Developer urges council to ease subdivision hurdles, cites lost homes and impact fees

Corey Lincoln, a local developer and resident, told the Richfield City Council he is concerned that the city is losing new-home construction to nearby towns and urged council members to make it easier for developers to create lots inside Richfield.

“It concerns me as a citizen that we are letting so many residences be built outside of Richfield City,” Lincoln said, citing a 16-month span in which neighboring communities built 51 homes while Richfield recorded 13. Lincoln added that Richfield currently has few subdividable parcels available and that developers face significant costs and permitting hurdles.

Lincoln said Richfield has about 8,154 water meters and cited monthly water charges averaging $21; using those figures, he estimated that water and sewer receipts total roughly $2 million annually. He also listed the city’s usual impact fees for a new single-family home: water impact fee $8,300–$8,350, sewer $1,265, park/recreation $35.25, street $765, fire $321 and 1-inch water meter $536 — a total he calculated at about $14,666 per new home (not including building permit fees).

Lincoln described a past subdivision he developed after asking the city for assistance to connect to existing sewer lines and said the city’s investment of about $48,000 enabled seven homes to hook onto city water and sewer. He told the council those homes brought recurring utility and property-tax revenue, and he urged the city to consider similar accommodations for future developments.

City staff and council members responded with operational context. Michelle (city staff) said Richfield’s water and sewer operations “come to breakeven, just barely,” and that the city is not in the business of making a profit on utilities. “We’re in the business to provide service,” she said, adding that some grants are unavailable because rates are low enough that the city does not qualify for certain funding.

Council members asked for more details about specific parcels Lincoln mentioned, including a long, narrow Peterson parcel he said would be suitable for small starter lots if the council would consider modest adjustments such as narrower road widths, reduced setbacks and a combination curb-and-sidewalk standard. Lincoln said he has offered to help the Peterson owners and asked the council to indicate willingness to assist them with infrastructure or flexibility in standards.

Council members and staff noted trade-offs: reduced standards can lower per-lot costs but also change neighborhood character and long-term maintenance responsibilities. The discussion included repeated requests that Lincoln and staff bring specific plats or sketches for the council to review. No ordinance or formal motion was introduced during Lincoln’s appearance.

Lincoln closed by asking the council to “help the Petersons however possible” and said he would work with staff and the council if they signaled interest.

The council did not take formal action on any zoning, subdivision rules or the Peterson parcel during the meeting; members asked staff to follow up with details and options for future consideration.