Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council rejects six‑month extension of mobile‑home lot‑rent moratorium after long hearing

Lewiston City Council · August 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a multi-hour public hearing and committee presentations, the council voted 2–5 against a proposed six‑month extension of the moratorium on mobile-home lot-rent increases; staff and the Housing Committee will continue drafting an ordinance to protect tenants while balancing park-owner concerns.

Housing staff and the Housing Committee briefed the council on a draft mobile‑home lot‑rent stabilization ordinance and recommended a six‑month extension of the existing moratorium while legal counsel completes additional review. Jackie Sawyer, assistant community development manager, said the ordinance pursues a graduated rent‑increase structure based on market analysis, affordability data and enforcement mechanics; legal review was estimated at 40–50 billable hours.

Committee chair Craig Settlemeier and acting economic-development director John Blaise described outreach to tenants and park owners and said the draft attempted to balance residents’ and owners’ interests. Supporters, including a resident of Fox Run Mobile Home Park, urged protections for tenants and an extension to avoid abrupt increases. Park owners and other residents criticized the proposed complexities and cautioned that strict caps or CPI‑only increases could undercut owners’ ability to maintain parks; one owner said a moratorium led to a collapsed sale opportunity and an estimated 26% reduction in sale price.

Councilors debated effects of the statutory 90‑day notice window, whether an extended moratorium would unfairly restrain owners’ income and how quickly the Housing Committee could finish the ordinance if the moratorium were not extended. Councilors Chittum, Longchamps, Martel and others opposed the extension on grounds of potential economic harm to park owners and uncertainty about notice timing. The motion to extend the moratorium for six months failed on a roll-call vote, 2–5. Committee members and staff said they will continue drafting the ordinance and explore whether a special meeting or expedited schedule could return a finalized proposal to council before the current moratorium’s expiration.