with a home facade. But if you look inside they’re basically mini-motels.
Again, are you going to enforce residential zoning or not?
Are all of these rentals handicap compliant?
Parker, following your logic, we should stop the renting of homes and apartments to monthly rentals. Because they also are commercial enterprises. The problem is and always has been enforcement of the noise laws. Though in some areas its not the tourist that make the most noise its the locals. Do you realize that out of the 20000 calls the police had last year only 150 were from vacation homes. Sounds like we should get rid of the locals and keep the tourist
Monthly rentals of homes & apartments are for ‘residents’, and thus doesn’t conflict with ‘residential zoning’.
reloman, I believe the 150 calls you were referring to are classified as 911 calls. As a VHR complaint this would probably be a last resort after going through all other complaint procedures. It is not only noise that has changed our neighborhoods. When a person moves to a residential area they have a legal right to expect that a commercial businesses will not move in next door. Renting to someone long term is much different than a nightly turnover.
You can view the staffs ideas for our neighborhoods on the city web cite for Tuesdays CC meeting. Hope to see the people show up again. I still don’t know why the regular cops on duty can’t show up for a disturbance instead of hiring 3 more community service people at a cost of $200,000. Enforce what laws we have with what cops we have!
If we allow VHR’s to be voted out, housing prices will take a huge hit along with everything else. The city needs to get out in front of this issue and enforce the laws on the books to the satisfaction of all stake holders.
There is no doubt that there are a few people in this town who are not overly concerned with the economics at hand and just want the sidewalks to roll up at 8:30 every night. Currently is seems they have the pulpit.