The Lago Vista City Council spent significant time during its Oct. 2 meeting reviewing a draft short‑term rental (STR) ordinance and asked staff to return with additional data and clarified language before moving forward.

What council reviewed: The draft ordinance would require registration of STRs, an initial registration and annual renewal fee, a local contact or manager available to respond to complaints, basic safety items (smoke detectors, fire extinguishers), and required disclosure of advertised platforms and permit numbers. The draft also proposed the city publish an inventory of existing STRs and grandfather existing permitted STRs into a new system.

Council concerns and required follow‑up: Multiple council members and staff said they wanted additional information before an ordinance is adopted. They asked staff to provide:
- A cost‑recovery justification for the proposed permit fee (the draft used sample figures drawn from an out‑of‑state model);
- Data from the newly installed STR‑tracking software showing how many listings are active and how many operate without a permit, plus a breakdown of complaints (noise, parking, trash) linked to STR vs. non‑STR addresses;
- Confirmation how city police and code enforcement respond to late‑night complaints and whether staffing adjustments or patrol scheduling changes are needed;
- Model language on camera disclosure and limits (Accord with platform model policies), so guests are warned if interior/exterior cameras are present and whether cameras are permissible in certain areas;
- Clarification of enforcement timing and what triggers a staff inspection versus self‑certification (the draft suggested self‑inspection for initial registration with city inspections on complaint or periodic review).

Public comments and equity concerns: Members of the public urged caution, noting some residents rely on occasional STR income (retirees, veterans and families) and asked that any fee structure not unduly burden small operators. Council discussed whether fees could be scaled by usage or host revenue, but legal counsel and several members warned about legal limits on tying permit fees to private income and the state rules that restrict certain distinctions; staff was asked to research legal boundaries for graduated fees and practical enforcement issues (how to verify host revenue).

Tax collection and platform collection: Council and staff noted that hosting platforms can collect and remit hotel‑occupancy taxes (HOT) directly if hosts provide permit numbers; the council pointed to model platform language the city can adopt to require platforms to collect local TOT/HOT and remit it to the city. Staff said the new software shows many listings currently fail to remit HOT and the system can help identify noncompliant hosts.

Cameras: Council sought stronger disclosure language about on‑site cameras, and asked staff to draft language modeled on Airbnb/Vrbo policies requiring disclosure of camera locations and barring cameras from private spaces such as bathrooms or bedrooms, or at minimum requiring clear notice of any exterior monitoring.

Process and next steps: Council directed staff to return with the cost recovery analysis, STR complaint and enforcement metrics, model camera disclosure language, and a proposed renewal cadence (staff noted annual vs. biennial renewal options would influence the fee). Council members indicated they prefer a measured, evidence‑based ordinance rather than rushing changes; staff said it would post draft changes to the discussion board and return to council with a proposed ordinance once the requested data and legal checks are complete.

Ending: Council did not vote on the draft and asked staff to refine the proposal and bring back a revised ordinance and supporting data.