Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory committee debates whether slideshow on short-term rentals reflects consensus; motion to table fails
Summary
Members of the Select Board advisory committee disagreed over whether a four-month slideshow on short-term rentals was a factual summary or an aspirational roadmap; a motion to table the presentation for more input failed and the group proceeded, though technical problems forced a temporary pause.
The Select Board advisory committee debated whether a four-month slideshow summarizing its work on short-term rentals should be presented to the Select Board as-is or revised after further input, and members voted against tabling the presentation.
Lindsay, the committee member who compiled the slides, said the document drew on meeting minutes and was intended as a "go forward template" to provoke discussion and help the group organize four months of work. "I was purely walking through it. I was going to read you line by line to collect your feedback," Lindsay said, asking colleagues to treat the slides as a starting point.
Other committee members said the slides went beyond a neutral summary and contained statements that were not verified by the group. One member objected that the slides appeared "way beyond summary" and urged that any public materials reflect what the committee had actually agreed to, not what might or might not happen. Members flagged a data point cited in the slides — that Belgrade/Belgrade Lakes included "over 200 properties" — as unverified and said the figure overstated the committee's findings.
The committee discussed its charge at length: several members and at least one panelist reiterated that the group is meant to research pros and cons of registration or regulation of short-term rentals and report recommendations to the Select Board, not to draft ordinances themselves. "We're not to be working on writing ordinances," one member said, summarizing the committee's understanding of its remit.
A member moved to table the presentation so the group could provide additional feedback before it went public. The motion was seconded (the transcript does not clearly identify the mover or seconder) and put to a voice vote. The motion to table failed and the committee proceeded with the presentation; the transcript does not record a roll-call or tally for that vote.
Votes at a glance: - Approval of previous minutes — moved and seconded; approved by voice vote (tally not specified; SEG 011–025). - Motion to table the slideshow for further revision — moved (SEG 586), put to a vote and not adopted; the presentation proceeded (exact tally not specified; SEG 669–676).
The meeting encountered technical difficulties when the presenter attempted to display the slides. Participants noted the presentation was visible to the recorder but not to the in-room display; Ron offered to try bringing up the presenter’s PDF. The chair announced a temporary end to the meeting to reboot the system and return live.
What happens next: Committee members asked that colleagues submit suggested edits in advance so a revised, more representative slideshow could be presented at the next meeting. The transcript does not specify a date for the next appearance before the Select Board or a deadline for revisions.
Sources: committee meeting transcript. The transcript does not provide full last names for speakers, a roll-call vote tally, or a meeting date in the record.
