Session on VMC 10.20 titled Recreational Vehicle Parks and Tent Campgrounds.

Overview and discussion.

We're going to go ahead and have our city manager go ahead and uh start us off.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor Fleming.

Good evening, Council.

I can't take credit for the slideshow.

The clerks did a great job of compiling information, but uh I will be the presenter.

Um just to kind of start things off.

I figured before we start moving forward, let's take a step back and see where we're coming from, right?

So on this slide, it really kind of gives the history of ordinance of BMC 10.20.

Uh, 1995 was when it was introduced.

Um I think there are some important notes from when that happened and why as to kind of where we are now and perhaps the direction we want to move forward with.

Um it was amended in uh well.

So they created a task force in 1995.

They created an ordinance in 1996, right?

Uh 2007 was the last time that it was modified.

2023 is where the current conversation really kind of started.

There was an inquiry, and I don't recall if it was a phone call, an email, or just casual conversation uh relating to how someone could get a permit referencing a city manager permit.

Um in the meeting minutes from the 90s, the permit was more or less in reference to large group gatherings.

Um, so that was kind of what that was put in for.

Not necessarily a single use type of a permit.

So kind of going back to the intent at that time, that's what that came up.

Um we brought forth an ordinance, we postponed it indefinitely because again, uh from the perspective of administration, I don't know that I don't know that the ordinance proposed was necessarily going to meet the purpose of a the original intent of the ordinance, or B the current and future desires of council and community.

So that's kind of where we're at.

That's a little bit of the history.

Uh I guess to elaborate a little bit further on that, uh, some of the reason we we made modifications to the ordinance are because we changed Title 17, the zoning code.

And there's a lot of real specific information related to RV parks and campgrounds, like the facilities themselves that are actually covered under Title 17 that really don't make any don't make a lot of sense being duplicative in Title 10.

And so that was another impetus like, hey, let's clarify this permit thing, but let's also clean up some of this code language.

Uh so what really kind of started is an administrative exercise turned more into a uh a policy exercise, and so that's kind of where we call the timeout and uh want to have another conversation.

Uh a summary from what we've heard based on what was presented last time is uh desire to eliminate or limit the city manager issued permit, uh which again I I think is I think is going back to the original intent of the original ordinance.

You know, maybe it's probably in line with what that original ordinance was looking to do.

Uh avoid competing with private industry, avoid being overly restrictive on regulating camping outside of the downtown area, increase signage and public information available.

Again, some of these points are in conflict with one another, but it's because we heard opposing viewpoints.

Uh maintain public health and safety, make sure not to put law enforcement in an uncomfortable position.

Consider adding fees for RV parking on city land, make sure the fees don't cost more to collect than they bring in.

Make sure fees are comparable to private RV parks, make sure code provisions match and are easily easy to understand.

Make camping and RVs less restrictive, make camping and parking RVs more restrictive.

Another thing that, as we've been looking at this big picture, is by incorporating most of the requirements for RV parks and campgrounds in the Title 17 land use definitions.

It really begs the question where should regulation related to camping and overnight parking, where should that actually live?

Uh Title 10 is related to vehicles and traffic.

It might fit better under Title 12 with street sidewalks and public places.

Um, more of a land use right-of-way use type of a scenario versus vehicles and traffic.

Again, uh, I think that's that's certainly the recommendation from the clerk's office.

I don't know that I have enough knowledge or opinion to say one way or the other, so I'm gonna defer to the clerks.

Uh, here's something I think is important the purpose.

This is what's in the current code, which was the 96 code as amended in 2007.

Says the purpose of this chapter is to set reasonable standards for recreational vehicle parks and tent campgrounds within the city.

Is the intent of the city to assure that the public health, safety, and welfare of the community is preserved and protected while not creating burdensome and unduly restrictive regulations that would deter recreational vehicle travelers and tent campers from visiting Valdees.

I really think that's a very good purpose.

Mind you, the first that first sentence is probably no longer relevant due to the Title 17 changes.

But I think I think having that in mind is critical towards looking at the conversation moving forward.

What is the purpose of this ordinance?

What do we want to accomplish with it?

So again, we've got three things.

What do we need to do?

What's the staff suggestion?

And what are the other options?

So what do we need to do?

Well, we need to make it clear what the specific purpose for camping activities outside of RB parks, right?