Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde ValleySedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley
    Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley
    • Home
    • Sedona News
    • Business Profiles
    • Opinion
    • Mind & Body
    • Arts
    • Elections
    • Contact
    • Cart
    Sedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde ValleySedona.Biz – The Voice of Sedona and The Verde Valley
    Home » Short Term Rental Legislation and Other Sedona Issues: A Sedonan’s Perspective
    Editorials/Opinion

    Short Term Rental Legislation and Other Sedona Issues: A Sedonan’s Perspective

    February 19, 20222 Comments12 Mins Read
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Email Reddit WhatsApp
    Sedona Vacation Rentals
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email Reddit WhatsApp
    Place ads on Sedona.biz

    By Kathy Howe

    Sedona News: I live on a street in Uptown Sedona that has nine houses on it. Six are vacation rentals.

    Sedona Vacation rental Legislation
    Kathy Howe

    I love it! No more barking dogs. No more urging a neighbor to have dead trees cut down. No more looking at a house where a hoarder lived and one of my cats hunted for food. No more listening to neighbors who lived across the street from each other and argued often.

    In the years the VRs have been operating in my neighborhood I have had only one incident which was quickly resolved by our fabulous Sedona police persons!

    My cat, Muffy, liked to go across the street to one of the VRs and beg for food. One day she came home with half a sandwich! So, the day happened when I was in the yard gardening with Muffy. I left the yard for about 15 minutes and the next thing I knew she was gone. I went across the street and asked if they had seen her. Bottom line is they would not tell me what they did with her.

    So, I called the police, who came, contacted the VR property management company, got the names of the people, talked with them, and within about two hours, Muffy was returned to me through the Humane Society of Sedona.

    Why open with this incident?

    Because we already have ordinances in place to take care of most issues.

    I’m a strict constitutionalist at heart. I believe in our Republic, not the “democracy” that people keep touting. We are not a democracy, though we may vote in a democratic manner depending on what the “law” says. I believe in the rule of law.

    Do you all remember “America’s Highway” — SR179? The moniker lasted less than two years when people realized it was a bottle-necked passage into Sedona from the Village on weekends and during the busy season. What it showed was a lack of planning made by a well-intentioned group of people who just wanted to keep Sedona the sleepy bedroom community it had been for many years. One lane each way and roundabouts.

    At about the same time, the Uptown Enhancement was underway. The city council was besieged by shop owners who demanded parking in front of their shops, and in the end, the city purchased the Uptown stretch of SR89A after ADOT said, “we don’t allow parking on highways.”

    The Andante Traffic Light

    Most of us don’t ever want to live through that chaotic time ever again. I personally received death threats by Email and notes left on my car windshield. Over the years there had been accidents but the final straw for ADOT was a car-pedestrian death at that corner.

    Soon afterwards, ADOT informed Sedona that a traffic light would be installed along with street lighting on SR89A, at ADOT’s expense, in West Sedona. Sedonans became enraged at having streetlights and wanted the city to purchase the West Sedona stretch of SR89A. Thankfully, wiser minds prevailed. Thank you, ADOT.

    Affordable Housing

    Many of us have asked for increased density for years in order to bring lower-cost housing to Sedona. Many of us applauded the Jordan Lofts only to watch a band of Sedonans, who decided they knew better than the city planners, put up so much resistance (many were from West Sedona), and Miramonte withdrew their request for a zoning change on one of the parcels. Miramonte then let everyone know they would build according to current code, which allows vacation rentals. We lost a good project. We desperately need apartments and multi-family units.

    Parking

    Sedona is finally putting in much needed parking and a road that has been on the books longer than the 16 years I have lived here. Originally, the Uptown extension to SR89A was supposed to be Manzanita Lane, my street, but, was changed to Forest Rd. Happily, we will have the parking garage on Forest Road and be able to access SR89A without going through the Hyatt parking lot and adding to the traffic at the roundabouts when heading to West Sedona. Thank you, Sedona. We Uptown residents recommended the multilevel parking garage over 10 years ago.

    Walking/Bike Paths

    They are awesome! Love seeing all the people using them even after so many Sedonans were against them prior to building them. Cannot wait to see more.

    How can Sedona afford all of these new projects? Yes. Vacation Rental revenues, and a Governor who allowed us to continue to do business during years of lockdowns in other states.

    Sedona Real Estate

    Vacation Rental Legislation

    Sedona hired a lobbyist at $75,000 to get a bill through the legislature after working with the League of Towns and Cities lobbyist and being unsuccessful for three years.

    HB1350, commonly referred to as the Airbnb bill, went through the 2016 legislature in one session. Sedona was surprised! No one asked for Sedona’s opinion! And it had a companion bill which Sedona decided didn’t count and chose to violate it, causing Sedona to be censured.

    First, we must understand the current definition of a vacation rental.

    “Vacation rental” or “short-term rental” means any individually or collectively owned single-family or one-to-four-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative or timeshare, that is also a transient public lodging establishment or owner-occupied residential home offered for transient use if the accommodations are not classified for property taxation under section 42-12001.

    Currently, Arizona Statute, ARS 9-500.39(A), states: “A city or town may not prohibit vacation rentals or short-term rentals.”

    HB2711

    https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview?SessionID=125

    Bill passed committee on 2-14-22 Votes: 10-1

    Authorizes a municipality with less than 17,000 people to:

    1. a) Require the owner of a vacation rental or short-term rental to obtain and maintain a municipal-issued permit or license before going into business;
    2. b) Limit the number of vacation and short-term rentals based on a percentage of total residentially zoned buildings or structures within that municipality; and
    3. c) Regulate vacation rentals or short-term rentals like transient lodging activities.

    HB2663

    https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/77719

    Passed House 2-16-22 late afternoon by 1 vote, after a “do over” requested by Rep. Kavanaugh. 3 members changed their abstention votes in order to pass the bill.

    1. Stipulates that a local jurisdiction may limit the percentage of vacation or short-term rentals based on the total housing stock in that local jurisdiction. (Sec. 1, 2)
    2. Authorizes a local jurisdiction to require the following from a rental owner: a) To obtain a local regulatory permit or license before offering rentals and to provide proof of a valid TPT license; and b) To require a minimum two nights’ rental period. (Sec. 1, 2) 3. States that vacation and short-term rentals are not residential rental dwelling units and are subject to the rules adopted by the Arizona Department of Health Services pertaining to the health and safety of transient lodging. (Sec. 1, 2)
    3. Modifies statutory language regarding verified violations resulting in civil penalties and requires the Arizona Department of Revenue to suspend the rental owner’s TPT license for 12 months upon the rental owner receiving three verified violations within the same 24-month period. (Sec. 3, 4)
    4. Modifies the definition of vacation rental or short-term rental to exclude a timeshare. (Sec. 1, 2)

    HB2625

    https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview?SessionID=125

    Passed 10-3

    1. Allows a city or town and a county to regulate a vacation rental or short-term rental by requiring its owner to:
    2. a) Provide the name and phone number of the owner or owner’s designee to all property owners within 300 feet of the rental property;
    3. b) Display a sign that is smaller than two square feet and that contains a local 24-hour emergency contact number; and
    4. c) Obtain and maintain a local regulatory permit or license before renting the property and provide proof of a valid TPT license. (Sec. 1, 2)

    Rep. Regina Cobb wanted the bill amended o remove b.

    HB2321

    https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview?SessionID=125

    Is mysteriously absent from committees. A Kavanaugh prime bill. Has it morphed into HB2663?

    No information after January.

    SB1168

    https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview?SessionID=125

    It passed the Dem and R Caucus’ and is headed to the Senate floor for a vote.

    1. Removes the residential use and zoning limitation on ordinances that a local government may adopt and enforce.
    2. Allows a local government to require the owner of a vacation or short-term rental to: a) maintain liability insurance appropriate to cover the rental in the aggregate of at least $500,000; or
    3. b) advertise and offer each rental through an online lodging marketplace that provides equal or greater coverage.

    HB2234

    https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview?SessionID=125

    Passed Commerce 10-0

    1. Caps the civil penalties a local government may impose on a vacation or short-term rental owner within the same 12-month period as follows:
    2. a) The greater of $500 or one-night’s rent, as advertised on an online lodging marketplace, for the first verified violation;
    3. b) The greater of $1,000 or two-night’s rent, as advertised on an online lodging marketplace, for the second verified violation on the same property; and
    4. c) The greater of $3,500 or three-night’s rent, as advertised on an online lodging marketplace, for the third and any subsequent verified violation on the same property. (Sec. 1, 2)
    5. Allows a local government to require a vacation or short-term rental owner to: a) Maintain liability insurance appropriate to cover the rental in the aggregate of at least $500,000; or b) Advertise and offer each rental through a hosting platform that provides equal or greater coverage. (Sec. 1, 2)
    6. Permits DOR, after proper notice and hearing, to suspend for one year the TPT license of a vacation or short-term rental owner that has three verified violations within the same 12-month period. (Sec. 1, 2,
    7. Authorizes a local government to impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for every 30 days a vacation or short-term rental owner’s failure to provide required contact information. (Sec. 1, 2)
    8. Directs a local government to provide a vacation or short-term rental owner 30 days’ notice prior to imposing an initial penalty for failure to provide required contact information. (Sec. 1, 2)
    9. Removes language relating the requirement for notifying DOR and the vacation or short-term rental owner of verified violations. (Sec. 1, 2)
    10. Restates multiple verified violations that arise out of the same incident are considered one verified violation when assessing civil penalties or suspending a TPT license. (Sec. 1, 2)
    11. Repeals laws relating to civil penalties imposed by DOR. (Sec. 3)
    12. Removes the limitations on the types of ordinances that a local government may adopt and enforce. (Sec. 1, 2)
    13. Provides a definition for online lodging marketplace. (Sec. 1, 2) 11. Removes timeshare from the definition of vacation rental or short-term rental. (Sec.1, 2) 12. Prescribes civil penalties for online lodging operators who fail to comply with certain advertisement requirements.

    Conclusion

    None of these bills have “crossed the aisle.” That means that as of the date of publishing this Op-Ed, none of these bills have passed a floor vote and moved across the aisle to the other chamber. If any of these bills goes “across the aisle” it would then have to pass by a full vote of that chamber. If any bills are amended, they would have to go back to the chamber that originated the bill, have a vote of the entire chamber on any changes made to the bill. It’s called going back for “concurrence”.

    Anything that passes both chambers must be signed by the Governor. The Governor has 3 choices: 1) sign into law; 2) veto; 3) don’t sign and after 10 days, it automatically becomes law. Note: There is a period of 90 days after the governor’s decision where a bill is open to legal challenge.

    There is a rumor going around that the only bill that will pass will be a bill that licenses VRs. The fight is currently whether the State or the City will issue the licenses.

    Many of you won’t share my opinion and that is your prerogative. For those of you who believe that the VRs are not the scourge of the century, please let your legislators know. They keep a list on the website as to who is for and who is against. Better yet, let the City Council know that you want them to look further into the Vail InDeed Program. Everyone wins. Especially, the constitution.

    Editor’s Note/A Personal Note From the Author:

    I dreamed of living in Sedona in the 1970s when we had houses in Phoenix and Flagstaff, often enjoyed cocktails with Bill Garland on the lawn before dinner, visited Tlaquepaque with friends when it first opened in the ‘70s, served as NAU’s Foundation Board President ‘90-’92, served as the Arizona Association of REALTOR’s Legislative Chair for two years in the early ‘90s, served as one of the lead lobbyists (AAR) for the planned community and condo statutory redos in 1997, returned to Arizona after a 10 year hiatus in Hawaii (I served on the Republican platform committee the year Linda Lingle was elected Governor) and then was appointed by Janet Napalitano to the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s Advisory Board in 2007. I currently teach and sell real estate, am an adjunct professor at Yavapai College teaching Law202 Real Estate, and I have written the Dearborn book on Arizona Real Estate Principles, revised. I’m an Uptown girl who loves to garden, parents 5 rescue cats, and loves to call Sedona “home.”

     

     

     

     

    Place ads on Sedona.biz

    Scott mayor
    samaireformayor
    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Email Reddit WhatsApp
    Tommy Acosta
    • Website

    Related Posts

    Armstrong vs. Jablow: The Main Event

    August 3, 2022

    Eeny Meeny Miny Moe!

    July 28, 2022

    Deciding How to Vote on Home Rule

    July 22, 2022

    2 Comments

    1. us on February 20, 2022 3:36 pm

      I have been a VOC resident for over 25 years.
      There are a lot of hit and misses in this opinion piece.
      Regarding 179 – I went to every meeting regarding “improvements” and I can report that no community member was happy about the way the meetings were held and the conclusions drawn. The majority of the residents wanted NO traffic circles, 2 lanes going each direction and traffic lights at Tlaquepaque. Before “improvements” 179 flowed better, there was room on the shoulders to pull over to let faster traffic by or to stop and take photos. Before “improvements” school kids enjoyed decorating trees for the holidays between Sedona and VOC, and the “improvements” destroyed this beloved holiday custom. There was NOTHING wrong with 179 the way it was and it needed none of the “improvements” which so far has improved nothing, but has stolen yards/property from citizens, wrecked havoc with heavy traffic for any event at Tlaquepaque or Uptown, and caused sewage to be poured into Oak Creek for months on end. After the last resident meeting on 179, we were told that it didn’t matter what we wanted, that the road would be improved to accommodate uptown and the tourist period the end.
      No one wanted those damned lights in West Sedona either. The one person killed on 89A was a falling-down drunk tourist who was wearing all black who ran in front of a car going 35 mph on 89A. He would have had the same deadly outcome if there were lights or not. Those lights were foisted on Sedona’s deep pockets after ADOT had purchased them for a defunct residential development in Flagstaff. When that development went belly up Sedona was forced into purchasing the expensive dark sky lights to get them off ADOT’s books.
      And now with short term vacation rentals we have no housing for the locals who work here. I can hardly keep employees at my business because workers can not afford to live here. Oh good for the real estate brokers/agents who are making a ton of money selling million dollar homes that should be selling for less than $650k, and pimping 60 year old mobile homes for a half a million because they have a decent view of Coffee Pot rock. If I were to land in Sedona today I would not be able to afford my home – and I have had realtors calling asking if I would sell – I will not. When I have no further use for my home. I will give it to my 27 year old son, who currently lives in a small house in Cottonwood with 3 roommates. He doesn’t relish his living situation but not only is it all he can afford, it is also the only place he can find close to his work. One of his roommates recently moved in after spending a year living in a tent off 525. When I moved here 25 years ago, there was no one out off 525 living as a working homeless person. There would be the occasional RV or camper, but now ever square inch available for camping has been trampled, lived upon, polluted, chopped up and burned in fire rings, trashed, wildlife impacted and otherwise destroyed by not only the working homeless but tourist looking for cheap campsites as well. The off road vehicle rentals has added to the dust and noise in all the rural areas to the point that the Forest Service now has to close forests and lands so that they can heal. If these areas continue to be destroyed there will be no reason for tourist to come and visit.
      I do not know who first mentioned it, but if the City of Sedona would open their own VR platform, most of the STR issues can be addressed locally, without state or federal input. All they have to do is open a city-sponsored VR rental office following the AIRBNB template, which would collect fees and taxes. All monies will go into a fund for rental assistance for those who work in Sedona but can’t afford to live here- like Sec8 housing in many cities.
      it’s a solution worth looking in to because what is happening isn’t sustainable, isn’t working, and is destroying our beautiful Sedona.

    2. Rob on February 21, 2022 10:34 am

      I live in the Chapel area and it has changed for the worst. Vacant land is purchased by out of state investors for the sole purpose of building VRBO. These investors have built structures they call residential with bedrooms built for bunk beds to increase head count for greater profit avoiding higher construction costs associated with hotel structures.
      There is nothing comforting about not knowing who your neighbor is or their respect towards the neighborhood their temporarily residing in.
      Respectfully!

    Paid Political Ad Paid For by Samaire for Mayor
    Paid Political Ad for Samaire Armstrong
    Paid Political Announcement by Samaire For Mayor

     THE MOMENT IS UPON US

    Dear Sedona,

    The moment is upon us. The time for a united effort to shift the focus back to our community is now.

    The ability to thrive in our community, our environment, our workforce, and the tourist industry, is entirely possible because we have all the resources needed for success.

    Still, we need a council that isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions, that makes decisions based on data and facts, and through discussion, rather than moving and voting in group unison as they so regularly do.

    This is my home. I have been a part of the Sedona community for 28 years. I witnessed the road debacle, the lack of planning, the city circumventing the local businesses ability to thrive, while making choices to expand the local government and be in direct competition with private industry.

    I am a unique candidate because unlike the incumbents, I don’t believe the government should expand in size, nor in operations, nor would I attempt to micromanage every aspect of our community.

    City government should stay in its lane and allow the competitive market of local private industry to prosper. And it should defend our community from corporate takeover and infiltration of our town.

    I do not agree that we should sign onto International Building Codes and regulations by signing Sedona up to the ICC. It is imperative that we remain a sweet, rural community.

    Where are the arts? Where is this organic thriving element that we allege to be animated by. Where is our culture? Where is our community?

    The discord between the decision making process and the desires of the community have never been more clear. It has been nearly a decade in the making.

    It is time for a new era of energy to take charge. An energy that is reflective in the ability to succeed rather than be trapped in out of date consciousness.

    It has been a great honor meeting with each of you. I hear your concerns over the insane and out of control spending and I echo them. A budget of $105,000,000 in a town of 9700 residents is completely unacceptable. A parking structure (that looks like a shoe box) originally slated to cost 11 million, now projected to cost 18 million, is incomprehensible. Especially, considering there is no intention of charging for parking.

    For those who are concerned that I lack the political experience within our established system- that is precisely what Sedona needs… Not another politician, but instead a person who understands people, who listens to the voices within the community, and who will act in service on their behalf with accountability, for the highest good of Sedona. What I am not, will prove to be an asset as I navigate the entrenched bureaucracy with a fresh perspective. Business as usual, is over.

    Creative solutions require new energy.

    Every decision that is made by our local government, must contemplate Sedona first.

    • Does this decision benefit the residents?
    • Does this decision benefit the local businesses?
    • Does this decision actually help the environment?
    • Will this decision sustain benefit in the future, or will it bring more problems?

    What we have now is a city government that expands to 165 employees for 9700 residents. Palm Desert has 53,000 residents and 119 city employees. Majority of our city department heads are not even in town. I find this problematic.

    Efforts towards championing in and courting new solutions for our medical needs are imperative. We are losing our doctors. We must encourage competition with other facilities rather than be held hostage by NAH, who clearly have their own set of dysfunctions.

    We must remember that so many move to Sedona for its beauty, hiking, and small town charm. Bigger, faster, and more concrete does not, in broad strokes, fit the ethos of Sedona.

    The old world must remain strong here in balance, as that is what visitors want to experience. Too many have noted that Sedona has lost its edge and charm.

    As Mayor I will preserve the rural charm of our community, and push back against the urbanization that is planned for Sedona.

    As mayor I will make it a priority to create opportunities to support our youth.  After school healthy, enriching programs should be created for our kids, and available to the Sedona workforce regardless of residency and regardless of school they belong to.

    As Mayor, I will create an agenda to deliberately embody the consciousness of our collective needs here, allowing private industry to meet the needs of our community rather than bigger government.

    I hope to have your vote on Aug 2nd. I am excited and have the energy to take on this leadership role with new eyes, community perspective, and the thoughtful consciousness that reflects all ages of the human spectrum.

    Thank you deeply for your consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Samaire Armstrong

    Sedona elections
    Armstrong vs. Jablow: The Main Event
    Ready to Rumble

    By Tommy Acosta
    In the Blue Corner stands Scott Jablow and in the Red Corner of the ring stands Samaire Armstrong, ready to rumble to the bitter end in their fight to become the next Sedona mayor. Jablow weighs in with 1,137 primary election votes (36.13%) under his belt, having wielded his advantage as sitting Sedona City Council vice-mayor to his favor. He brings his years of serving in that capacity into the fray and waged a solid fight in his campaign to make it to the run-off. Armstrong, however withstood a blistering smear campaign from the other opposing candidates and their supporters to make it to the final bout with 967 votes under her belt (30.73%), an amazing feat for a political newcomer. Unfortunately, for the other two candidates, Kurt Gehlbach and sitting mayor Sandy Moriarty, neither put up enough of a fight to make it to the championship bout. Read more→
    Recent Comments
    • Laurenza on Armstrong vs. Jablow: The Main Event
    • Joan Mansfield on James Ratliff Gallery in Sedona Exhibits the Interpretative Art of Christine DeSpain Schroeder
    • RJ on Eeny Meeny Miny Moe!
    • Mary Wright on Eeny Meeny Miny Moe!
    • OMMITTE on Eeny Meeny Miny Moe!
    Categories
    © 2022 All rights reserved. Sedona.biz.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.