Fountain Hills Council Passes Emergency Nuisance Party Ordinance, 6-0 Vote

Fountain Hills Council Passes Emergency Nuisance Party Ordinance, Strips Headcount Requirement to Target Disturbances

On June 20, 2018, the Fountain Hills town council approved an emergency ordinance designed to combat chronic party-house disturbances by defining nuisance gatherings not by the number of people present, but by the harm they cause—noise, traffic obstruction, underage drinking, and littering. The vote was unanimous 6-0, and the ordinance took effect immediately, giving the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office new enforcement tools after six months of escalating complaints from residents on a single street where a short-term rental property had been repeatedly advertised as an event venue.

Lead

The ordinance—Ordinance 18-09, amending Town Code Chapter 11—emerged from a groundswell of neighbor complaint and became the evening's most contentious and emotionally charged item. Residents testified that a residential property rented through Airbnb had hosted parties with 10 to 100+ people nearly every weekend since January 2018, with amplified music, blocked streets, debris scattered in the adjacent wash, and on one occasion, sewage odors. Town Manager Grady Miller and Town Attorney Matesh stressed that state preemption laws prevent the town from singling out short-term rentals, requiring the ordinance to apply town-wide to any property. Yet in crafting the final language, the council made a deliberate policy choice: rather than enforce a bright-line numeric threshold (staff had proposed 12 people, other Arizona cities use as few as 5), the council removed the number altogether and defined a nuisance party by its character—disturbance of the peace through noise, traffic, littering, or underage drinking—allowing officer discretion and a graduated penalty structure.

Key Speeches

"We bought a home in fountain hills for the peace and tranquility since january that peace and tranquility is non-existent each weekend the house next door has been rented by groups of 10 to 20 who come there solely for the purpose of partying…we have parties going on kitty corners straight across just a little bit kitty corner from this house the party house…he advertises on airbnb that he is one of the few airbnb houses that will allow parties events special things like weddings…the first time i realized there was something wrong was when he had a holiday party there and there were cars all the way up and down the block in both directions on my street and i stopped some people walking by the house and i said what are you where are you going what are you doing over there they said we're going to a party and i said a party do you know the people and they this very nice couple said oh no we don't know them but we're paying five dollars a piece to go to this party." — Thorin Henning, resident on party-house street

"I ask you to pass this ordinance as a safety issue the neighbors they're very angry you have no idea you don't understand i don't think we have been bombarded week after week after week with the parties and it's really broken our spirit ever since last christmas there have been parties when 12 to 100 people and we are allowed to enjoy our homes the way we used to." — Pam Patrick, 17-year resident

"The reason it's happening is very clear this town has nothing in place to prevent it unlike towns such as flagstaff mesa tempe and my favorite one tucson it starts over every weekend that's the second point four weeks in a row the police were called but what happens a police report is filed when i asked the officer why not a citation he said would it be fair for a group that just rented a place to have not have a warning how would they know that is why the other towns have placed the provisions we are trying to pass." — Bob Henning, resident affected by party-house disturbances

"Well i think it's nice to have the stipulation of sidewalks in this particular area of town it doesn't seem to me that any other businesses on that entire stretch of that pro of that street of that access road has any sidewalks at all is that correct…we are not allowed under state law to reveal any proprietary information such as individual you know car sales tax revenue so forth on any of our businesses so we really can't really bring that up or even discuss it either in an open meeting or just you know and i confidentially." — Town Attorney Matesh, addressing council's questions about business impact

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Grady Miller and Town Attorney Matesh explained that six months of chronic short-term rental disturbances (Golf Zoo property, Airbnb-advertised events) had prompted research into nuisance party ordinances passed in university towns (Flagstaff, Tempe, Tucson) and that staff had drafted an ordinance with a 12-person threshold, progressive penalties (warning, $500 fine, $1,000 fine, escalation beyond), and responsibility assigned to both occupants and property owners.

• Matesh clarification: State preemption laws prohibit selective enforcement against short-term rentals; the ordinance must apply town-wide to all private property. Both renter and owner can be cited. Discretion rests with responding officers, who may issue warnings; violations reset on a 90-day rolling basis, so occasional family gatherings are unlikely to accumulate fines.

• Public comment: Six speakers, all supporting the ordinance. Thorin Henning, Pam Patrick, Lori Radovich, John Radovich, Chris Gilbo, and Bob Henning described six months of weekend parties with 10–100+ guests, excessive noise (particularly during daytime, before the existing 10 p.m. noise ordinance kicks in), blocked streets, debris, vehicle traffic, and safety concerns. Several testified that sheriff deputies told them the current ordinances "have no teeth." Lori Radovich noted the property is operating as an event venue (offering weddings, showers, bachelor parties) in violation of residential zoning. John Radovich raised concerns about the property running a commercial business without licenses, insurance, occupancy restrictions, or fire-code compliance. Chris Gilbo described quality-of-life loss and noted that Scottsdale prohibits such uses. Bob Henning referenced video evidence of X-rated behavior, underage drinking, and debris.

• Council discussion: Councilman Magazine questioned why the second offense carried a $500 fine when someone renting for a long weekend could incur multiple violations in a single stay. Councilman Deporter noted that all the prohibited behaviors (minors in possession, fighting, littering) are already illegal, and asked whether the ordinance's real goal is to hold owners accountable for short-term rental abuse—a zoning and business licensing matter. He suggested a carve-out for established businesses and the downtown entertainment district. Vice Mayor Brown expressed support but urged caution on enforcement discretion, noting the risk of neighbor disputes escalating into frivolous calls. Mayor Cavanaugh contextualized the issue: investors nationwide are eyeing Fountain Hills and other East Valley towns for bulk short-term rental acquisition; Copperwind, Sedona, and neighboring communities are facing similar invasions. She emphasized the ordinance is a tool for neighborhoods without HOAs, which can impose stricter controls unilaterally. Councilman Tolis requested a carve-out for downtown and civic events. Councilman Deporter moved to remove the numeric threshold entirely, defining a nuisance party by disturbance type. Councilman Magazine and Allen Skillicorn agreed, and Matesh confirmed the ordinance could be reworded without a number.

• Amendment and vote: Deporter moved to approve Ordinance 18-09 with the exception of deleting the 12-person threshold; the motion carried 6-0 on an emergency basis, effective immediately.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: None. All six speakers supported the ordinance.

Support

Number of speakers for: Six—all residents or business owners affected by the party house.

Main concerns (speakers' testimony):

1. Six-month pattern of disruption: Parties nearly every weekend since January 2018, starting in the morning and lasting 9+ hours, pre-empting the 10 p.m. noise ordinance window.

2. Large scale and commercial character: Gatherings of 10–100+ people; property advertised on Airbnb, social media, and meetup.com as an event venue for weddings, rehearsal dinners, bachelor/bachelorette parties, and charging $750/night for events or $5 entry fees to hosted parties.

3. Safety and infrastructure stress: Blocked streets, cars lined up for blocks, sewage odors, debris (beer cans, broken bottles, floaties, balloons) blown into the adjacent wash, risk of fire in dry conditions, intoxicated behavior, and X-rated conduct.

4. Sheriff resource drain: Deputies called four separate times in recent weeks; current ordinances "have no teeth"; officer told residents a citation is unlikely on first offense, forcing them to start over with each new rental group.

5. Zoning violation: Residential property being operated as a commercial event venue without business license, liquor license, occupancy limits, fire inspection, or compliance with Section 11-1-4 (home occupation restrictions). Legitimate businesses like the golf course are required to obtain single-day liquor licenses and post 10 p.m. noise cutoffs; this property does neither.

6. Neighborhood degradation and unequal enforcement: Residents point out that garages sales are limited to four per year to protect neighborhood quality; HOAs in Sunridge and other communities have passed stricter short-term rental ordinances. Why should non-HOA neighborhoods tolerate unlimited commercial-scale parties?

7. Liability and precedent: If one property succeeds, investors nationwide will target Fountain Hills and similar towns for bulk short-term rental portfolios, replicating the Sedona, Tempe, and Tucson crisis in which entire neighborhoods transform into transient party zones.

Most compelling argument: Bob Henning's testimony that the property owner is not an Airbnb host providing alternative accommodations; he is a business operator charging for events and advertising parties, and the current ordinances offer no recourse because each new rental group resets the complaint cycle. The ordinance's 90-day rolling provision ensures repeat offenders face escalating penalties, while one-off family gatherings are effectively exempt via officer discretion.

Organized groups: None formally listed, though residents referenced coordination with the Sunridge HOA and implicit support from the community.

Project Details

• Case number: Ordinance 18-09 (Resolution 2018-46 as a public record declaration)

• Applicant / developer: N/A (ordinance applies town-wide)

• Affected property: Residential property on a named street in town (address withheld in transcript); rented short-term via Airbnb and social media for events and parties.

• Current zoning: Residential; property is being used as an event venue in violation of zoning.

• Proposed ordinance: Chapter 11-1-7-j (nuisance party) defining a nuisance party as a gathering on private property causing disturbance of the peace via excessive noise, traffic obstruction, littering, public drinking, underage drinking/service, or fighting.

• Penalties (amended): First violation = warning. Second violation (within 90 days) = $500 fine ($250 for non-owner responsible party). Third and subsequent violations = $1,000 fine. Violations escalate to $2,000+ if minor in possession/service is involved. Beyond three violations in a rolling period, the matter may be referred to code enforcement and magistrate for civil complaint.

• Key provisions: Officer discretion to warn or cite; both occupant and property owner can be cited; complaint-driven except when officer witnesses violation; 90-day rolling clock resets penalties; Community Services Director may designate smoking/drinking areas if needed; ordinance applies town-wide to all private property, not singled out for short-term rentals.

• Effective date: Immediately (emergency clause).

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 6-0
• Yes: Mayor Cavanaugh, Vice Mayor Brown, Councilmember Deporter, Councilmember Magazine, Councilmember Tolis, Councilmember Leger
• No: None
• Abstentions / absences: Allen Skillicorn present and voted yes (all six voted yes).

Outcome & Next Steps

The ordinance is effective immediately. Council committed to revisiting its effectiveness in December 2018 to evaluate any unintended consequences and adjust as needed. Grady Miller will coordinate implementation with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and code enforcement, including training and a public awareness campaign. The town attorney will monitor compliance and escalations. A follow-up discussion on short-term rental registration, business licensing, and tax collection is anticipated but was deferred due to time constraints.

Controversies & Context

Short-term rental proliferation as a statewide and national issue: Mayor Cavanaugh noted that investors from across the country have contacted the town inquiring about properties and "rules against short-term rental investment." Flagstaff, Tempe, Tucson, Mesa, and other Arizona cities have passed similar ordinances after similar invasions. Sedona is described as having lost entire neighborhoods to transient rental conversion. The state Legislature passed a preemption law (SB 1350) in 2016 preventing municipalities from outright banning short-term rentals, which prompted the broad drafting of this ordinance to apply to all residential property, not just Airbnb.

Zoning and commercial use conflict: Residents and staff noted that the party house is being operated as a commercial event venue—charging $750/night for weddings, hosting bachelor parties, and charging $5 entry fees—without a business license, liquor license, occupancy restriction, or fire-code compliance. Staff's Marissa indicated this is a zoning violation under Chapter 11-1-4 and should be enforced separately via code enforcement. However, that issue was not agendized for tonight, and Mayor Cavanaugh deferred detailed discussion to a future meeting on short-term rental regulation.

HOA exemption and equity: Vice Mayor Brown and others noted that HOAs (like Sunridge) can impose stricter controls unilaterally, while non-HOA neighborhoods depend on town ordinances. This creates a two-tiered protection system: some residents (in HOAs) can ban or restrict short-term rentals, while others cannot.

Officer discretion and fairness: Vice Mayor Brown and Councilman Deporter emphasized the risk of neighbor disputes escalating into frivolous calls, or of selective enforcement. The ordinance mitigates this by empowering officers to warn first and by setting a 90-day rolling clock, but enforcement will require training and de-escalation skills.

Noise ordinance and time-of-day gap: Current ordinances prohibit excessive noise only after 10 p.m. The party house's parties often begin mid-morning, leaving a 13+ hour window unregulated. The ordinance closes this gap by targeting disturbance of the peace regardless of time of day, as long as it meets the definition.

Fiscal and staffing pressures: Grady Miller's staff report noted that the ordinance was rushed to council before summer to address anticipated pool-season parties and because staff and residents had done research identifying other communities' successes. However, the town is resource-constrained, and enforcement will rely on officer discretion and complaint-driven response, not proactive patrols.

Duration

• This item (Ordinance 18-09, Nuisance Party): Approximately 90 minutes (public hearing, council discussion, 6 speakers, amendments, vote)
• Total meeting: Approximately 4 hours (including special sessions for district boards, multiple consent agenda items, presentations on cellular antenna and auto dealership rezoning, and routine resolutions)

Other Notable Items

Verizon Wireless Cellular Antenna (Case SU 2018-01): Approved 6-0 with stipulation of full four-sided screening. Verizon requested a special use permit to install three cellular antenna sectors on the roof of Park Place Building D, with one exceeding the 54-foot height limit by 3 feet 11 inches. Applicant Darren Snodgrass, director for the southwest region, testified that the downtown area has coverage gaps due to terrain and building structures, and that the property is the optimal location; no other existing towers can serve downtown. Design Center owner Philip Blackerby testified in support, noting severe service degradation at his storefront since Park Place construction. Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0. Staff and council approved with the condition that all equipment be fully enclosed and screened on all four sides to minimize visibility from the south.

Auto Dealership Rezoning (Case Z 2018-02): Rezoning approved 4-2 with conditions requiring desert landscaping, no on-street parking adjacent to the park, and building set-back from the service road alley to ensure safe sight lines. Applicant Rex Foley requested rezoning of a 15,500+ square-foot parcel at the northwest corner of North Saguaro Boulevard and Desert Vista Right-of-Way from C1 (neighborhood commercial) to C3 (general commercial) to expand his existing auto sales and service business. Staff recommended denial, citing safety concerns with proximity to active Desert Vista Park and intensity of use incompatible with the park's character. Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval 4-3 with stipulations. Councilman Magazine expressed concern about concentration of auto dealerships on Saguaro Boulevard. Councilman Deporter raised safety and traffic-flow concerns regarding bay doors opening onto the alley (which is also park parking and access). Vice Mayor Brown asked about building placement and egress design. Foley testified that the site is slightly smaller than his existing lot (15,500 sq. ft. vs. 18,000 sq. ft.) and that a 10-foot setback on all sides leaves insufficient asphalt for inventory; he asked for flexibility. Staff clarified that the C3 setback is 10 feet all-inclusive and that landscaping, utility easement, and sidewalk are included within that 10 feet. Councilman Tolis expressed support for supporting local business and asked the finance director about sales-tax contribution; the director noted that proprietary business information cannot be disclosed. The motion to approve passed 4-2 (Magazine and Deporter voting no, apparently in subsequent roll call, though the vote count was stated as 4-2 at the end).

Town Clerk Retirement Recognition: Bev Bender, town clerk for approximately 15 years and employee for nearly 30 years since incorporation, was recognized for her retirement effective July 5, 2018. Mayor Cavanaugh and all council members offered personal tributes, praising Bender's professionalism, competence, positive attitude, and dedication to the town. Bender was presented with a retirement gift and a gold-colored commemorative item. The retirement was not agendized but was announced and celebrated during the meeting.