Willard planning commission weighs limits, fees for long-term RV stays

The Willard City Planning Commission on May 1 discussed proposed revisions to the city's RB Park ordinance that would limit how long recreational vehicles may occupy stall spaces and create a defensible fee structure for extended stays.

Commissioners debated whether to keep a strict time limit or rely on a mandatory rotation. Planning commission member (unnamed) summarized earlier council and commission input, saying some members favored no limit with a 90-day rotation while others supported one-year or 18-month maximums. The working consensus the commission described was to allow a 12-month stay with an option to extend toward 18 months, plus a required 90-day rotation for individual stalls.

The discussion focused less on eviction mechanics than on how the city should recover the cost of municipal services when RVs occupy stalls long-term. City staff member Jeremy (identified in the meeting as a staff presenter) described options including an application or per-spot fee and a daily or monthly billing approach: "If they're in there for a year and they leave for a couple days, come back, legally, is there anything we do?" Jeremy said the city must craft a fee that is "defensible" under state restrictions on municipal fees and that the simplest approach could be a per-day charge collected through the park operator.

Roxy Crouch, a resident who gave public comment and identified herself as living at 680 North Main, said families and schoolchildren live in the park and urged the commission to consider impacts on schools and emergency services: "We have about 5 elementary students at 3 Mile Creek that live in that trailer park," she said.

Commissioners also discussed specific ordinance tools: a cap limiting long-term stalls to 25% of total spaces; cumulative-day language that would prevent a resident from resetting their occupancy clock by moving within the park; and requiring the park operator to provide a monthly roster so the city or operator can assess any fee. One participant suggested collecting a roster and assessing fees to the owner rather than billing individual occupants.

Staff identified implementation complexities for utilities and public-safety cost recovery. Jeremy told commissioners the city is preparing an impact-fee study as part of its budget process and noted existing fee figures used for illustration during the discussion: the water impact fee cited was $6,361 and the sewer impact fee $7,200; city water connection and inspection charges cited during the meeting included an inspection fee of about $200 and a sewer connection fee of $500. (Those numbers were presented in the meeting for context and were described as items respondents would verify and, if needed, update in a formal fee study.)

The commission directed staff to draft language for a resolution that would clarify "cumulative days" (so moving to another stall in the same park would not reset the tally), examine how an application or daily-rate approach could be charged defensibly, and present recommended fee options and legal constraints for a later meeting and for the city council to consider.

Commissioners said they preferred to leave enforcement to existing code processes and to avoid micromanaging day-to-day park operations so long as owners maintained order and followed the ordinance. Several commissioners also urged that any ordinance be transferable to future properties so the rules would not depend on a particular owner's practices.

Next steps: staff will prepare draft ordinance language and a draft resolution that references the fee structure options and the forthcoming impact-fee study, then present that material to the commission before the council considers a final decision.