Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union County grapples with RVs, trailers and how to charge for services
Summary
Commissioners held a lengthy policy discussion about residents living in RVs and campers, weighing special-assessment options for legal RV parks, an annual RV permit, enforcement challenges and constraints from Senate Bill 180. Staff will study models used by neighboring counties and report back.
Commissioner Jackson opened a multi-hour discussion about occupied campers and recreational vehicles that spanned multiple agenda items. She said she wanted to explore special assessments or permits to ensure people living in RVs pay for services and to reduce calls on EMS and public safety.
Bruce Dukes, identified in the discussion as the property appraiser, explained limitations on assessing individual RVs that are not permanently connected or permitted. He told the board that assessments work most straightforwardly for established RV parks "by the number of pads," and said assessing individual RVs parked at a private residence poses practical and legal challenges.
County attorneys and staff repeatedly warned the board that current state law (referred to in the discussion as Senate Bill 180 or "SB 180") constrains local code‑enforcement and permitting options. Staff proposed a staged approach: start by adding a special‑assessment category for legitimate RV parks (charging per pad), develop a permit system for individual hookups going forward (with fees allocated to building, EMS and solid waste), and create voluntary compliance tools such as a permit database that could enable power disconnection for nonpayment.
Panel members discussed enforcement tradeoffs: commissioners worried that hiring a code‑enforcement officer might cost more than revenue raised; others argued targeted enforcement of commercial RV parks and a permit system would capture fee revenue while leaving illegal, clandestine camps to enforcement action by the sheriff's office when public‑safety issues arise.
No final ordinance or fee was adopted. The board asked staff and legal counsel to research models from neighboring counties, confirm what changes are allowed under current state law, and return with recommendations and an implementation plan that could include special assessments for existing legal RV parks and an RV‑hookup permit for new hookups.
What happens next: Staff will gather legal guidance on SB 180 and compile sample ordinances/fee schedules used by nearby counties; the property appraiser will identify which RV parks are legal candidates for a special‑assessment category so the board can consider drafting a permit or assessment ordinance.
