Short Term Rental Ordinance

I have lived in Minnetonka since 2006 and am writing to urge the City Council approve the ordinance banning investor-owned short-term rental (STR) units in the City of Minnetonka. The City Council’s recent unanimous decision to move forward with the ordinance, as well as the Planning Commission’s unanimous support for the initiative, is consistent with the actions of many communities in the Twin Cities – including neighboring Lake Minnetonka communities such as Excelsior, Wayzata, Deephaven, Tonka Bay, Mound, Orono, as well as nearby cities such as St. Louis Park and Edina- that have already taken similar actions to ban investor-owned short-term rentals. The Council’s and Planning Commission’s support for the ordinance is also supported by the majority (55%) of Minnetonka residents who indicated in the City’s 2026 Community Survey that they want STRs to be regulated in Minnetonka.

One of the reasons why communities around the Twin Cities have enacted these ordinances is that investor-owned short-term rentals have been proven to contribute to rising housing prices, while at the same time reducing the number of purchase and rental options for families hoping to “plant a flag” in their communities. Community leaders understand that communities thrive when all residents are invested in the success and goodwill of their neighbors. Another reason why neighboring communities have enacted these restrictions on investor-owned short-term rentals, and why many Minnetonka residents have publicly voiced support for the ordinance, is that time and again short-term rental properties have negatively impacted neighborhood dynamics and residents’ quiet enjoyment of their properties. I believe that the Council’s proposed ordinance limiting short-term rentals to homestead/owner-occupied residences is a reasonable approach that ensures the rights of Minnetonka residents while helping to address housing affordability and quality of life issues for all Minnetonkans.

To the Minnetonka City Council:

I respectfully oppose the proposed ordinance limiting short-term rentals to homesteaded properties.
While I understand the City’s desire to address potential concerns regarding investor-owned short-term rentals, I do not believe the proposed restriction is necessary, proportionate, or fair to existing property owners.

Minnetonka currently has a relatively small number of short-term rentals. With approximately 24 such properties in the city, there is little evidence that Minnetonka faces the large-scale investor activity or housing market disruption that has occurred in some major tourist destinations. Before imposing significant new restrictions on property owners, the City should demonstrate that a meaningful problem exists and that the proposed solution is necessary to address it.
The ordinance would substantially limit the rights of homeowners who purchased properties under the existing rules and who have invested significant time and resources in maintaining their homes and complying with local regulations. Many owners rely on short-term rental income to offset property taxes, maintenance costs, insurance, and other expenses. Changing the rules after these investments have been made creates uncertainty and diminishes the value and utility of privately owned property.

The proposal is also unnecessarily intrusive. Property owners should not be required to prove where they live or limit ownership of multiple residences in order to engage in an otherwise lawful use of their property. Responsible ownership and compliance with local regulations should be the focus, not whether an owner claims a homestead exemption on a particular property.
If the City’s concern is nuisance behavior, parking, noise, occupancy levels, or poorly managed rentals, those issues can be addressed directly without prohibiting non-homestead short-term rentals.

I encourage the City to consider less burdensome alternatives, including:
• Enhanced licensing and registration requirements.
• Local contact requirements with rapid response obligations.
• Occupancy limits based on home size.
• Noise, parking, and nuisance enforcement.
• Increased penalties for repeat violations.
• Annual permit renewal conditioned on compliance history.
• Caps on the total number of short-term rental licenses if future growth becomes a concern.
• Grandfathering existing licensed short-term rentals.
• Requiring a demonstrated pattern of violations before a permit may be revoked.

These alternatives would address legitimate neighborhood concerns while preserving property rights and avoiding unnecessary restrictions on responsible owners.
Minnetonka has historically balanced neighborhood character with respect for private property. I encourage the City Council to continue that tradition and reject the proposed homestead-only restriction.

Thank you for your consideration.

I would like to express my support for the proposed ordinance. The past few decades have seen the average age for a first time home-buyer increase drastically, now ranging between 35-38 years old. Our nation faces a severe housing shortage, and Minnetonka should assess how our community can respond. I would like to thank the council for pursuing an ordinance that points us in the right direction, and hope you strengthen it further in the future by eventually eliminating STRs through a process that would withstand court challenges.

Homes should be for people, and we've built a community to support our neighbors and educate the next generation. Even one home or ADU designated as an STR is an opportunity taken away from a family looking to establish a long term connection to Minnetonka.

Nate Thornton
Minnetonka

To: The Mayor, Members of the City Council, and the Planning Commission of Minnetonka
Re: Ordinance No. 2026, on the registration of Short-Term Rentals (STRs)
I wrote to the City Council on April 27th about the prior draft of this Ordinance. By now the Council and the Commission are informed about the negative consequences of investor-owned STRs, so I will not repeat them here. (I should add that I am not a STR operator nor do I intend to become one.) I am thankful that the new draft of this ordinance disallows the registration of investor-owned STRs.
However, commenters in opposition to registration of homestead only STRs raise some important issues that the Council and Commission should consider. The issue that is most readily resolved concerns how the ordinance should respond to already operating STRs that are not homesteaded only. At least two of those comments have called for a “Grandfathering for existing compliant operators with a clean track record.” (D. Moshe) This proposal is both fair to those owners and practicable for the City. A grandfathering clause for the ordinance could be developed and placed as paragraph 8 of section 2 in the current draft.
Comments proposing to regulate the conduct of STR owners are not practicable even with added City staff to enforce the regulation. For example, “A 24/7 local contact requirement with a defined response time (e.g., 30 or 45 minutes)”. (D. Moshe) How would the City verify the facts of a complaint that the STR owner failed to respond to a renter complaint? If the Ordinance incorporates the commenters’ suggestions for a more “targeted” or “proportionate approach” to STR registration, the Commission and Council will have to ensure that what is “targeted” or “proportionate” is still a property registration regulation that the City can enforce. Regulations concerning the safety of and nuisance complaints about properties in general (including STRs) STRs are presumably regulated elsewhere in the Minnetonka City Code.
Unlike the prior draft, the current draft no longer has a section on the Purpose of Ordinance No. 2026. The Purpose of the Ordinance should be stipulated prior in the text to the definitions or any other provision of the Ordinance. The Purpose should serve the interests of all Minnetonka residents, not just those of current or future STR owners. I have not been able to locate the text of the Purpose in the prior draft, but any revision of that text should serve to guide the remainder of the registration regulatory requirements.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I hope they assist the Commission in making its recommendation about the Ordinance to the City Council and Mayor.
Steve Suppan
16309 Adeline Lane
Wayzata 55391

Dear City Council and Neighbors of Minnetonka,

I’m writing today as both a former resident of Minnetonka and an individual with a vested interest in The City’s homestead status requirement that was added to the proposed amendment to Section 530.04 at the April 27th council meeting.

As a full-time resident of Minnesota, a professional operator in Minnesota, and Board Member serving the Minnesota Short-Term Rental Association, I stand behind the importance and necessity of regulations and licensing requirements, so long as they are fair, thoughtful, and do not unecessarily impede the rights of law-abiding property owners.

SkyRun Vacation Rentals Twin Cities currently manages one licensed short-term rental in Minnetonka. The property maintains a 5.0 rating across all booking channels, has zero logged complaints, is owned by full-time Minnesota residents, and shows that 80%+ of reservations are family travelers visiting family in Minnetonka or the surrounding area. Professional management is highly-competitive, so properties must perform, and in order to perform they must be cared for and improved consistently, which is the case with the above-referenced property.

I am having trouble fully understanding The City’s approach (particularly when viewed in light of its 500+ issued LTR licenses). Minnetonka’s Supplemental Background Report shows 25 registered STR’s across 27,903 housing units (0.09% of The City’s stock), 0 nuisance complaints to The City since registration began in February 2024, and 23 out of 25 properties are owned by Minnesota residents.

The April 27th staff report indicated the homestead-only model was explicitly evaluated and rejected as inflexible and limiting. Minnetonka Staff instead recommended an owner plus one additional model, similar to The City of Minneapolis. This is a viable solution, in addition to considering a numerical-based licensure cap, City-determined performance standards, the requirement for professional management, etc.

I’d like to respectfully reiterate that I stand behind the importance and necessity of regulations and licensing requirements, so long as they are fair, thoughtful, and do not unecessarily impede the rights of law-abiding property owners. I’m advocating for an approach that is aligned to these values, and that better-reflects the data we have today. Additionally, I’d like to ask that all active and compliant license holders in good-standing be grandfathered into any new ordinance passed by The City.

Thank you,

Craig Schaefer

Dear City Council and Neighbors of Minnetonka,

I’m writing today as both a former resident of Minnetonka and an individual with a vested interest in The City’s homestead status requirement that was added to the proposed amendment to Section 530.04 at the April 27th council meeting.

As a full-time resident of Minnesota, a professional operator in Minnesota, and Board Member serving the Minnesota Short-Term Rental Association, I stand behind the importance and necessity of regulations and licensing requirements, so long as they are fair, thoughtful, and do not unecessarily impede the rights of law-abiding property owners.

SkyRun Vacation Rentals Twin Cities currently manages one licensed short-term rental in Minnetonka. The property maintains a 5.0 rating across all booking channels, has zero logged complaints, is owned by full-time Minnesota residents, and shows that 80%+ of reservations are family travelers visiting family in Minnetonka or the surrounding area. Professional management is highly-competitive, so properties must perform, and in order to perform they must be cared for and improved consistently, which is the case with the above-referenced property.

I am having trouble fully understanding The City’s approach (particularly when viewed in light of its 500+ issued LTR licenses). Minnetonka’s Supplemental Background Report shows 25 registered STR’s across 27,903 housing units (0.09% of The City’s stock), 0 nuisance complaints to The City since registration began in February 2024, and 23 out of 25 properties are owned by Minnesota residents.

The April 27th staff report indicated the homestead-only model was explicitly evaluated and rejected as inflexible and limiting. Minnetonka Staff instead recommended an owner plus one additional model, similar to The City of Minneapolis. This is a viable solution, in addition to considering a numerical-based licensure cap, City-determined performance standards, the requirement for professional management, etc.

I’d like to respectfully reiterate that I stand behind the importance and necessity of regulations and licensing requirements, so long as they are fair, thoughtful, and do not unecessarily impede the rights of law-abiding property owners. I’m advocating for an approach that is aligned to these values, and that better-reflects the data we have today. Additionally, I’d like to ask that all active and compliant license holders in good-standing be grandfathered into any new ordinance passed by The City.

Thank You,

Craig Schaefer

Minnesota Short Term Rental Association (MNSTRA) will be hosting a session to discuss this ordinance tomorrow (5/27/26) at 12 CT. Feel free to register and attend. We'd love to hear from you.

https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/euNCmQdjS6W6yDVeMLqwOg#/registration

Please support the proposed ordinance that bans investor-owned STRs while protecting the rights of resident "homestead" owners. Neighbors who rely on occasional rentals of their primary residence to keep up with rising costs of living are naturally self-regulating; they care about their neighbors and their property's reputation. We should allow this flexibility for residents without drowning them in the same heavy fees and inspections meant for commercial operations. Placing a ban on investor STRs will prioritize Minnetonka residents and its community over outside investors.

Thank you for your consideration.

I support the proposed ordinance banning investor-owned short-term rentals while still allowing residents to occasionally rent out their primary homes.

Investor-owned STRs often bring noise, parking, trash, and party issues while also reducing long-term housing supply and driving up home prices and rents. Many local families and young adults are already struggling to afford housing here.

The updated ordinance is a balanced approach that protects neighborhoods without overregulating resident homeowners. I encourage the Planning Commission and City Council to support final passage.

I strongly encourage the City Council to pass the proposed ordinance limiting short-term rentals to homesteaded properties.
The core issue is simple. Out-of-state investors who buy Minnetonka homes to operate as short-term rentals have no stake in the wellbeing of our community. They extract income from our neighborhoods and leave the costs to Minnesota residents and taxpayers. The proposed homestead requirement is a sensible, balanced safeguard. It preserves a homeowner's right to rent space in a home they actually live in, while preventing the conversion of residential properties into commercial mini-hotels run by absentee landlords.

Safety and Neighborhood Character

Short-term renters are, by definition, people passing through. They have no vested interest in the neighborhood, no relationships with neighbors, and no reason to consider how their behavior affects the families around them. They are on vacation. They are not raising children, walking to school, or building community, and they often conduct themselves accordingly. This frequently produces problems with parking, speeding, noise, and loud parties. When the property owner lives hundreds or thousands of miles away, there is no one accountable in real time when things go wrong.

Property Upkeep

Out-of-state investors are focused on maximizing returns, which means minimizing expenditures on repairs, landscaping, and general upkeep. A guest staying for a week or two has no incentive to mow the lawn, clear the snow, or maintain the property's appearance. The result is deteriorating homes that drag down the look and value of the entire block. The costs of run-down properties fall on neighboring homeowners in the form of lower property values and reduced quality of life.

Housing Affordability and Availability

Every home converted into a short-term rental is one less home available for a family to buy or for a long-term tenant to rent. When investors compete with families for residential properties, home prices rise and long-term rentals become scarcer and more expensive. Higher property values also drive up property taxes. That makes it harder for young families to put down roots in Minnetonka, and harder for longtime residents, especially those on fixed incomes, to remain in their homes.

Why the Homestead Requirement Is the Right Approach

Requiring short-term rental operators to live in the home as their primary residence aligns the interests of the operator with the interests of the neighborhood. An owner who lives in the home will screen and manage guests personally, maintain the property as their own, and be present and accountable to neighbors. They have real skin in the community. This approach still allows residents the flexibility to rent a room or their home occasionally, for example while traveling, while shutting down the absentee-investor business model that has hollowed out neighborhoods in cities across the country.

Minnetonka is a community, not a commodity. I urge the Council to adopt this ordinance and protect what makes our neighborhoods worth living in.

I am a resident of Minnetonka and I believe we need a short-term rental policy that protects our neighborhoods. Cities that allow investors to buy up homes watch their neighborhoods lose long-term residents, drive up home prices, and fill streets with revolving-door visitors who have no stake in the community.

While this may not be a problem now, I believe we need to proactively address this with a restrictive ordinance that includes the following:
1. Let homeowners rent their primary residence. If someone lives in their house, they should be allowed to occasionally rent it out. This supplements household income, spreads tourism dollars into real neighborhoods, and doesn’t remove a single unit of housing from the market.
2. Stop investors from buying residential homes as STR businesses. This one rule — requiring that short-term rentals be the host’s primary residence — is what Denver’s own city analysts credited for keeping STRs from inflating housing prices. One license. One address. No corporate landlords.
3. Give investors a pathway in commercial zones. Rather than forcing a battle, channel investor-driven STRs into areas already zoned for business activity. This preserves residential neighborhoods while keeping tourism capacity intact.
4. Use the tax revenue for affordable housing. Short-term rentals generate real occupancy and lodging tax revenue. Nashville directs a portion of that directly into an affordable housing trust fund — turning part of the problem into part of the solution.
5. Actually enforce the rules. The most common failure of STR regulation isn’t bad policy — it’s no follow-through. Denver achieved 90% compliance by actively monitoring online platforms and making fraudulent claims a serious offense. Our city deserves the same commitment.

I believe most residents and most homeowners want the same thing: a fair system that lets neighbors benefit from their homes while stopping outside investors from treating our streets like a hotel portfolio. This framework would be a practical approach to achieve that.

We have 24 STRs in the city. Why is the city wasting time on this matter? There are so many more pressing issues in the city.

In fact, if you look at crime and police calls - most of them occur in long term rentals. So should be ban long term rentals also?

First off, do we really need a city regulating our properties? Do you know happens when cities regulate properties? The housing stock worsens as the better landlords leave. Just look at Minneapolis - worst housing stock with the most slum lords. Why? No decent landlord would put up with city's BS. Only landlords willing to break the law remain.

Short term rentals have been vilified on the Internet - but we do not have any issues in Minnetonka. Most people think of them as 'vacation' rentals. But in the Twin Cities most are rented to people relocating to MN, coming to MN for medical treatment or coming to visit family members or help a loved one.

Lance Bondhus's post is the most sensible one (CEO - MINNeSTAY).

And no one can predict their future. Our life changed and we want to rent out our house for part of the year - or longer. But we can’t and keep our Homestead status. The city council doesn't get the legal aspect - or maybe they do and just want to ban STRs without actually banning them. The other option is for us to leave the house empty - a huge waste.

We have a huge number of retirees and remote workers who like to go south for the winter. These people would like to rent out their properties instead of leaving them sit. Some already do but aren’t even aware they should register with the city.

STR vs LTR
And let’s compare STR to long term rentals. With STR, it is easy to get rid of a bad tenant. But with long term rentals, it is nearly impossible. My friend is in this situation. The renters across the street smoke weed all day long. They sit on the balcony and puff away - the entire block smells like weed all day long. And drug suppliers come to the house regularly. The property owner doesn’t give a shit.

There is nothing stopping an owner to rent from someone who just got out of jail for murder.

I agree with the strategy of establishing strong STR regulations before they become a larger problem. In my view, it is far easier to loosen restrictions later than it is to tighten them once investor activity and neighborhood impacts take hold.
I strongly support policies that prevent any commercial ownership or individual mass owning of residential properties in Minnetonka that can be used as STR’s. I support the current ordinance direction requiring STR properties to be homesteaded, as it helps ensure owners remain connected to the community and accountable to their neighbors.
My original feedback offered a compromise solution but I thought about it overnight and I am updating my feedback.
While I have a soft spot for the other people commenting on how responsible they are with their STRs, the bottom line is that I love the sense of community I have with all my neighbors. If an STR appeared on the block it would break my sense of community and create a “neighbor of the week” environment. I would most likely move to another community that would protect me from this situation.

Sorry - my feedback got submitted prematurely. I was saying that while my STR isn't impacted by the proposed rule, I also help manage two properties that now have the homestead requirement - one for my daughter and one for an old friend. In both instances, these are the only properties they own in the U.S. but because they reside abroad they are unable to qualify for homestead exemption. Both individuals were born and raised in the area and want to have permanent Minnesota properties to return to one day. Having an STR was an ideal way for them to maintain their properties, pay taxes, and return with their families over the summers to visit friends and family. Now, with the new homestead requirements in their townships they are unable to continue on this basis and are likely going to be forced to sell their beloved properties. I don't think the intention of this proposed ordinance is to uproot families like this but unfortunately this is the unforeseen consequence, and without any accompanying benefit to their communities. My feeling is that the homestead requirement seems at first glance like an easy "fix" but that there are many folks who will be hurt in the process who aren't in any way adversely impacting their communities by having an STR. As many others have mentioned, why not implement rules that specifically address the real concerts, for example of large scale corporate ownership of STR's?

Thanks for your consideration.

Laura

I am one of the registered short term rental owners. Fortunately I have an auxillary dwelling unit on property that I am currently homesteading. I do want to comment on the proposed requirement nonetheless, even though it will not adversely impact me. First off, having a short term rental property for the past eight years (with 4.99 stars) has been a godsend to me in so many ways: it has allowed me as a retiree to make sufficient income to pay for significant upgrades to my property, maintenance costs which allow me to continue living on the property as I age, and increases in taxes. Having a short term rental allows me periods when my own guests and family can stay with me and I am not forced into a situation where I have to rent the property longer term, which I don't want to do for a variety of reasons. My guests over the years have been delightful and I have never had an incident or a complaint from a neighbor - mostly they are family members visiting other Minnetonka residents. Currently, for example, I am hosting a couple who is here to assist with the birth of their new grandson. I maintain control of who stays on the property and I have learned how to screen out people who might be interesting in partying or causing trouble. I am positive that if I did not have this STR I would have been forced to leave my beautiful property and move into a more affordable location. I want to add that many of my guests ask for local restaurant and shopping recommendations, so they are helping to support not only me, but also Minnetonka's economy.

I feel strongly that the homestead restriction doesn't actually address any concerns that Minnetonka residents may have about "outsiders" coming in to adversely impact the local rental economy by creating AirBnB businesses, and I have some experience to back this up. In addition to managing my own STR I help manage two other properties, one for my daughter, who has a home in a nearby suburb, and a lifelong friend, who has a nearby lakefront property. Recently both of their townships began enforcing homestead rental requirements for STR's (rentals under thirty days).

Homestead requirement or exemption for people renting their primary homes seems okay to me. People renting their homes should have to pay hotel taxes and associated commercial fees.

Any full-time rentals should have to compete with hotels as hotels, with the same commercial taxation and safety requirements. While I'd prefer to aggressively limit the real estate used for rentals, they should at least have to compete like for like with the businesses in short-term rentals.

I'd be curious to hear what local hoteliers have to say about this bill.

The homestead requirement is a good idea because it will prevent homes from being bought and rented by groups of investors. This isn’t a problem here now, but it’s growing in many parts of the country.

Just as many other western suburbs do, Minnetonka should require licenses for short term rental owners. It should collect the same fees as hotels have to pay (typical of other communities where short term rentals temporarily out-competed hotels for lack of these fees).

Minnetonka should cap the number of days per year that homes can be rented, say at 60; otherwise the homes aren’t really “homesteads.” This will address the issues for neighbors related to parking and constant turnover of renters.

These common sense regulations do not permit owners from advertising rentals on sites like AirBnB, VRBO and others. But they help retain the character of suburban neighborhoods in a proactive manner.

As the founder and CEO of MINNeSTAY, a Twin Cities vacation rental management company in operation since 2017, and a Minnesota real estate agent, I currently manage one registered short-term rental properties in Minnetonka. I am writing to share concerns about the homestead status requirement that was added to the proposed amendment to Section 530.04 at the April 27 council meeting.
Although framed as a registration amendment, the homestead requirement would operate as a near-total ban on professionally managed short-term rentals in Minnetonka. Minnesota Statutes Section 273.124 requires the owner to occupy a homesteaded property as their primary residence, which means that any property managed for a non-resident owner, including second-home owners and families using a property part-time, would be categorically excluded.
This approach is hard to reconcile with Minnetonka's actual data. The city's own Supplemental Background Report shows 25 registered STRs across 27,903 housing units (0.09%), zero nuisance complaints to the city since registration began in February 2024, 23 of 25 properties owned by Minnesota residents, and Airbnb ratings above 4.5 stars across all listings. Staff's own conclusion was that STRs may not rise to the level of specific regulations in Minnetonka.
In the April 27 staff report, the homestead-only model was explicitly evaluated and rejected as inflexible and limiting. Staff instead recommended an Owner plus one additional model, similar to Minneapolis. I would respectfully urge the council to give weight to staff's professional analysis.
There are also legal considerations. Wayzata's STR prohibition was recently declared void by a Hennepin County judge for failing to follow Municipal Planning Act procedures, and Bloomington and Apple Valley face active lawsuits. A homestead requirement that determines who may engage in a residential use may invite similar challenges.
Several alternative frameworks would more directly address the council's concerns: the staff-recommended Minneapolis model, a numerical cap, performance-based standards tied to complaints and ratings, mandatory local manager response times, or geographic restrictions if lakeshore properties are the underlying concern. Any final ordinance should also include a grandfathering provision for properties already registered in good faith. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional operational data.

With Gratitude,

Lance Bondhus
CEO - MINNeSTAY

Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed short-term rental ordinance. I support thoughtful regulation, and I appreciate the Council's careful work on this issue. I'm writing to respectfully urge the Council to drop the homestead-only requirement and pursue a more targeted approach that addresses the specific concerns raised at the March 2 study session without eliminating responsible operators from the market.

Our property and how we operate it

My family owns a home in Minnetonka that we operate as a short-term rental. I personally manage the property as the homeowner and live just ten minutes away, so I'm frequently onsite and treat the home as if it were my personal residence. We've put significant capital into the property, hire local vendors for maintenance and landscaping, and our next-door neighbor handles plowing and ongoing upkeep - so income from the rental flows directly back into the neighborhood. We pay property taxes at the higher non-homestead rate.

I check in with our neighbors regularly and promptly address any concerns they raise, of which there have been very few. We vet our guests carefully, enforce occupancy limits and quiet hours, and maintain the property to owner-occupied standards - smoke and CO detectors, exterior lighting, plowed walkways, and a local contact available to respond quickly. If something goes wrong, I'm there in minutes.

We primarily host families in town for youth sports tournaments, weddings, graduations, and extended family visits. Many of our bookings come from Minnesota residents themselves - families across the metro and around the state who need space to gather for their own events. As a six-bedroom home, our property fills a specific gap in the local market: it accommodates large multi-generational groups that no hotel can house together and that the long-term rental market doesn't typically serve. Hotels are not designed for these stays - families need bedrooms, kitchens, and shared space to be together. Our guests spend at local restaurants, shops, and venues, and many are here specifically because of community events that draw visitors to the area.

If the homestead requirement passes, we would have to sell the property.

Addressing the Council's stated concerns directly

At the March 2 study session, the Council identified specific concerns: safety, absentee landlords, investor and corporate purchases, property value effects, and housing access for lower-income residents. I want to address each of these honestly, because a homestead-only rule is a blunt instrument that doesn't actually map well to most of them:

Safety. Conduct-based standards (occupancy limits, quiet hours, smoke and CO detectors, a 24/7 local contact requirement, insurance requirements) address safety directly. Homestead status does not. A poorly-managed homesteaded STR is no safer than a well-managed non-homesteaded one.

Absentee landlords. This is a real concern, but "absentee" is about responsiveness, not tax status. A 24/7 local contact requirement with a defined response time addresses it precisely. I live ten minutes away and can be onsite faster than many homestead owners who travel for work.

Corporate and investor purchases. This is the concern that homestead status comes closest to addressing - but it's still overbroad. A more targeted rule would prohibit ownership by entities (LLCs, corporations) or cap the number of STRs per individual owner. That preserves room for small local owners while stopping the consolidation the Council is concerned about.

Property values. Well-maintained STRs are net positive for surrounding values. Our home is professionally maintained and has had significant capital reinvested into it - which is the opposite of the deferred-maintenance scenario that hurts neighborhood values.

Housing access. With approximately 24 STRs citywide on the registry, this represents a negligible share of Minnetonka's housing stock. Eliminating non-homesteaded STRs would not meaningfully change housing affordability or availability - particularly for properties like ours, where the size and configuration don't match the housing types most needed by lower-income residents.

Process and legal considerations

I note that staff initially recommended licensing as the appropriate regulatory framework rather than zoning. A homestead-only requirement, while structured as a licensing condition, has the practical effect of prohibiting an established residential use on the vast majority of properties in the city. Recent litigation in a neighboring Hennepin County city resulted in a similar ordinance being declared void on procedural grounds. I raise this respectfully, not as a threat, but to encourage the Council to ensure the chosen approach is durable and not vulnerable to challenge.

More proportionate alternatives

The Council itself has expressed openness to caps and zoning-based approaches. I'd respectfully suggest the following as alternatives - any combination of which would address the underlying concerns more precisely than a homestead-only rule:

- A citywide cap on the total number of STR registrations
- A limit of one or two STR registrations per individual owner
- A prohibition on corporate or LLC ownership of STRs
- A 24/7 local contact requirement with a defined response time (e.g., 30 or 45 minutes)
- Mandatory occupancy and parking limits, with meaningful penalties for violations
- A clear revocation pathway for operators who accumulate verified complaints
- Grandfathering for existing compliant operators with a clean track record

Closing

Responsible non-homesteaded operators like us are not the problem the Council is trying to solve. We're invested in our property, accountable to our neighbors, and contributing to the local economy - largely by serving Minnesota families themselves. I'd ask the Council to focus the ordinance on conduct rather than ownership structure, and to preserve a path for compliant, well-run rentals to continue operating.

Thank you for your time and your work on this.

Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed short-term rental ordinance. I support thoughtful regulation, and I appreciate the Council's careful work on this issue. I'm writing to respectfully urge the Council to drop the homestead-only requirement and pursue a more targeted approach that addresses the specific concerns raised at the March 2 study session without eliminating responsible operators from the market.

Our property and how we operate it

My family owns a home in Minnetonka that we operate as a short-term rental. I personally manage the property as the homeowner and live just ten minutes away, so I'm frequently onsite and treat the home as if it were my personal residence. We've put significant capital into the property, hire local vendors for maintenance and landscaping, and our next-door neighbor handles plowing and ongoing upkeep - so income from the rental flows directly back into the neighborhood. We pay property taxes at the higher non-homestead rate.

I check in with our neighbors regularly and promptly address any concerns they raise, of which there have been very few. We vet our guests carefully, enforce occupancy limits and quiet hours, and maintain the property to owner-occupied standards - smoke and CO detectors, exterior lighting, plowed walkways, and a local contact available to respond quickly. If something goes wrong, I'm there in minutes.

We primarily host families in town for youth sports tournaments, weddings, graduations, and extended family visits. Many of our bookings come from Minnesota residents themselves - families across the metro and around the state who need space to gather for their own events. As a six-bedroom home, our property fills a specific gap in the local market: it accommodates large multi-generational groups that no hotel can house together and that the long-term rental market doesn't typically serve. Hotels are not designed for these stays - families need bedrooms, kitchens, and shared space to be together. Our guests spend at local restaurants, shops, and venues, and many are here specifically because of community events that draw visitors to the area.

If the homestead requirement passes, we would have to sell the property.

Addressing the Council's stated concerns directly

At the March 2 study session, the Council identified specific concerns: safety, absentee landlords, investor and corporate purchases, property value effects, and housing access for lower-income residents. I want to address each of these honestly, because a homestead-only rule is a blunt instrument that doesn't actually map well to most of them:

Safety. Conduct-based standards (occupancy limits, quiet hours, smoke and CO detectors, a 24/7 local contact requirement, insurance requirements) address safety directly. Homestead status does not. A poorly-managed homesteaded STR is no safer than a well-managed non-homesteaded one.

Absentee landlords. This is a real concern, but "absentee" is about responsiveness, not tax status. A 24/7 local contact requirement with a defined response time addresses it precisely. I live ten minutes away and can be onsite faster than many homestead owners who travel for work.

Corporate and investor purchases. This is the concern that homestead status comes closest to addressing - but it's still overbroad. A more targeted rule would prohibit ownership by entities (LLCs, corporations) or cap the number of STRs per individual owner. That preserves room for small local owners while stopping the consolidation the Council is concerned about.

Property values. Well-maintained STRs are net positive for surrounding values. Our home is professionally maintained and has had significant capital reinvested into it - which is the opposite of the deferred-maintenance scenario that hurts neighborhood values.

Housing access. With approximately 24 STRs citywide on the registry, this represents a negligible share of Minnetonka's housing stock. Eliminating non-homesteaded STRs would not meaningfully change housing affordability or availability - particularly for properties like ours, where the size and configuration don't match the housing types most needed by lower-income residents.

Process and legal considerations

I note that staff initially recommended licensing as the appropriate regulatory framework rather than zoning. A homestead-only requirement, while structured as a licensing condition, has the practical effect of prohibiting an established residential use on the vast majority of properties in the city. Recent litigation in a neighboring Hennepin County city resulted in a similar ordinance being declared void on procedural grounds. I raise this respectfully, not as a threat, but to encourage the Council to ensure the chosen approach is durable and not vulnerable to challenge.

More proportionate alternatives

The Council itself has expressed openness to caps and zoning-based approaches. I'd respectfully suggest the following as alternatives - any combination of which would address the underlying concerns more precisely than a homestead-only rule:

- A citywide cap on the total number of STR registrations
- A limit of one or two STR registrations per individual owner
- A prohibition on corporate or LLC ownership of STRs
- A 24/7 local contact requirement with a defined response time (e.g., 30 or 45 minutes)
- Mandatory occupancy and parking limits, with meaningful penalties for violations
- A clear revocation pathway for operators who accumulate verified complaints
- Grandfathering for existing compliant operators with a clean track record

Closing

Responsible non-homesteaded operators like us are not the problem the Council is trying to solve. We're invested in our property, accountable to our neighbors, and contributing to the local economy - largely by serving Minnesota families themselves. I'd ask the Council to focus the ordinance on conduct rather than ownership structure, and to preserve a path for compliant, well-run rentals to continue operating.

Thank you for your time and your work on this.