Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and property owner representatives urge commission to review written settlement in short‑term rental lawsuit
Summary
Public commenters representing H&H/Homes by Hotels told the commission they repeatedly sought a written settlement to resolve a lawsuit over short‑term rental licensing and urged the city to reconsider a May 6 proposal that they say simply asked the city to follow its own ordinance; commissioners did not take immediate action but staff were asked to schedule a closed meeting to review litigation details.
Speakers during the public‑comment period urged the Indian Rocks Beach City Commission to reopen consideration of a written settlement offer in ongoing litigation over short‑term rental licensing.
Bob Boland, speaking for H&H (Homes by Hotels), said H&H made both oral and written attempts to resolve the dispute and submitted a written settlement on May 6. He told the commission that, after follow-ups through May 15, H&H received no substantive response and later saw court filings stating the parties were unable to resolve the matter outside court. Boland said the May 6 proposal did not ask the city to admit fault or to pay attorney fees; instead, he said it asked only that Indian Rocks Beach comply with its short‑term rental ordinance and state statutes. “There is nothing in there that says Indian Rocks Beach admits they did anything wrong,” Boland said, according to his remarks to the commission.
Other public speakers backed the call for clarity and asked the commission to put enforcement commitments in writing. Jerry, who identified himself as a Harbor Drive resident, said litigation drew attention to enforcement failures and that the city began enforcing regulations only after legal pressure. Beth McMillan urged the commission to “put it on paper” so future officials cannot reverse enforcement.
City staff did not vote on the settlement during the meeting. The city attorney advised that litigation details should be discussed in a closed session; commissioners asked staff to arrange a shade meeting to review the proposed settlement and related court filings. City Attorney Matt told the commission he had prepared memos on pending cases and recommended scheduling a closed meeting in the next couple of weeks to discuss them in more detail.
What happens next: Staff will coordinate a closed (shade) meeting to brief the commission on litigation specifics, including the May 6 settlement document referenced by commenters. Any decision to accept, negotiate or reject a settlement would require formal action by the commission in open session consistent with legal confidentiality rules.
