Short Term Rental Ordinance

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.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public input on the proposed short term rental ordinance. I appreciate the City’s efforts to balance neighborhood character, safety, and responsible housing use.

My family and I own a single-family home in Minnetonka that we inherited in 2021 following the passing of my brother. Prior to that experience, we had no plans to leave Fargo, North Dakota. However, while spending significant time at the home caring for him, we fell in love with Minnetonka and the surrounding area. That experience ultimately shaped our long-term plan to move into this home permanently as we prepare for retirement, currently targeted for October 2028.

Since inheriting the property, we have invested heavily in the home—both inside and out—through extensive remodeling and ongoing professional maintenance. We take meticulous care of the property by hiring local services and vendors, and the home is maintained to a standard consistent with owner occupancy. The short-term rental income is what enables us to do this.

Even with rental income, the home currently costs us approximately $10,000 per year out of pocket after expenses. Without the ability to rent the property short term, the property would no longer be financially feasible for us to retain. In that case, we would be forced to sell the home, eliminating the possibility of our planned relocation to Minnetonka.

Today, we personally use the home approximately one week per month, host family members visiting from other states, and regularly contribute to the local economy—attending Twins, Timberwolves, and Vikings games with visiting guests, dining locally, and supporting area businesses. Our son now attends the University of Minnesota, further strengthening our family’s ties to the community.

We have built a positive and respectful relationship with our neighbors, one of whom is a distant relative. Since beginning short term rentals in 2022, we have had a single disturbance complaint, which occurred during the very first weekend the home was rented. There have been no subsequent issues.

I am concerned that a requirement limiting short term rentals exclusively to homesteaded primary residences would unintentionally penalize responsible owners like us—owners who are committed to Minnetonka, maintain their properties at a high level, and plan to become full time residents in the near future.

If we are required to give up short term rental use and can no longer afford to keep the home, there is no guarantee that we would ultimately retire in Minnetonka. Instead, we may be forced to delay retirement decisions and relocate based on where our children ultimately settle.
I respectfully encourage the City to consider:
• Allowing an exception or transitional accommodation for future owner occupants
• Grandfathering existing, compliant short-term rentals with a proven track record
• Creating a pathway that preserves community stability without forcing responsible owners to sell
Thank you again for considering this perspective and for your thoughtful work on this issue.

I think it is needed to charge a fair tax or fees to any business that is use City services to operate a business, like inspections, safety/ enforcement of laws, or infrastructure. This assures renters and neighbors a base of representation before needing any legal intervention. I have owned rental property and having requirements and inspections help me provide housing knowing my property was safe, and knowing that tenants are represented.
I do have concerns that the spread of short term rental can shrink the availability of long term rental and buyable homes in any area, and change the nature of neighborhoods.

I support reasonable regulation of short-term rentals, including registration, safety standards, and enforcement of nuisance behavior. However, I have concerns about the proposed requirement limiting short-term rentals to homesteaded (owner-occupied) properties.

This is a very small issue in Minnetonka.
There are approximately 25 short-term rentals citywide, representing a negligible share of housing. A broad restriction like a homestead-only requirement is disproportionate to the scale of the issue.

At the same time, these homes serve a clear and important need: they provide space for families.

Minnetonka has limited hotel options, and hotels are not designed for:

Families with children
Multi-generational visits
Longer stays for caregiving or life events

Short-term rentals allow families to stay together in one home—with bedrooms, kitchens, and space to gather—rather than being split across multiple hotel rooms. Guest feedback consistently shows these are family-oriented stays, not disruptive uses.

If the goal is to address potential impacts, more targeted solutions would be more effective:

Enforce occupancy, parking, and quiet hour rules
Require a 24/7 local contact
Penalize or remove non-compliant operators

There are also reasonable alternatives to consider:

Grandfather existing, compliant properties
Cap the total number of licenses
Apply stricter standards to new permits

With only ~25 properties, this is not a large-scale issue—but it provides a valuable service for visiting families.

I respectfully urge the City to reconsider the homestead-only requirement and pursue a more balanced, proportionate approach.

.

First off, we need short term (AirBnB) rentals in Minnetonka. There is huge demand for grandmas and grandpas (and other relatives) coming to stay and visit family. They want to come for a few weeks. You can't stay in a hotel for 2 weeks.

We have relatives coming to visit in the fall. We don't have space in our house. We of course would rent an AirBnB for them.

We have rented an AirBnB near a relative to help them out when having medical issues. It was a godsend.

Some claim there are issues with AirBnB guests. Well, I have neighbors that are worse - and live here year round. If it was a short term rental, at least they could be kicked out in a heart beat.

If there are noise or nuisance issues with any property - owner, renter, or short term renter - existing regulations can handle it. This regulation does not stop someone from renting out their place for a mass gathering.

*** This effectively kills AirBnB. Why? It requires the property to be homesteaded. It was a sly way of banning AirBnB without saying they are banning AirBnB. ***

I moved to Minnetonka to get away from insane regulations.

Unfortunately, no one serious ran for mayor or city council. I hope some more sensible people run so I have someone to vote for.

I have no issue with Minnetonka requiring registration for short-term rentals, as long as it does not introduce additional fees or taxes. Residents are already burdened with far too many taxes and fees, and adding another layer would be unnecessary and unfair.

While I understand that some people have concerns about noise or large gatherings, those issues are not unique to short-term rentals. An unruly homeowner can create the same problems. Existing laws and ordinances already address noise, disturbances, and public safety. As long as property owners are following these rules, there is no clear justification for imposing additional regulations.

Creating more rules simply for the sake of regulation does not solve the underlying issues—it only adds complexity and cost. Enforcement of current laws should be the priority, rather than expanding government oversight where it isn’t needed.

With the amount of taxes we are already paying in Minnetonka, some owners have no other option but to allow short-term rentals in order to stay in their homes!

Hello. I have experience living next door to an AirB&B. I previously lived in Richfield. When my elderly next door neighbor moved to a care facility, her three bedroom home was purchased by a couple that turned it into an AirB&B. They added two bedrooms downstairs and the AirB&B accommodates up to fifteen people. It often hosts large parties, big groups of people that were constantly coming and going. It was noisy and unsettling. Our once quiet backyard felt like it had been invaded by people that we didn't know. We sold our house and now we live here in Minnetonka. I urge the city to do everything that they legally can to discourage short term rentals. Homes that aren't owner occupied leave neighborhoods feeling disconnected.