Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors debate and table $21 annual mobile-home fee after public objections
Summary
Board discussion focused on a proposed $21 annual administrative fee to fund defense and administration of Tuolumne County's mobile-home rent control ordinance; supervisors expressed concern about passing costs to park residents and questioned overlap with state law; the item was referred back to staff after no majority vote to change the fee.
The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors debated a proposed $21 per‑space annual fee intended to cover county costs to administer and defend Chapter 5.28 of the Tuolumne County Code (control of rents and mobile home parks).
County staff said the fee is reviewed annually and is intended to cover the county’s legal and administrative costs for the local mobile‑home rent control ordinance. The ordinance includes a mechanism by which administration and defense costs may be charged to park owners and, in practice, pass through to residents; the staff memo cited a $21 proposed fee for fiscal year 2025–26.
Supervisor Holland objected to increasing the fee, saying many mobile‑home residents are financially vulnerable and that roughly half of the proposed fee is passed on to residents. County Counsel explained the ordinance requires the board to set an annual fee but that the board has discretion over the amount. Several supervisors asked whether state law (Mobile Home Residency Law) or recent state rent‑control measures already regulate mobile‑home rents; county counsel said the county ordinance is a local adoption and the interaction with recent state legislation is complex and merits further study.
Public commenters also criticized placing the item on the consent calendar and urged the board to take more time to review the ordinance and its effect on residents. After extended discussion, the board did not adopt the proposed fee and referred the matter back to staff for further analysis. County staff said the ordinance requires the board to set an annual fee by July 1 if any change is to be made, so staff will return with further information and timing options.
Ending: The board did not adopt the proposed $21 fee at the meeting and directed staff to return with detailed analysis on how state law interacts with the county ordinance and with options on how to set or apportion the annual fee. No final vote or adjusted fee was recorded during the session.
