Council accused of open-meeting violation

Nevada State Attorney General Aaron Ford has opened a case to investigate an alleged violation of open meeting laws by the Boulder City Council and the Planning Commission.

The office of the attorney general has set a deadline of Jan. 19 for the city to respond to the complaint. The case was opened on Dec. 8 and received by the city clerk’s office on Dec. 12. The Boulder City Review became aware of the complaint when a copy was sent to staff via email on Dec. 14.

Reached for comment on the case, the office of the attorney general declined comment.

City Manager Taylour Tedder said, “The city did not violate Open Meeting Law, all city council discussions surrounding short-term rentals have occurred during a properly noticed public meeting and all related agenda items were clear and complete.”

The complaint was filed by Dain Szanfranski, who is associated with a Boulder City law firm called Bluebird Law, where he is the operations manager, according to the firm’s website. The only other member of the firm is listed as Lauren Szanfranski who is named as the managing attorney. According to the website, Dain Szanfranski earned his juris doctorate degree in June but will not sit for the Nevada Bar exam until February of 2024. Lauren Szanfranski is not listed on the complaint that was filed with the attorney general.

The matter driving all of this is the contentious issue of short-term rentals in Boulder City. To review, for those who have not been keeping track: In 2022, the state Legislature passed AB 383, which mandated that municipalities create local ordinances to allow and regulate short-term rentals within their jurisdictions. However, then-state senator and now-Boulder City Mayor Joe Hardy shepherded through an amendment to AB 383 that excluded cities with a population of less than 25,000. Per Hardy’s comments in the council meeting of Sept. 26, he did this specifically so that Boulder City could make its own rule without being bound by AB 383’s legislative mandate.

The legal situation in Boulder City is either clear or murky, depending on who you ask. City code says that any unpermitted use (i.e., any use for which you can’t get a legal permit) of residential property is prohibited. STRs are not a permitted use, which makes them, technically, illegal. STR owners, some of whom have invested large sums of money in properties with the express intent to rent them out on a short-term basis, and their supporters say that because STRs are not specifically prohibited, that they ought to be allowed.

Throughout 2023, the council and city staff gathered info from BC residents via an online survey and a town hall-style meeting with city staff. While results of the survey were pretty evenly split between those supporting and opposing short-term rentals in Boulder City, several members of the council reported having done their own informal surveys in which “90%” of those they queried opposed STRs.

The open meeting complaint was previewed when several local STR owners, at the city council meeting of Nov. 21, spoke during public comment and accused the council and planning commission of breaking the law. Boulder City Review coverage of that meeting, published on Nov. 23, is included in the materials submitted to the attorney general.

The point of contention is based on the Sept. 26 meeting. The item before the council sought guidance on possibly amending Title 11 of city code to allow STRs. The council, with Councilmember Matt Fox dissenting, voted 4-1 to not amend Title 11. However, the item before the council was specifically a question on if Title 11 should be amended to allow STRs. But the complaint references comments from council that they saw no reason to change Title 11.

After the vote in September, an item came before the planning commission on Oct. 18 seeking to amend Title 11. However, the proposed amendment was to specifically prohibit STRs and to add a definition of short-term rentals to city code. The complaint alleges that the council voted not to amend Title 11 at all and then the planning commission took an opposite action in October, voting to amend Title 11. The fact that the first vote was about officially allowing STRs and the second was about specifically prohibiting them is not addressed in the complaint.

It appears that the STR owners who alleged violations during the November council meeting were under the impression that the council’s decision to not amend city code in September meant that they could continue to operate. But, actually, by not changing city code, the council left the status quo in which STRs are not specifically permitted and are, therefore, prohibited.

In what may be a preview of future fights over this issue, the complaint specifically calls out the fact that there appears to be a generational split between those supporting and those opposing STRs, with those opposing being older and those supporting being younger.

After stating that 60% of STR owners could not attend the Sept. 21 meeting due to the time it was scheduled, the complaint says, “Moreover, the demographics of those who provided input during the special meeting differed significantly from those who participated in the town hall meeting. While the town hall meeting had an abundance of younger residents, the special meeting seemed to attract primarily older individuals. Approximately 17 comments were recorded from those over the age of 55, in stark contrast to the mere two comments from younger residents. This discrepancy raised questions about whether the meeting truly represented the broader demographic of the city. It may have been the plan?”