New regulations for RV parks and campgrounds advanced in Cheyenne (Wyoming) despite an earlier committee vote against the proposal, as the city council approved several zoning and code updates.
The council passed the second reading of an ordinance establishing standards for permanent RV parks in a 7–2 vote, moving the measure to its third and final reading at the next council session. The proposal introduces new use standards and updates rules governing manufactured homes and parks.
The discussion followed the city’s decision to remove the term “work camps” from its code, prompting a need for defined standards for permanent RV accommodations. The revisions are designed to clarify how long-term RV parks should be developed and maintained within Cheyenne’s zoning framework.
According to an article published by Cap City News, the measure faced an initial setback when the Public Services Committee failed to advance it with an official recommendation. Despite that procedural hurdle, Councilor Tom Segrave moved to bring the ordinance before the full council “for the sake of discussion.”
Councilor Kathy Emmons seconded the motion, allowing the proposal to proceed.
Emmons expressed support for the ordinance, noting that she had reviewed the draft extensively and was confident it aligns with local health department standards.
Technical requirements within the ordinance drew further discussion from council members. Councilor Michelle Aldrich questioned the need for both 30-amp and 50-amp electrical hookups at RV sites.
Planning Director Charles Bloom also explained that both electrical options are standard in RV parks to accommodate different vehicle sizes. Smaller RVs typically operate on 30-amp service while larger units need 50-amp.
Councilor Mark Rinne raised concerns about the ordinance’s minimum acreage requirements, citing confusion over whether RV parks must meet a 5-acre threshold.
Bloom clarified that the minimum applies only to manufactured home parks, not to recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds.
Rinne and Councilor Pete Laybourn ultimately voted against the measure, while the remaining seven members supported moving it forward.