Cook County Vacation Rental Review Committee
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
]Cook County Vacation Rental Review Committee
Meeting Minutes – Monday, September 26, 2022
1. Call to Order
The meeting of the Cook County Vacation Rental Review Committee was called to order at 3:00 pm on
Monday, September 26, 2022 by Chair Ginny Storlie. Chair Storlie then recognized those who were
participating virtually.
Meeting Attendance
The following primary members were in attendance: Ginny Storlie, James Joerke, Robert Deschampe,
Braidy Powers, Tim Nelson, Charlie LaBoda, Joseph Routh, Jason Hale, Emily Haussner, Scott Mehlaff,
Al Flieder, Stevie Plummer, John Schloot, Hillary Freeman, Molly Hicken and John Fredrickson.
Alternate members in attendance included: Bruce Martinson, Clair Nalezny, and Nancy Evans. Others
attending: Plamen Dimitriov (Public), Jason Saloum & Blake Nordin (Minnesota Department of Health).
2. Adopt Agenda / Review Minutes of September 12th Meeting
Chair Storlie called for any amendments to the agenda along with a review of the minutes from the
September 12th committee meeting. James Joerke offered a motion to approve both the agenda for the
September 26th meeting and to also approve the minutes from the September 12th meeting. John Schloot
provided the second for the motion, which passed without objection.
3. Public Comments
Bruce Martinson provided comments regarding how the website AirB&B will not collect the lodging tax
an he has paid out of pocket to cover his required lodging taxes. He also indicated that he found on their
website that AirB&B would collect the local taxes if it is required by the local government through an
ordinance, and he recommends that the committee include a recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners to create an ordinance that would require the website based vacation rental companies
who manage the financial transactions for the lodging visits collect and remit the local lodging taxes to
the County.
4. Minnesota Department of Health Discussion – Blake Nordin and Jason Saloum MDH
Blake Nordin and Jason Saloum of the Minnesota Department of Health attended the advisory committee
meeting to discuss several issues relating to vacation rentals and the relationship between the State and
County level licensing programs. Tim Nelson initiated the discussion by detailing how the County
intends to take on the role of enforcing that vacation rental operations have current septic certificates of
compliance, whereas when we initiated our licensing program, we relied on the MDH to perform the role
of septic compliance enforcement with their licensing program.
Blake Nordin, Supervisor, North Field Operations of the Food, Pools and Lodging Services Section of the
Minnesota Department of Health introduced himself and indicated that he had received the listing of
questions that the committee members had submitted to Tim Nelson for the MDH to address. Blake
started the discussion with addressing the septic compliance issues that is required for the MDH lodging
Page 1|5license. Blake indicated that when they do receive any license applications for vacation rentals, they
would contact the County to verify that there is a compliance certificate on file. There has been some
distinction between whether there is an approved certificate of compliance for a particular property, or if
that certificate is current or not. Blake stated that if any property is reported to have their septic system
failing or has some other problems with it, they would ensure that the system is brought back into
compliance to be able to retain their license from the MDH. Blake inquired as to whether there were a lot
of complaints that had come in and they’re just being missed by the MDH, and through recent discussions
with the County staff it was confirmed that while there may be the occasional specific complaint about a
perceived septic system, there hasn’t been large numbers of complaints.
The other thing that the MDH becomes involved with regarding vacation rentals is the water supply and
predominantly works with properties that has well water supplies. Blake described the various issues and
elements that the MDH looks at with regards to well water systems. Blake further commented about how
the MDH has worked well with the County staff from back when the initial Vacation Rental Ordinance
was developed, and how they typically have seen circumstances where a county would provide the first
level of approvals followed by the issuance of the MDH license, but Cook County requires the property
owner secure the State level license prior to approving the County license. He then opened up for any
questions from the committee members.
John Schloot asked the MDH staff about what their policies are with regards to pressurized water supply
systems that take water from surface or lake water. Blake indicated that they have licensed surface water
supply systems for some resorts but have required that there be pre-treatment of the water, otherwise they
are required to supply bottled potable water. Jason Saloum of the MDH also commented that they would
not license vacation rental operations that have surface water supply systems unless the water is
chlorinated and monitored, which Jason indicated typically removes most of the smaller operations due to
the cost of the treatment. John Fredrickson pointed out that there currently are vacation rental operations
in Cook County that are licensed by the county, and which are supplied with surface water. Blake pointed
out that there may be a gap between what operations require a license from the MDH and those that
would be licensed from the County level, which most frequently fall in that definitional gap between the
Hotel/Motel classification and the resorts classification that the MDH uses.
Vacation rental operations typically fall within the Hotel/Motel category since they don’t have a specific
category for them, and rental operations that would rent for more than a period of a week fall outside of
their licensing category and therefore may be licensed by the County even though they wouldn’t be
licensed by the MDH. John Fredrickson further asked as to how many of the vacation rentals that are
licensed by Cook County have been inspected by the MDH. Blake stated that they would have to check
their lists to give an accurate number as to how many inspections they have conducted in Cook County.
Vacation rentals are listed as “low risk” establishments and are inspected at least once every two years.
Jason Saloum indicated that he is aware of 220 operations that have licenses through the MDH, and so the
difference between the numbers may reflect the difference in definitional status and not required to obtain
a license from MDH. Joseph Routh stated that the County Ordinance requires the applicant to obtain their
required license from the MDH, but indicated that the County would share all of the license data with the
MDH to ensure consistency between the State and the County.
Page 2|5Scott Melhaff inquired as to why the MDH doesn’t license the 7-days or longer establishments, and Blake
clarified that has to do with the number of rentable units and vacation rental dwellings count as one unit,
and the distinction between the Hotel/Motel and the Resorts definitions. Scott elaborated that those
distinctions are not expressly stated on the MDH website, and then inquired about a revision initiative
within the MDH regarding vacation rentals, and Blake elaborated that the process had been held up
through the pandemic time, but the revisions have been sent out to their advisory committee and the
process will be picking back up again now. The end of their comment period on the revisions will be
ending around this Thanksgiving time. Scott encouraged the MDH staff to take a look at the distinctions
between the hotel/motel, lodging establishments and vacation rentals.
Chair Ginny Storlie inquired about the septic certificate of compliance and whether people have avoided
contact with the MDH due to their septic compliance requirements. Joseph Routh indicated that the
certificate of compliance would only be required under the current regulations if the rental would
otherwise be able to be licensed by the MDH, but this is the one thing that we will be changing by having
the County take on the septic enforcement for vacation rentals moving forward. Stevie Plummer
suggested that perhaps the County could add the requirement that rental operations make that connection
with the MDH first. Joseph stated that we will have to implement the compliance program that would
include a records check and may require inspections for those systems that we do not have the
information for. Tim Nelson stated that since we are the entity that the MDH would inquire with the
County regarding the compliance status of the properties through their licensing process, and so it will be
easier when the County will take on that role.
John Fredrickson asked the MDH staff as to whether the numbers of days in renting is self-reporting, or if
there is any reconciliation to make sure operations are within the correct categories. Blake stated that the
number of days renting is self-reported, but there are tools they have to be able to reconcile whether the
reported days are correct and would take action if it is found to be inaccurate. John went on to further
inquire County staff as to whether Host Compliance may be able to help in reconciling the days rented
through their tracking system. Blake and Jason stated that it is not common but not unheard of that
people would try that kind of tactic, but that they could take enforcement action against that if necessary.
Tim Nelson stated that it would be difficult for Host Compliance to monitor that issue since owners do
routinely block off rooms for maintenance purposes, which may appear to be rental days.
Returning to the surface water issue, John Fredrickson asked the MDH as to their take on the surface
water issue for operations that may not require a license from the MDH, but is licensed by the County.
Jason indicated that they would definitely want to be involved if it is rented within their requirements, and
Tim Nelson clarified the question to whether the MDH would have any involvement or concern for those
operations that do not require a license from the MDH, but yet are licensed by the County. Blake stated
that they would rather try to work with people and get folks licensed rather than having folks operate
under the table. Tim suggested that they work together with the MDH staff on all of the operations that
are licensed by the County to address the surface water quality issue.
Scott Melhaff then inquired of the MDH staff regarding the requirement of rental establishment staff to
watch video training on spotting sex-trafficking. Jason stated that the vacation rental license holder is
required by the MDH to receive training regarding sex-trafficking, and Clair Nalezny offered up that their
Page 3|5management companies do require that of their staff, but it is difficult since many vacation rentals are
remote and may not be visited by staff as frequently.
Al Flieder asked the MDH about their vacation rental licensing fees and how frequently that fee structure
is reviewed for modification, and Jason indicated that their fees vary between $220 to $280 annually, and
the fee structure is contained within statute, so it isn’t modified very often.
Blake expressed the MDH appreciation that Cook County is taking this on and doing this review,
especially with the experiences that they’ve even had in trying to inventory all of the vacation rentals in
order to bring them into compliance.
5. Existing Ordinance Provisions Discussion Wrap-Up (Grid of Provisions)
Tim Nelson first recognized that the while this would be the last meeting of the Advisory Committee, this
is not the last of the discussion as any of the recommendations will have to run through the public hearing
process. Additionally, with all of the information that has been covered, and new topics reviewed, we
expect this discussion will continue on into next year as well. It is a frustration to be on this tight time
frame, but it is necessary to continue with the timeline since the Ordinance will be expiring at the end of
the year and needs to be re-adopted.
Tim continued to state that since he had prepared the draft report with the determinations and
recommendations based on all of the discussions so far, he recommends that we push that part of the
discussion on to the agenda item number 7 and move to the next agenda item regarding other suggestions
and recommendations from committee members.
6. Other Suggestions & Recommendations from Committee Members
Tim explained that due to all of the previous discussions regarding all of the existing ordinance provisions
and main topical issues, we should take the time to open up some discussion for committee members to
offer up other ideas or recommendations for consideration. John Schloot initiated the open discussion to
focus on the surface water systems and suggested that we should regulate surface water systems to make
sure that water is chlorinated and filtered to match the MDH requirements. Tim Nelson suggested that the
Land Services Department would support the idea but wanted to understand the logistics behind
regulating this issue since the County has no not regulated water supply for any operations. Tim then
asked the MDH staff as to whether they would be available to provide any resources in assisting the
County to help regulate such a provision. Blake stated that he can inquire their staff to see if there is
existing capacity to provide some assistance, but in circumstances where there would be no licensed
required by the MDH, they would not be able to provide enforcement due to lack of jurisdiction.
Administrator Joerke stated that since the County doesn’t regulate any water supply systems, we would
be looking to the State to see if there was any assistance that they could provide with regards to any
testing capacity and regulatory provisions. The only category of rental operation that this issue is
focusing on are those that do not require an MDH license, but is licensed by the County, and is utilizing a
surface water supply system. Jason did reiterate that the MDH would be able to provide some assistance
as they are able with the water testing for those systems, but unless they are required an MDH license
they would not be able to provide any enforcement.
Page 4|5Blake stated that if someone to the County for a license and doesn’t fit the criteria that would require a
license from the State, they would rather try to work with us as the County and the people and get them
licensed and into the system rather than simply not working with them so that they just may skirt the
requirements and rent outside of the system anyway. Stevie Plummer suggested that it is very important
to be able to identify inside the unit whether the water is potable or not though a placard. Chair Ginny
Storlie suggested that the requirement should be clearly indicated on the license application. Jason Hale
of the HRA wanted the clarification that this discussion isn’t directed to the operations that provide
carried in only water, but only those that utilize surface water, and everyone agreed.
Both John Schloot and John Fredrickson stated the MDH staff has been very good to work with over the
years and would expect that same level of service moving forward in cooperation with the County.
7. Draft Report & Recommendations from Advisory Committee to County Board
Tim initiated the discussion regarding the documents that had been sent out to the committee regarding
the summary of the determinations and recommendations in preparation for this meeting. Hillary
Freeman wanted to emphasize the importance of the level of enforcement since most of the problems can
be brought towards resolution through the proper level of enforcement resources. Tim did inform the
committee that an announcement had been made that the State legislature will be contemplating the
addition of an administrative penalty order to County jurisdictions, which would provide the county with
the ability to write a citation and issue a fine as opposed to processing violations through the criminal
misdemeanor procedures as is now the case with enforcement.
8. Next Steps
Tim Nelson described the next steps as being that the report to the Board will be sent to the committee
members prior to it being sent to the Board. The Board of Commissioners will review the report at their
next available meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, October 13th, so any comments from the
committee members should be submitted back prior to noon on October 5th.
Once the Board of Commissioners review the report, they would presumably set a public hearing date of
November 16th that would take place before the Planning Commission and allow for all members of the
public to provide comments at that hearing. After the review of the Planning Commission, they would
submit their recommendation back to the Board of Commissioners for their final decision at their
December 13th meeting, for the new Ordinance provisions be effective on January 1st of 2023.
9. Adjournment
With no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Page 5|5You can also read
