Short-term rentals in Sedona are unlikely to face any additional regulation this year following the rejection of 11 bills by the Arizona legislature that would potentially have enabled cities to cap their numbers or otherwise regulate them.
“They’re effectively dead for this session,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson told the Sedona City Council on Feb. 27, during one of its two recent meetings on pending legislation and the council’s lobbying efforts.
“Senate leadership has not been supportive of pushing this legislation through,” the city’s lobbyist, Todd Baughman of Policy Development Group, had previously told the council on Feb. 13. “Frankly, that’s been a challenge.”
“It’s my understanding that the president of the senate [Sen. Warren Petersen, R-District 14] assigned them to his own committees and then they were killed there,” Mayor Scott Jablow said. “Is that accurate?”
“They weren’t assigned to his own committees,” Christianson answered. “If he was against them, he could have assigned them to like-minded committee chairs. The president of the senate himself did not chair any of the committees.”
Councilman Brian Fultz said on Feb. 13 that he had attended an Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association meeting, and asked the group’s officials if they would support additional STR regulation, including caps.
“The government affairs person said, ‘Well, that’s unconstitutional, and we don’t support unconstitutional bills,’” Fultz said. “I protested to say that I’m not aware of any case law that has ruled that a cap would be unconstitutional, so what say you about that assertion?”
“It’s not unconstitutional,” Christianson said. “It’s done in other states.”
Recent court cases go both ways.
In October 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans that the city’s attempt to limit operation of STRs to owners who also resided on the property was unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause.
The Texas Court of Appeals for the 3rd District similarly found in November 2019 in Zaatari v. City of Austin that the city’s ban on STRs was unconstitutional.
Arizona is in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica that a regulation in Santa Monica, Calif., banning STRs unless one of the property’s “primary residents” remained on site throughout the visitor’s stay, was constitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in 2018.
OHVs
City staff and council also expressed support for SB1567, first introduced on Feb. 5, which would require all OHV operators to take both a written and practical course developed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to teach them “respect for communities.” Noting that OHV rental companies already require renters to watch instructional videos, Christianson added that “this would be one required for private operators as well.”
Vice Mayor Holli Ploog stated that the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Sine Kerr [R-District 13], had told her “that she couldn’t get support for education in the committee. Too much government interference, requiring people to be educated.”
“There will be an amendment that will be added to that bill at some point, probably on the floor, which will have other provisions that will address the regulation of OHVs,” Baughman told the council. The bill is still awaiting a third reading.
Jablow said that if open containers of alcohol were to be banned in OHVs, as the practice is currently legal, “that may be one way of solving a lot of the accidents … they have been seen drinking and driving [in the forest] and they can’t be cited.”
Housing
Council agreed to oppose both HB2570, which would bar municipalities from interfering with homeowners’ design choices, and HB2584, which Christianson said “prevents cities from adopting amendments to building codes.”
“We’re not sure whether the governor would be inclined to sign this,” Christianson said on HB2570. “In the past, she’s turned down other bills, vetoed other bills for being too restrictive on cities and counties.”
Christianson offered the example of the city’s requirement that exterior house paints meet a certain value for light reflectivity, which effectively prohibits the use of white paint in Sedona.
“We could have different colored houses than what we have traditionally had in Sedona,” Christianson said.
Elections
Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella expressed concern over SB1131, which would void the results of any county or city election with turnout of less than 25% and require the election to be repeated at the next election date.
“Basically, you would be forced to have a do-over,” Kinsella said. “This seems to me to put a burden on the city.”
“This seems like a bill in search of a problem,” Fultz said.
A majority of the council agreed to oppose the bill.
Community Plans
Councilman Pete Furman was curious as to whether HB2162, introduced by Rep. Selina Bliss [R-District 6], which would amend the current requirements for municipal planning for Sedona to hold a vote on its community plan, would actually help the city in 10 years’ time.
Currently, municipalities with fewer than 10,000 residents cannot hold an election on their community plans. Sedona had 9,684 residents in the 2020 Census.
“I think it would,” Christianson said. “In 10 years I hope that we’re above 10,000 people again, with infill and growth.”
HB2096
HB2096, which would have prohibited counties from requiring building permits for or applying building codes to owner-built homes of less than 600 square feet on rural land, failed to pass the House on Feb. 27 by a vote of 27-31 following opposition by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.
The bill, which was written by a Coconino County property owner and lawyer unable to build on his own land due to the complexity of county building regulations, could serve as a model for a city of Sedona ordinance addressing the local housing shortage due to requirements of municipal building and land development codes.
