Fernley City Council unanimously approved new short-term rental regulations on Wednesday, Sept. 16, establishing a permitting and licensing process for properties rented for fewer than 30 days.
Bill 383, CA 26003, updates Fernley’s development code to define short-term rentals, establish use standards, and designate zoning districts where they will be allowed.
Under the regulations, short-term rental operators must obtain a city business license and a minor conditional use permit, comply with established use standards, and collect applicable lodging taxes through the City Clerk’s Office.
During discussion, council members raised questions about how broadly the regulations could be interpreted, particularly for residents who occasionally rent rooms in their homes.
Councilman Joe Mendoza said he was concerned some language was “vague enough to be interpreted 20 years from now in a different manner than the intent.” Mendoza questioned whether the definition could eventually include someone renting a room to a family member for fewer than 30 days and suggested clarifying the ordinance to preserve the current council’s intent.
Councilwoman Felicity Zoberski discussed balancing short-term-rental regulation with private-property rights. “I’m fully against overreach on someone’s personal property,” Zoberski said. She also raised concerns about companies leasing houses and subleasing individual bedrooms to workers, creating constant turnover within residential neighborhoods.
“We are trying to protect the residents we have and not be overreaching as far as telling someone what to do with their personal properties,” she said.
Zoberski suggested that, because Fernley has not previously regulated short-term rentals, the city can learn from how the code works in practice and later address problems or omissions.
Fernley’s permitting effort comes while another Nevada short-term rental dispute is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A precedential decision on federal due-process requirements for short-term rental licensing could have implications beyond Clark County, including for cities such as Fernley establishing permitting systems.
The Clark County case differs from Fernley’s ordinance, but the arguments illustrate that governments requiring short-term-rental permits also need a functioning process for applications. During oral arguments, attorney David Zients, representing plaintiffs challenging Clark County’s system, said, “There’s never been a functional licensing scheme.” The judges questioned Clark County about delays and program administration. Judge Ryan D. Nelson also said, “I don’t think you can say there’s no property right to rent out your property.”
The Ninth Circuit has not issued a decision, and the Clark County case does not determine whether Fernley’s regulations are valid. It provides a current Nevada example of how administration of an STR licensing system can become a separate issue from the regulations themselves.
With Bill 383 approved, Fernley will move from creating the rules to implementing them. How the city processes minor conditional use permits, handles applications, and applies the new standards will determine how the regulations function in practice.