Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gila County staff reports 297 short‑term rental applications; board presses for countywide building‑code enforcement and a transition plan
Summary
County staff told supervisors the short‑term rental ordinance has generated about 297 permit applications and seven denials; staff and the county attorney said state law limits what the county may regulate, but recent legal advice directs uniform enforcement of the county building code in unincorporated areas, prompting calls for a transition plan, outreach and further legal research.
County staff told the Gila County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 27 that the county has received roughly 297 applications for short‑term rental permits since the board adopted an ordinance May 6, 2025, and that seven applications had been denied.
"Since May 6 ... there have been a total of 297 short term rental permit applications that we have received," said Michael O'Driscoll, the county staff member leading the presentation. He said three denials were for lack of a certificate of occupancy and others were denied for zoning or unpermitted conversions; staff also identified about 260 additional potential listings that require outreach.
O'Driscoll said state law (cited in the presentation as ARS 11‑26917 and related statutes) prevents counties from banning short‑term rentals outright and narrowly defines what local governments may regulate. The county attorney, Joe Albo, told supervisors that where the statute uses the word "may" it is permissive but must be read in the context of other statutory duties, including the county's obligation to adopt and enforce building codes.
That interaction set the stage for a more contentious part of the meeting: supervisors and staff described a long‑running localized practice in Young, where for roughly three decades county permitting historically required only electrical inspection for many dwellings. Several supervisors said homeowners and real‑estate buyers were not informed of the limited inspection practice and that the recent pivot to full enforcement had been abrupt.
"You guys jumped right in there and pulled this one out of the hat, and then went to charging people $1,500 for a permit ... and they had no idea," said Supervisor Klein, describing constituent complaints from Young. Staff said their document search has not found a clear, formal record that created the localized practice, and that they are still researching when and how the practice began.
Staff and the county attorney advised that the adopted building code and related public‑health rules mean a structure used as a short‑term rental must meet the statutory dwelling definition and county building‑code requirements — including a certificate of occupancy or an engineer‑backed certificate of completion in some cases. Staff said structures on cesspools would require septic upgrades before receiving a short‑term rental license.
Supervisors discussed options including a planned, countywide enforcement rollout, public meetings for affected areas, and exploring staff or position changes (for example, engineering support) to help property owners comply. The county attorney cautioned that county staff providing engineering or legal services to private property owners could raise conflicts of interest or violate gift‑clause rules and that any accommodation must be legally defensible.
Supervisor Klein moved that the board meet in executive session for legal advice; the motion was seconded and the board voted to go into executive session. Before adjourning the public discussion, staff said they would continue legal research, prepare transition options and plan outreach to inform property owners and realtors about compliance expectations.
