Draft RV ordinances would criminalize habitation on streets and cut parking to four hours; discussion only on March 3

What the records say

The March 3, 2025 City Council work session agenda included a discussion item, submitted by City Attorney Jon Walker, titled 'Recreational Vehicles - Draft Ordinances on Camping and Parking for Discussion,' marked 'for discussion only. No action requested' ¹. The agenda bill says the drafts respond to a long-standing misalignment in the code: current MMC 22C.240.020 bars occupying an RV overnight outside an approved RV park, while MMC 7.05.050 exempts RVs from the camping prohibition and MMC 11.08.200 allows 24-hour RV parking with a two-block move resetting the clock ¹. The full draft text is included in the packet. The camping draft would eliminate the RV exemption in the camping code and make it a misdemeanor to occupy a motor vehicle or RV with the intent to use it as temporary or permanent habitation on streets, in parks, or on city property, while expressly not criminalizing occupancy in an approved RV park or under a temporary use permit ¹. It would also broaden the definition of 'street' to include sidewalks, planting strips, and medians, eliminate the police-chief camping permit system, and remove the stair-step minimum fines that could not be suspended ¹. The parking draft would limit RV street parking to four hours per day, with moving the RV more than two blocks no longer restarting the clock, enforced as a parking infraction ¹. Both drafts state they would take effect five days after publication by summary, and both were left unpassed and undated pending council action ¹. The records do not establish what the council discussed or decided at the March 3 meeting ¹.

• The March 3, 2025 work session agenda listed the two draft RV ordinances for discussion only, with no action requested ¹.
• The camping draft would make it a misdemeanor to occupy a motor vehicle or RV with intent to use it as temporary or permanent habitation on streets, in parks, or on city property, with occupancy in an approved RV park or under a temporary use permit expressly not a violation ¹.
• The parking draft would cut RV street parking from 24 hours to four hours per day, and moving the RV more than two blocks would no longer restart the time limit; violations would be parking infractions ¹.
• The camping draft would eliminate the police-chief camping permit system, broaden 'street' to include sidewalks, planting strips, and medians, and remove the stair-step unsuspendable minimum fines; the penalty provisions in the draft text set a maximum of a $1,000 fine and 90 days' imprisonment ¹.
• Both drafts state they would take effect five days after publication by summary; neither was passed or dated, and the records do not establish the meeting's outcome ¹.

Why it matters

If adopted as drafted, the rules would change daily life for RV owners and people living in vehicles: parking on any city street would drop from 24 hours to four, and moving the RV down the block would no longer buy more time; living in an RV or car on a street or city property would become a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail, rather than the current civil-infraction path ¹. The drafts also preserve legal outlets — approved RV parks and temporary use permits remain exempt ¹. Because the item was discussion only, nothing has changed yet; the practical effect depends on whether and in what form the council later passes these ordinances ¹.

What changed / what's next

• Nothing has changed yet: the March 3, 2025 record shows two draft RV ordinances — one criminalizing habitation in vehicles on streets and city property, one capping RV parking at four hours — scheduled for discussion only, with no action requested ¹.
• Whether the draft RV camping and parking ordinances advance to a vote after the March 3, 2025 discussion; the available records do not establish the meeting's outcome ¹.
• Whether the four-hour parking limit and the misdemeanor habitation provisions remain in any version the council ultimately considers, given the packet includes the full draft text rather than a summary only ¹.