Gila County moves to uniform building-code enforcement; short-term rental ordinance prompts compliance concerns

Gila County staff told the Board of Supervisors on Jan. 27 that implementation of the county's short-term rental ordinance has generated nearly 300 permit applications and exposed a long-running inconsistency in building-code enforcement in parts of the county.

"Since May 6, we've had a total of 297 short term rental permit applications that we have received," Michael Driscoll, county staff leading the presentation, told the board. He said seven applications had been denied for specific reasons: three for lack of a certificate of occupancy, one for improper commercial zoning, two for unpermitted conversions, and one because the dwelling relied on a cesspool that must be upgraded before licensure.

Driscoll framed the problem within Arizona statute and local code. "Arizona law ... prohibits banning short term rentals," he said, and state statute narrows what counties may regulate. County Attorney's Office counsel Joe Albo advised the board that statutory phrasing such as "may" is permissive and that certificate-of-occupancy requirements stem from the county's adopted building code. "The 'may' is permissive," Albo said, adding that staff must apply the building code in the context of other state laws the board has adopted.

Board members pressed on what this means for unpermitted older structures and novel uses such as RVs, teepees and Airstreams. Driscoll and Community Development staff member Randy Plumer said the legal definition of a dwelling matters: RVs generally do not qualify as dwellings for STR licensing unless converted and permitted; some retrofits (for example, Airstreams admitted as hotel/motel uses after engineering) can meet code if they undergo the engineering and permitting steps.

Staff described a practical compliance route for existing structures: hire a licensed engineer to evaluate foundations and systems and provide a professional opinion or a certificate of completion the county can accept. "An engineer comes in, he looks at everything... and he can make a determination that this appears to meet the building code," Randy said. County staff acknowledged engineering reviews can be costly for homeowners.

The presentation also revealed a decades-old local practice in Young and Pleasant Valley where inspectors historically limited work to electrical inspections only. Several supervisors said staff searches produced no formal record explaining the practice. "We have yet to find the record, the minutes, or anything as to how come it changed," Supervisor Klein said, describing homeowner confusion and anger when the broader building-code requirements were re-applied.

County staff said the County Attorney's Office has advised uniform enforcement of the adopted building code across unincorporated Gila County. Staff and the manager's office proposed a transition that would include public meetings, targeted outreach, and exploring options such as conditional use permits or additional planning staff support (including engineering expertise) to help property owners achieve compliance.

The board approved a motion to hold an executive session for legal consultation on the matter; the motion carried by voice vote with a majority in favor and one board member recorded as opposed. Staff said it will continue researching long-term solutions and return with recommendations and a public-engagement plan.

The board did not adopt any new ordinance during the meeting; rather, members directed staff to develop transition options, outreach plans and recommendations for how to bring long-standing, unpermitted structures into compliance with county building codes.