Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vhr Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County staff proposes raising VHR liability insurance to $1 million and adding notice requirement
Summary
County staff told the advisory board the draft ordinance raises minimum liability insurance for vacation-home permits and would require insurers to notify the county on cancellation; the board discussed cost burden on occasional owners but took no final vote.
Douglas County staff proposed raising the minimum liability insurance for vacation home rental permits and modifying how the county is notified of policy cancellations.
"So the, the insurance coverage is a little bit different based on tiers...a lot of policies are being written out a million dollars because the 500,000 is not enough apparently," Ernie Strehlow said, explaining the rationale for increasing the minimum liability limit from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in some tiers. Strehlow said brokers told county staff that short-term rentals are typically treated as a business and underwriters are increasingly writing $1 million liability policies for short-term rentals.
Staff also proposed an "additional interest" notification rather than naming the county as a co-owner on an insurance policy. That change would allow insurers to notify the county if a policy is canceled so the county could act on a permit rather than being listed as an insured party on policies.
Board members raised concerns about the cost implications for occasional, non-professional owners. "Every single time we add a cost to a VHR, you're making that door more revolving," said Lauren Romaine, who said she personally maintains a $1 million policy but worried about cost-prohibitive effects for casual owners. Board members did not ask staff to remove the increase; rather, they noted the trade-offs between resident occasional operators and investors.
Outcome: The board did not adopt final ordinance language at this meeting. Staff will retain the proposed increase in the draft and the additional-interest notification mechanism and return with any clarifying language; no vote was taken on this section at the meeting.
