Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects proposed ban on campers, RVs in permit parking after public concern
Summary
After public comment and committee questions about scope, definitions and equity, the Stevens Point committee voted down an amendment to ordinances 9.05 AA/9.09.4 that would bar vehicles adapted for habitation from permit parking lots; roll‑call votes recorded all nos.
The City of Stevens Point Public Policy and General Government Committee on July 13 debated and ultimately rejected an ordinance amendment (9.05 AA, with a related change to 9.09.4) that would prohibit campers and RVs adapted or modified for habitation from city permit‑parking lots.
Staff and the mayor said the change was drafted by the city attorney in response to repeated complaints about vehicles being lived in (the police chief described a Water Street camper that drew roughly 25–30 calls). Proponents framed the draft as a tool to address unsanitary and hazardous conditions in permit parking lots; the mayor emphasized officer discretion and said the amendment targets habitual situations rather than one‑night visitors.
Committee members and many public commenters raised concerns about the draft’s scope and clarity: alderpersons flagged a missing terminal word in the ordinance text (witnesses suggested the word “voided”), asked whether the change applied only to permit‑parking lots or to all public property, and questioned whether existing ordinances (public urination/defecation, littering, time‑limited parking, 48‑hour rules) already provide enforcement. Several speakers warned that a broadly written ban risked criminalizing low‑income residents or visitors and asked for a focused, narrowly tailored approach. Residents suggested alternatives such as targeted enforcement, designated parking locations, or tying restrictions to the opening of new shelter capacity.
After extended discussion the committee considered procedural motions to withdraw or suspend rules to allow withdrawal of the approval motion; the motion to suspend the rules failed on a roll call (Moldenhauer: No; Lang: Yes; Donahue: Yes; Kemmer: No; Guthrie: No). The committee then proceeded to a roll‑call vote on the original motion to approve the amendment as written; the clerk recorded Guthrie No, Keimer No, Donahue No, Lane No and Moldenhauer No and the amendment failed.
What’s next: The amendment to 9.05 AA was defeated at the committee level; staff and the city attorney can rework language and return a revised proposal to the committee if requested.
