Bill Description: Senate Bill 1163 would clarify how Idahoans may use their property for short-term rentals and allow counties and cities to impose licensing requirements for such use.
Rating: 0
NOTE: Senate Bill 1163 is related to Senate Bill 1162 (2025) and House Bill 506 (2024).
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
Senate Bill 1163 would repeal Section 67-6539, Idaho Code.
This section currently says, "(1) Neither a county nor a city may enact or enforce any ordinance that has the express or practical effect of prohibiting short-term rentals or vacation rentals in the county or city. A county or city may implement such reasonable regulations as it deems necessary to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare in order to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods in which short-term rentals or vacation rentals operate. A short-term rental or vacation rental shall be classified as a residential land use for zoning purposes subject to all zoning requirements applicable thereto. (2) Neither a county nor a city can regulate the operation of a short-term rental marketplace."
In place of this repealed statute, the bill would create Section 63-1805, Idaho Code.
Subsection 1 of this new section would say, "No county or city may enact or enforce any ordinance that has the express or practical effect of prohibiting any type of short-term rental or vacation rental in the county or city. A county or city may implement reasonable regulations as are necessary to safeguard public health and safety as long as the reasonable regulations do not impose different restrictions or obligations on a short-term rental than are imposed on single family dwellings or similar structures not used as short-term rentals. For the purpose of this section, "different restrictions or obligations" means any requirement or regulation that would not otherwise apply but for the property's use as a short-term rental. A short-term rental shall be classified as a non-transient residential use for zoning, fire, and building code purposes and shall be subject only to those building codes adopted by the Idaho building code board as such codes apply to other residential uses."
It also clarifies that "all short-term rental properties and owners of such properties shall be subject to all other county and city ordinances and penalties that apply to other residential uses, including but not limited to noise, parking, nuisance, curfew, traffic, and other similar regulations."
This replacement language is fine and could serve to clarify the intent of the law if it ended here.
Unfortunately, the bill also says, "Nothing in this section shall prevent a county or city from requiring, by ordinance, a permit to operate a short-term rental as long as the permitting ordinance does not impose requirements prohibited by this section." It would allow for an annual fee of up to $50 per property.
This fundamentally contradicts the prior subsections because it is precisely a “different restriction or obligation” than is imposed on single family dwellings or similar structures not used as short-term rentals.
The bill also says that a city or county may revoke a short-term rental license if "a permit holder does not provide payment of the annual permit fee if required by a county or city ordinance" or if 3 or more ordinance violations are committed by the property owner or property manager in a 12-month period.
NOTE: Senate Bill 1163 is superior to Senate Bill 1162 because this bill does not allow for the revocation of a permit based on ordinance violations committed by occupants of a short-term rental. A property owner should not be penalized for violations committed by others.
Another provision added by this bill would require property owners to inform prospective tenants if the short-term rental is equipped with "an operating smoke alarm in every room advertised as a sleeping area; an operating fire extinguisher on every floor; and a first aid kit."
This bill starts by embracing the notion of private property rights and recognizing that using private property as a short-term rental should not negate those rights. Sadly, it then pivots and engages in the same kind of government intrusion it initially condemns.
Offering one’s property for short-term rentals is a legitimate use of private property and should not be subject to regulation, taxation, licensure, or government intrusion of any kind beyond that which already exists for private property not used for short-term rental purposes.
(0)
1. Short term rentals often negatively impact neighborhoods and full-time residents who also should have the constitutional rights to enjoy properties they originally paid for and are being taxed on.
Short-term renters often disrupt the peace of a community. With no personal or financial investment in the community (beyond their short-term rental charge), short-term renters are more likely to drive fast through neighborhoods, litter, party, break subdivision or HOA rules, and otherwise disturb the peace and tranquility of existing neighborhoods.
2. Owners who rent to short-term renters absolutely should be responsible for the behavior of their temporary tenants, just as they would be responsible for their own behavior.
3. People who bought property before short-term rentals were allowed could find their property values diminish as their neighborhood transitions from stable residential to tourism.
4. County planning and zoning commissions should have authority for determining how properties within their jurisdiction are used. This enables buyers and sellers to know ahead of time what types of uses are appropriate and to buy or sell accordingly.
5. This bill seems more like a fee grab than a way to encourage Idaho tourism.