A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Committee deadlocks on bill to limit utility markups by RV park owners after heated debate

March 10, 2026 | 2026 Legislature MN, Minnesota


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Committee deadlocks on bill to limit utility markups by RV park owners after heated debate
Representative Carol introduced House File 3733 to align RV parks with statutes that govern utility redistribution by landlords and manufactured-home parks. She said the bill would make "the same law" apply to RV park owners who resell utility service to campers and prevent markup beyond what the park pays the utility. Carol said stakeholders including utilities and the Minnesota Department of Commerce participated in crafting the draft and that there was no organized opposition.

Nonpartisan witnesses and committee members described complaints in specific service territories. A nonpartisan staff witness described a reported instance in Otter Tail territory in which an RV park owner raised a camper's cost by an extreme amount — testimony referenced a 400% markup complaint — and said the bill aims to equip regulators to protect consumers where resale is not appropriately regulated. Mr. Ellwood (department/stakeholder witness) and Mr. Owen answered member questions about prevalence and mechanics of charges; they said some campgrounds add separate utility charges while others include electricity in lot rent.

Members split on the bill’s effect on private business models and infrastructure recovery. Supporters said the bill prevents "taking advantage" of campers and ensures regulated pricing parity; critics argued it could disincentivize private investment in campground infrastructure and that owners should recover costs via rent. Representative Kresha, Representative Heintzeman and others pressed for further study. Representative Carol moved to send the bill to Ways and Means; the chair called for a division, and the vote was 10–10, which failed to carry the motion. The author indicated willingness to continue working on the measure.

The committee did not advance the bill; because the motion failed on division, the bill remains in committee for possible future reconsideration.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee