Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Manager Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board narrows property-manager rule, gives director discretion to require managers after complaints
Summary
Douglas County staff proposed lowering the occupancy threshold for mandatory licensed property managers but the advisory board favored a compromise: retain occupancy rules and give the director discretion to require a professional manager where complaint history or poor emergency-contact responsiveness demonstrates a problem.
The Douglas County VHR Advisory Board examined proposed changes to property-management requirements and emergency-contact rules and agreed to give county staff explicit discretion to require a licensed property manager for any VHR permit when responsiveness or complaint patterns show the owner or local contact is not addressing problems.
Staff proposed lowering the occupancy threshold for mandatory professional management from 10 occupants to 7, citing faster response times and demonstrated compliance when a single property manager oversees many homes. Ernie Strehlow said property managers provided more reliable emergency responses in practice: “Once they've done 1, they can do 50. You know, they really understand it. So from accounting perspective and administrative perspective, they're easy. From a reporting perspective, they respond quickly if they're called.”
Board members pushed back on a strict numeric threshold. Several argued that requiring professional managers for lower-occupancy homes could push occasional owner-renters out of the program and disproportionately affect residents who rent only rarely. “The more they have to pay, the more they're gonna rent, which I understand for the county, that's great. For us, it's the, you know, more people that do come in,” board member Lauren Romaine said.
After extensive discussion, the board supported a compromise: keep the existing occupancy-based thresholds in the ordinance but add explicit director discretion to require a licensed local property manager on any permit where the director finds inadequate responsiveness to complaints or repeated failures of emergency contacts to address issues. Staff said such discretionary determinations would be evidence-based and appealable.
“I think it would be legally defensible,” a county staff representative said, noting that the director’s determination would need to be supported by evidence such as TOT records, complaint history or neighbor statements.
Board members said a discretionary approach would let staff target problem properties without penalizing responsible owners. That approach also expands the county’s enforcement toolkit: requiring a property manager can serve as a correction short of fines or permit revocation. The board asked staff to add clear language and examples of evidence that would support a director’s decision in the draft ordinance.
