Recreational Vehical Park Utility Services Legis Study Cmte

Speakers Present

Dan Thompson, Association of RV Parks & Campgrounds (ARVPC)

Justin Riches, Legislative Research Analyst

Ron Feinstein, Arizona Association of Manufactured Home and RV Owners (AAMHO)

Janna Day, Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona

Janet Regner, Arizona Association of Manufactured Home Owners and RV Owners

Chairman McClure announced that the presentation would occur first, followed by committee discussion.

PRESENTATION

Dan Thompson, Association of RV Parks & Campgrounds (ARVPC), explained to the committee that in the past the association was known as ATPA, the Arizona Travel Parks Association, but has since changed its name to Arizona ARVPC, the Association of RV Parks & Campgrounds.

Mr. Thompson explained that his family has been in the RV business for 37 years and that they thought that utilities were regulated, in that he could not charge more than he was charged and cannot make a profit off of utility costs. He has since realized that utilities are not regulated.

Mr. Thompson does not object to any legislation as long as he can cover his costs and make a fair profit. He explained that he has been in many meetings to devise a resolution to the utility services problem. He explained that his industry is a cross between mobile homes and residential homes in that it is more like a hotel/motel situation with rent being the only source of income.

Mr. Thompson clarified some issues from the last meeting:

Price gouging is not a widespread problem, but if the industry can be set for everyone it makes business easier.
There was a question about meters not being inspected, but he explained that park models are inspected by the county or the city when being hooked up.
180 day landlord/tenant act is in force.
To move a park model from one park to another costs $3,000 to $3,500.
Leases are required and the paperwork is available.
Comparing kilowatts per hour does not show the entire picture because of additional taxes and assessments on the bill.
His Guest Directory contains Rules & Regulations and Policies, and is available online.

Chairman McClure asked how many parks are members of ARVPC; Mr. Thompson replied that ARVPC has 110 members (of 400-450 Arizona parks).

Chairman McClure asked if any of these members are charging more than just recovering their costs; Mr. Thompson replied in the negative.

Mr. Ableser asked if there is an audit process applied to the members; Mr. Thompson replied that there is not a formal process, although there are classes on figuring utilities and opportunities to share ideas. He stated that these are private businesses and he does not impose an audit.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Chairman McClure stated that since there is currently a mobile home statute dealing with this issue, she proposes introducing legislation to amend this existing mobile home statute to include park models (Attachment 1).

Justin Riches, Legislative Research Analyst, discussed the proposed amendment to Section
33-1409, Arizona Revised Statutes, to include park models as mobile homes that come under the mobile home parks residential landlord and tenant act.

Mr. Rozen asked if this amendment will remove an element of the definition; Mr. Riches replied that it will remove the exclusion for park models. Mr. Rozen asked if the remaining statutes will remain unchanged; Mr. Riches replied in the affirmative.

Ms. Ulmer asked if this would solve the utility problems in RV parks as well as mobile home parks. Mr. Riches replied that it would apply to both. Ms. Ulmer stated that utilities should not be overcharged in either type of facility.

Ms. Ulmer asked what would be the impact of this change on utilities in both areas. Chairman McClure explained that the concern is not with the temporary RVs which move in and out, but with the park models which are stationery and are not easily moved, similar to mobile homes.

Ms. Ulmer asked how this would provide protection from price gouging; Chairman McClure replied that the park models must be protected, not the RVs.

Ms. Ulmer asked if this will move the park models into the relocation fund where they will be eligible for relocation fund monies; Chairman McClure replied that is an issue that remains to be resolved.

Ms. Sorenson asked if there was an impact on municipal rental inspections; Mr. Riches stated that there would be no impact.

Mr. Ahearn asked if there was any taxation impact or unintended consequence; Mr. Riches stated he would look into this.

Ron Feinstein, Arizona Association of Manufactured Home and RV Owners (AAMHO), stated that park models and mobile homes are taxed as motor vehicles.

In response to Chairman McClure’s request, he stated that in his opinion the park models would be eligible for relocation fund monies, but that he doesn’t have an answer for that yet.

Mr. Ahearn asked if removing the exclusion of park models would violate any construction codes; Mr. Feinstein replied that the definitions under the landlord/tenant act are as follows:

park model – single chassis, mounted on wheels, and designed to be permanently connected to the utilities necessary for the operation of installed fixtures and appliances and with a gross interior area of not less than 320 square feet and not more than 400 square feet when prepared for occupancy (not inclusive of an added bedroom or Arizona room or such)
mobile home – 8 feet wide by 30 feet long

Ms. Ulmer clarified that these are titled through the Motor Vehicle Division but that the relocation fund is handled through the Assessor’s office, which handles property taxes. Mr. Feinstein stated that the relocation fund is not a tax, it is a fund for a park closing or violation so that an owner can move out of that park.

Ms. Creagan stated that she is a park model owner and an RV owner and that her tax bill is based on square footage taxed through the Assessor’s office.

Ms. Ulmer stressed that these are not all taxed as motor vehicles.

Janna Day, Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona, an association of mobile home park owners, addressed the committee to express her concerns that reclassifying park models as mobile homes could result in unintended consequences with regard to issues such as lease agreements, notification, termination, and such. She stated that there should be a way to carve out the utility issue from these other issues.

Mr. Ableser asked about her concerns, specifically the difference between 400 square feet and 401 square feet; Ms. Day replied that the square footage is not a major sticking point, but that this is a major departure from the status quo and a whole host of statutes relating to the landlord tenant act would apply to park models that do not today.

Mr. Ableser asked what the negative consequences would be, as the park models currently do not have the same protections as mobile homes; Ms. Day replied that additional study should take place regarding the consequences. Mr. Ableser stated that he still does not understand what the negative implications are.

Ms. Pancrazi asked Mr. Thompson if he has concerns about the amendment to put park models in with mobile homes; Mr. Thompson replied in the affirmative, explaining that park models are built to different standards. He explained that his RV park cannot have a mobile home in it because the sites are too small and the park is not zoned for mobile homes. He explained that a mobile home park can have both mobile homes and park models.

Mr. Ableser summed up the concerns and solutions as:

addition of paperwork – minimal impact
standards of different types - can be approved through regulatory agencies
park models become mobile homes creates a zoning issue – protected by Prop 207

Chairman McClure stated that this fix is becoming even more complicated, and although she did not expect a solution today, this is a good starting point for the discussion.

Mr. Thompson stated that there would be great resistance to this change; Chairman McClure stated that she wanted to avoid that and that she believes the concerns expressed today can be addressed.

Ms. Creagan asked if this is to redefine park models as manufactured homes; Chairman McClure stated that is not the intent.

Ms. Ulmer asked Ms. Day to return to the podium, stating that this is not a simple issue and that she wishes to be certain the consumer is protected, particularly with regard to the different tenant acts that must be considered.

Ms. Day explained that there are at least four landlord/tenant acts that could apply to a mobile home park:

owner rents the home - landlord/tenant act
abandoned home is rented out and park is the owner – Arizona apartment act
RV for more than 180 days – RV landlord/tenant act
park manager living in a home – innkeeper statutes

Discussion ensued about these various acts, their application to the parks, the different models of homes, and consumer protection.

Chairman McClure reminded the committee that their charge is to address price gouging of utilities. Discussion ensued about what statutes apply to what the landlord can charge for utilities.

Ms. Creagan stated her opinion that the RV act provides no oversight or regulatory protection.

Chairman McClure stated that this amendment will resolve utility inequities, but that unintended consequences must be avoided. She stated that to that end she will revisit the statute to determine what mobile home parks can charge in order to provide protection on utility rates, primarily electricity, and particularly in RV parks. She stated that the next draft will be distributed to all members of the committee.

Ms. Ulmer stated that changing existing statute may create new problems.

Mr. Lucero stated that he wondered if any other resident group was inadvertently being left out. He inquired how a manager is conveying accurate charges to his or her tenants; Mr. Thompson replied that the meter reading is used to prorate for the duration of a resident’s stay, but any unit staying for over 180 days is under the landlord/tenant act.

Mr. Rozen inquired if last session’s HB2230 was agreeable to all; Mr. Thompson stated that he was in agreement at the beginning of the session.

Janet Regner, Arizona Association of Manufactured Home Owners and RV Owners, explained that last year’s legislation did not go through because further study was needed in order to address the wide variety of rates that parks are charged by utility companies. She stated that currently nothing in state law says that price-gouging cannot occur and that is what this committee is to address.

Chairman McClure added that there is no intent to inadvertently create a utility company; Mr. Rozen replied that that should not be a concern.

Ms. Day stated that she would be glad to work with the Commission to develop appropriate language.

Person recognized by the Chair who appeared neutral but did not speak:

Ruben Montalvo, AAMHO

ISSUES FOR NEXT MEETING

Chairman McClure stated that there will be another meeting and that a copy of last year’s bill would be provided. She reiterated that the desire of the committee is to stop the price-gouging occurring in some RV parks in Arizona.

Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 2:24 p.m.

__________________________________________

Jane Dooley, Committee Secretary

November 7, 2007

(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov/)

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

January 31, 2007

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------

Members Present

Members Absent

Speakers Present