Richfield council approves first reading to limit short‑term rentals to minimum one week

The Richfield City Council on May 13 approved the first reading of an ordinance that would restrict short‑term rentals (STRs) to stays of at least one week unless the rental license holder resides on the property.

The move responds to resident complaints about rapid turnover and disruptive parties and aligns with a staff recommendation that sought to balance neighborhood impacts with property‑owner rights. Councilmember Hayford O'Leary moved the amendment changing staff's original 30‑day proposal to a one‑week minimum; the motion passed on the council floor and the ordinance will return for a second reading at a future meeting.

City staff told the council they estimate about 100 short‑term rentals in Richfield and roughly 700 single‑family rental properties overall. Staff recommended limiting stays shorter than one month to cases where the license holder is on site, citing administrative complexity and extra requirements that would be needed to treat STRs like lodging establishments and concerns about housing availability. In response to public testimony, councilmembers debated a shorter minimum (one week) to preserve options for family visits and small local hosts while addressing rapid turnover problems.

Several people addressed the council during open forum and submitted written comments. Short‑term rental operators said they screen guests, enforce quiet hours, and pay local lodging taxes on remitted reservations; one operator asked the council to grandfather responsible hosts and require annual licensing. Local property managers and hosts said most bookings are low‑risk, urged regulation that preserves visitation, and asked the council to consider implementation timelines so hosts are not immediately disadvantaged.

Council discussion focused on enforcement capacity and legal requirements. Community Development Director Palman warned the city lacks the administrative capacity today to inspect STRs to the same standards applied to hotels for accessibility or to routinely enforce Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; Palman said those inspections are not typically performed for rental inspections and would require additional resources or interagency arrangements. Councilmembers asked staff to provide clearer information before final adoption on lodging tax enforcement, license fees, and what compliance expectations (for example, fire safety and accessibility) the city can practically uphold.

Councilmember Burke expressed concern about potential additional enforcement burdens (including ADA compliance and lodging facility requirements) and urged caution; Burke also suggested a more extended effective date to give owners time to adapt. Councilmember Hayford O'Leary said the one‑week minimum preserves options for family visits and small hosts while responding to the rapid‑turnover complaints that led the council to take up the issue. Several councilmembers asked staff to publicize the existing lodging tax and to return with implementation details at second reading.

The council did not finalize an effective date at first reading; staff said license issuance is annual and not prorated, so the timing of implementation could affect owners' fees. Councilmembers indicated they may set an effective date at second reading and asked staff to return with details on the rental license fee and administrative impacts.

The ordinance as amended directs staff to prepare updated code language limiting short‑term rentals to no less than one week unless the license holder resides on‑site and to return the item for a second reading and final vote. The council invited additional written comments and testimony prior to the next meeting.