Richland County committee tables short-term rental ordinance after owners object to rewrite

The Richland County Natural Resources Standing Committee held a public hearing June 1 on proposed updates to the county’s short-term rental ordinance and voted to table the measure pending additional review.

Local owner Aaron Halverson told the committee he and other short-term rental operators had worked for more than a year on edits that the board previously approved, and that a subsequent redraft by corporate counsel reinstated much of the original, more restrictive language. Halverson said the revised definition adopted by counsel would exclude many existing rentals: “the definition of a short-term rental is the rental of a tourist rooming house for a period of six or more days but less than 30 days. But almost all of my rentals are two to five day,” he said, arguing that the redraft would leave his properties outside the ordinance’s scope.

Halverson also said counsel removed prior clarifying definitions (including a definition for hotels and motels), and that some of the counsel’s changes introduced what he viewed as unnecessary penalties and potential legal exposure. Committee members and other owners described confusion about whether the county’s prior board-approved language had been posted or adopted, and whether the new counsel’s wording reflected state requirements or a different legal judgment.

Supervisors and other committee members asked for a clearer legal review and for language aligned with state rules; one supervisor suggested consulting practitioners who handle short-term-rental definitions in neighboring counties. Supervisor Frank emphasized the sector’s economic role, saying short-term rentals bring substantial visitor traffic and local spending.

After public comment and internal discussion, a committee member moved to table the ordinance and seek a counsel redline and broader stakeholder review; the motion was seconded and the committee voted to table the item. Committee members said they expect to reconvene with corporate counsel and interested owners to produce a clearer, legally defensible draft before returning the matter to committee.

Next steps: the committee will ask counsel for a redline showing changes from the previously approved draft, and committee members said they will solicit owner-proposed language and consider alignment with state definitions and neighboring counties’ rules before scheduling the ordinance for further action.