Douglas County Commissioners to possibly vote on new VHR regulations for Lake Tahoe

DOUGLAS COUNTY, Nev. - During their Thursday, October 15 meeting, the Douglas County commissioners will hear a presentation about the work done by an appointed task force about vacation home rentals (VHRs) in Tahoe Township. The agenda item is listed as having possible action by the commissioners.

County Manager Patrick Cates will present his recommendations along with the task force's related to the administration and permitting of VHRs which have been permitted in the Tahoe Township since a 2005 ordinance. The task force's recommendations were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was assembled by Cates.

Cates has said VHRs are an integral part of the county's tourism economy, but with a surge of them in the neighborhoods and communities of Lake Tahoe, have caused some issues including traffic and noise.

"It is critical to strike a balance between the economy, private property rights, and the impacts to our communities," said Cates on the agenda packet for Thursday's 1:00 p.m. meeting.

Cates is making the following specific recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding VHRs in Douglas County:

1. Immediately enact a cap on VHR permits of 725 in the Tahoe Township as recommended by the Taskforce. It is critical to establish a limit to prevent a large increase in VHRs in advance of implementation of further regulations.

2. Delay implementation of VHRs outside of the Tahoe Township until all regulations have been put in place. VHR regulation at Lake Tahoe has been an ongoing challenge. COVID-19 restrictions in California resulted in a surge of visitors this summer, leading to an increase in resident complaints regarding VHRs. It is important to implement changes to this program before the Board considers expansion to the rest of the County. Keep in mind that there are currently unpermitted VHRs throughout Douglas County. It is important the whole county be brought into a regulatory framework.

3. Create a three tier permitting system with requirements as recommended by the Taskforce and the TAG. The maximum occupancy limits should follow the recommendations of the TAG.

4. Include parking and noise requirements as recommended by the Taskforce.

5. Include health and safety requirements as recommended by the Taskforce and TAG.

6. Include trash requirements as recommended by the Taskforce. Accept South Tahoe Refuge’s request to make bear boxes mandatory for VHRs. Although not included in the Taskforce’s recommendations, this is an important issue worth consideration. Residents generally know how to live in Bear County, but visitors often do not. Bear boxes would limit the harmful impacts on wildlife of improper trash handling by visitors.

7. Create a VHR Appeals and Advisory Board as recommended by the Taskforce and TAG.

8. Develop an educational compliance program as recommended by the Taskforce.

9. Develop a staffing plan for the program as recommended by the Taskforce and TAG. It is clear that current resources are inadequate to effectively manage the VHR program. Vendors provide great value, but more resources are needed for administration, code enforcement, and law enforcement to meet public expectations for this program.

10. Develop a permitting fee structure sufficient to cover the administrative costs of the program as recommended by the Taskforce. The program should pay for itself.

Cates' report states the current estimates put the total number of VHRs in all of Douglas County between approximately 600 and 1100 distinct units active at any given time (both permitted and not permitted), depending on the time of year. According to Host Compliance, the compliance monitoring data from January 2020 for Douglas County indicated that there were approximately 25 illegal short term rentals outside the Tahoe Township. In comparison, the number of short term rentals in the Tahoe Township currently permitted by the County was approximately 608, and the number currently operating without a permit was estimated to be 135. The total
number of permitted VHRs in January 2020 represented approximately 12.5 percent of housing units in the Tahoe Township.

Recommended fees:

NEW Permit Fees
Application Fee $400
Life/Safety Inspection $150 (pass through to Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District)
Technology Fee $16

Total= $566*
*does not include check ($4.56) or credit card ($17.21) processing fees

RENEWAL Permit Fees
Application Fee $250
Life/Safety Inspection $150 (pass through to Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District)
Technology Fee $10

Total= $410*
*does not include check ($3.31) or credit card ($12.55) processing fees

Illegal VHRs would be subject to a $5,000 fine.

The Taskforce:

Lake Tahoe Representatives
Mickie Hempler, Lake Resident
Ben Johnson, Lake Resident
Lauren Romain, Lake Resident
Ralph Tognetti, Lake Resident
Kevin Kjer, Licensed Property Manager, Lake Resident
Steve Teshara, Executive Director of the Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, Lake Resident
Carol Chaplin, Executive Director of the Lake Tahoe Visitor’s Authority, Lake Resident
Natalie Yanish, Sierra Nevada Realtor (SNR) representative*, Lake Resident

Carson Valley Representatives
Dan Aynesworth, Valley Resident
Margaret Pross, Valley Resident
Dana Reed, Valley Resident
John Zemlock, Valley Resident (resigned)
Tom Brooks, Owner Carson Valley Golf Course, Valley Resident
Jan Vandermade, Executive Director of the Carson Valley Visitor’s Authority, Valley Resident
Bill Chernock, Executive Director of the Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce, Valley Resident

The TAG group that worked on VHRs:

Jenifer Davidson, Assistant County Manager, Douglas County
Ron Elges, Undersheriff, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office
Tom Dallaire, Director of Douglas County Community Development
Cynthea Gregory, Assistant District Attorney, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office
Carrie Rosser, Assistant District Attorney, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office
Sam Taylor, Assistant District Attorney, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office
Michael Xavier, Administrative Manager, Douglas County Community Development
Eric Guevin, Fire Marshal, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District
Todd Stroup, Prevention Captain, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District
Kris Rowlett, Fire Inspector, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District
Amy Ray, Deputy Fire Chief/ Fire Marshal, East Fork Fire Protection District

For the complete agenda packet, visit HERE. Pages 323 to 847 (including all backup material).

To participate in the meeting,

Livestreamed on YouTube here -

To offer public comment before the Board meeting, members of the public may submit public comments online through the County’s public comment form by clicking on the following link:
https://www.douglascountynv.gov/government/board_of_county_commissioners/public_comment

Written public comments may also be mailed to the Douglas County Manager’s Office at Post Office Box 218, Minden, Nevada 89423, but all public comments must be received prior to the date of the meeting if the comments are to be included in the supplemental materials.

All written public comments that are received prior to 4:00 PM the day before the Board meeting will be compiled and will be added as supplemental material for the
County Commissioners and the public to review prior to the meeting.

Any written public comment received the day of the Board meeting will be compiled and added as supplemental materials to the County’s website and distributed to the Board of Commissioners within 24 hours after the meeting.

Members of the public may call the County Manager’s office at 775-782-9821 to obtain help making public comment.

To make public comment during the Board meeting, the public must call 775-783-6007 and leave a voice message which will be played for the Board of Commissioners and public when public comment is announced. Although the public comment phone line can accommodate multiple incoming calls at once, if a member of the public should get a busy signal, please call back. Because of the possibility for a high volume of telephone calls, there could be an increased potential for technical difficulties.
Citizens are therefore encouraged to submit their public comments in writing prior to the date and time of a Board meeting.