Generated: 09/10/2026 03:41PM
Briefer ID: #ID2026-2617
AIC BILL BRIEFER - 2026 SESSION
H0583 - SHORT-TERM RENTALS -- Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding limitations on the regulation of and limiting the tax duties of short-term rentals.
1Bill Snapshot
| Bill Number |
H0583 |
| Bill Title (Official) |
Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding limitations on the regulation of and limiting the tax duties of short-term rentals. |
| Jurisdiction / Session |
ID Legislature - 2026 Session |
| Status / Last Action |
2026-03-17 - Reported Signed by Governor on March 16, 2026 Session Law Chapter 22 Effective: 07/01/2026 |
| AIC position |
Strong Oppose, -5. |
| Likely Sponsor |
Rep. Jordan Redman (R, LD3) - Probable (See Section 9 Notes) |
| Topics |
SHORT-TERM RENTALS |
| Link |
https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2026/legislation/H0583/ |
2Plain-Language Summary
House Bill 583 amends two sections of Idaho Code to revise the state's existing framework governing local regulation of short-term rentals. The bill is sponsored by the House Business Committee; the Statement of Purpose lists contacts: Rep. Mike Moyle, Rep. Jordan Redman, Sen. Kelly Arthur Anthon, and Sen. Todd M. Lakey. Section 1 amends Idaho Code § 67-6539 to prohibit local governments from imposing any regulation on short-term rentals that is not also imposed on comparable single-family dwellings, enumerates seventeen specific regulatory requirements that are now prohibited, establishes a narrow set of permissible public health and safety requirements, eliminates local licensing and permitting authority, and classifies short-term rentals as non-transient residential uses for zoning and building code purposes. Section 2 amends Idaho Code § 63-1804 to extend marketplace tax-collection obligations to property owners who rent directly to guests without using a marketplace platform. The sponsor's Statement of Purpose characterizes the bill as clarifying existing property rights protections and limiting local regulation to public health and safety purposes; the fiscal note states no fiscal impact at the state or local level. The bill was signed by the Governor and takes effect July 1, 2026.
2ACity Impact
Attention: High
Authority effect: Preempts.
Section 1, new 67-6539(1),(4),(5),(7): cities "shall" not prohibit short-term rentals, may only impose specifically limited regulations, "shall not enact or enforce any covenant...that regulates a short-term rental," and "shall not require a license, fee, permit, certification, or registration.".
Applies to: All cities.
Section 1 states "Neither a county nor a city" may prohibit or over-regulate short-term rentals, applying uniformly to all cities and counties statewide.
City budgets: Reduces city revenue.
New 67-6539(5) bars cities from requiring any license, fee, permit, certification, or registration to operate a short-term rental, eliminating a potential local revenue/regulatory tool, though the fiscal note claims no fiscal impact.
Domains: planning zoning, revenue budget tax, public safety police fire, housing
What cities must or may do:
Cities may not ban short-term rentals or impose regulations that differ from those applied to ordinary single-family homes, except for a narrow list of specific safety measures (smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, escape ladders, occupancy limits, informational handouts). Cities cannot require licenses, fees, permits, certifications, or registration for short-term rentals, cannot enforce covenants/restrictions regulating them beyond what the statute allows, and must classify them as residential uses subject to state-adopted building codes only. Cities remain free to enforce generally applicable ordinances (noise, parking, nuisance, curfew, traffic).
Note: Facts drawn only from the bill text, statement of purpose and fiscal note; each call cites its source. Attention is computed from those facts (binding on cities, unfunded duty, or neither), not judged by the AI. Details of AIC's position, if any, are on the
AIC Bill Tracker.
3What the Bill Does
Key Changes in Law/Policy
- Section 1 rewrites Idaho Code § 67-6539 to prohibit counties and cities from imposing any regulation on short-term rentals that differs from what is imposed on single-family dwellings or similar structures not used as short-term rentals, unless the regulation is expressly permitted elsewhere in the section.
- Section 1 enumerates seventeen categories of requirements that now constitute prohibited 'different restrictions or obligations,' including owner-occupation mandates, professional property management requirements, additional insurance, use reporting, additional fire sprinklers, parking requirements, conditional use permits in residential zones, rental-day limits, proximity restrictions, and caps on the number of short-term rentals in a jurisdiction.
- Section 1 creates a permissible list of five specific public health and safety requirements that counties and cities may still impose by ordinance: functioning smoke alarms in all sleeping areas; a functioning fire extinguisher and a functioning carbon monoxide detector on each floor; removable escape ladders in all sleeping areas with a window that are located above the ground floor; occupancy limits consistent with international building code standards as adopted by the Idaho Building Code Board; and an informational handout for tenants.
- Section 1 prohibits counties and cities from requiring any license, fee, permit, certification, or registration to operate a short-term rental, and from enforcing any covenant, condition, restriction, or contract that regulates short-term rentals beyond what the section allows.
- Section 1 classifies short-term rentals as 'non-transient residential' uses for both zoning and building code purposes, limiting applicable building codes to those adopted by the Idaho Building Code Board, while preserving local authority to enforce generally applicable ordinances - such as noise, parking, nuisance, curfew, and traffic rules - against short-term rental properties and their occupants.
- Section 2 amends Idaho Code § 63-1804 to add a new subsection (5) requiring owners who rent directly to guests without using a marketplace platform to comply with all marketplace obligations under § 63-1804, including registration with the State Tax Commission and collection, reporting, and payment of applicable taxes.
- The bill was signed by the Governor and takes effect July 1, 2026, under the emergency clause in Section 3.
4Who / What Is Affected
- City councils and county commissioners: Authority to regulate short-term rental operations through local ordinance is substantially narrowed. The seventeen prohibited regulatory categories and the elimination of local licensing and permitting authority remove tools that many Idaho municipalities have used or considered to manage short-term rental activity in residential areas.
- City planning and zoning departments: Must assess existing short-term rental ordinances for conformity with the bill's requirements. Conflicting local ordinances become unenforceable as a matter of preemption on the bill's effective date of July 1, 2026; the bill does not establish a separate compliance deadline requiring local governments to affirmatively amend their codes by that date, but ordinances imposing conditional use permits in residential zones, proximity restrictions, rental-day caps, or any of the other seventeen enumerated prohibitions will be unenforceable from that date forward. Staff will need to audit current code and advise councils on compliance.
- City attorneys: Must review existing short-term rental ordinances, any city-administered covenants or contracts touching short-term rental use, and local licensing schemes for conformity with the new statutory framework.
- Short-term rental property owners: Are relieved of any local licensing, permitting, or registration requirements and of any local regulations that impose conditions beyond those applicable to single-family dwellings, subject only to the five permissible health-and-safety requirements and generally applicable ordinances.
- Short-term rental owners who rent directly without a marketplace platform: A new obligation under Section 2 requires these owners to comply with all marketplace obligations under § 63-1804, including registration with the State Tax Commission and collection, reporting, and payment of applicable taxes.
- Short-term rental marketplace platforms (e.g., Airbnb, Vrbo): Existing obligations under Idaho Code § 63-1804 are unchanged. Local governments are still prohibited from levying sales, use, franchise, receipts, or other similar tax or fee on the business of operating a marketplace.
- Neighboring property owners and residential neighborhood residents: Local governments may no longer impose requirements specific to short-term rentals - such as neighbor-notification mandates or proximity restrictions - but generally applicable nuisance, noise, parking, and traffic ordinances remain enforceable against short-term rental occupants.
- Idaho Building Code Board: Short-term rentals are now explicitly subject only to building codes adopted by the Board, which may affect how local fire marshals and building officials apply code requirements to these properties.
5Policy Considerations
Potential Benefits
- Uniform statewide standard: Property owners in every Idaho county and city face the same baseline rules, removing the patchwork of local short-term rental ordinances that varied significantly across jurisdictions and created uncertainty for owners who operate in multiple markets.
- Elimination of local licensing fees: Section 1's prohibition on local license, fee, permit, certification, or registration requirements removes a recurring cost of entry for short-term rental operators and reduces administrative overhead for local governments no longer required to administer those programs.
- Codified safety floor: Section 1(3) establishes a defined, statewide minimum set of health-and-safety requirements - smoke alarms, functioning fire extinguishers, functioning carbon monoxide detectors, escape ladders, occupancy limits, and tenant information handouts - that apply uniformly regardless of whether a local government had previously enacted any safety rules.
- Tax parity for direct-rental owners: Section 2's new subsection (5) closes the gap under which owners renting directly to guests without a marketplace platform were not expressly subject to the same obligations as marketplace platforms - including registration with the State Tax Commission and collection, reporting, and payment of applicable taxes - creating more consistent treatment across rental arrangements.
- Preservation of generally applicable ordinances: Section 1(6) explicitly preserves local authority to enforce noise, parking, nuisance, curfew, and traffic regulations against short-term rental properties and occupants on the same basis as other residential uses, maintaining tools for addressing neighbor complaints without STR-specific regulation.
Potential Concerns
- Elimination of local licensing removes the primary mechanism cities have used to identify and track short-term rental properties. Without a registration or permit requirement, local governments will have no systematic way to know which properties are operating as short-term rentals, complicating enforcement of even the permissible health-and-safety requirements under Section 1(3).
- The prohibition on 'different restrictions or obligations' in Section 1 removes local authority to require STR-specific insurance, owner-occupation minimums, or professional management - tools some cities have used to assign accountability when guest-related incidents occur in residential neighborhoods. The bill does not establish an alternative mechanism for identifying a responsible party in such situations.
- The classification of short-term rentals as 'non-transient residential' uses under Section 1 may conflict with local comprehensive plans and zoning frameworks that treat transient lodging differently from permanent residential use, potentially requiring cities to revise land-use plans that took years to develop.
- Section 1's prohibition on conditional use permits in residential zones removes a tool local governments have used to evaluate individual short-term rental applications in neighborhoods with particular density, infrastructure, or character concerns, and replaces it with a statewide rule that does not account for local conditions.
- The new direct-rental owner obligations in Section 2(5) - including registration with the State Tax Commission and collection, reporting, and payment of applicable taxes - place compliance responsibilities on individual property owners who may lack the administrative infrastructure that marketplace platforms have. The bill provides no grace period or simplified process specifically for already-operating direct-rental owners; the 45-day window in subsection (6) is written for marketplace platforms completing their first Idaho transaction and does not by its terms apply to direct-rental owners.
Key Unknowns / Data Needed
- Section 1(1) permits regulations that 'do not impose different restrictions or obligations on short-term rentals than are imposed on single-family dwellings,' but the bill does not define 'single-family dwelling' or 'similar structures,' leaving open how local governments and courts should classify multi-unit residential properties, condominiums, or accessory dwelling units for purposes of this comparison.
- Section 1(2)(a) defines 'different restrictions or obligations' as any requirement 'that would not be imposed but for a property's use as a short-term rental,' but the bill does not specify which entity - the local government, property owner, or a court - makes this determination in a contested case, nor does it establish an administrative review or appeal process.
- Section 1(3)(d) caps occupancy limits at 'non-transient residential limits as contained in the international building codes as adopted by the Idaho Building Code Board,' but the bill does not specify which edition of the international building codes is the reference point, and the Idaho Building Code Board may have adopted versions with differing occupancy standards.
- Section 1(4) prohibits counties and cities from enacting or enforcing 'any covenant, condition, restriction, or contract that regulates a short-term rental,' but covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) are typically private instruments created by homeowners associations or developers, not governmental entities - the bill does not clarify whether this subsection applies only to governmental contracts or whether it extends to publicly recorded instruments involving city or county land.
- Section 1(5) prohibits any 'license, fee, permit, certification, or registration to operate a short-term rental' but does not address whether local governments may continue to collect existing business license fees of general applicability that happen to cover short-term rental operators alongside all other businesses.
- Section 2(5) requires direct-rental owners to 'comply with all the requirements provided in this section applicable to a short-term rental marketplace,' but the bill does not address whether the 45-day compliance window in subsection (6) - written for marketplace platforms completing their first Idaho transaction - applies to direct-rental owners who are already operating at the time the bill takes effect on July 1, 2026.
6Debate Prep
Pro Argument (Sample Statement):
House Bill 583 establishes a single, statewide standard for short-term rental regulation so that a property owner in Coeur d'Alene and a property owner in Idaho Falls operate under the same basic rules. Section 1 amends Idaho Code section 67-6539 so that a county or city may only enact reasonable health-and-safety regulations on short-term rentals if those regulations do not impose different restrictions or obligations than those imposed on single-family dwellings, closing the door on the patchwork of licensing schemes, rental-day caps, proximity restrictions, and owner-occupancy mandates that have sprung up around the state. Cities retain a clear, workable set of health and safety tools under subsection (3) - smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors, escape ladders, occupancy limits tied to the international building code, and a tenant safety handout - and subsection (6) preserves full authority to enforce noise, parking, nuisance, curfew, and traffic ordinances against these properties just like any other residence.
This is a property rights bill at its core. An owner who wants to rent out a home should not need a permit, a license, or a special inspection regime simply because the rental is short-term rather than long-term. Section 2's extension of marketplace tax obligations to owners who rent directly, without a platform, closes a compliance gap and ensures the Tax Commission receives the same lodging tax revenue regardless of booking method. The fiscal note confirms no state or local revenue impact. This bill gives owners certainty and gives cities a clean, enforceable, health-and-safety-focused framework.
Con Argument (Sample Statement):
House Bill 583 removes tools that city governments currently use to manage short-term rentals as a distinct land use, and it does so through a very long list. Section 1's new subsection (2)(a) enumerates seventeen specific requirements - including inspections, use reporting, additional parking, conditional use permits in residential zones, and caps on the total number of short-term rentals in a jurisdiction - that a city can no longer impose once a structure is being rented short-term, even where a city has adopted those requirements to address documented neighborhood impacts. Subsection (5) eliminates licensing, permitting, and registration authority outright, which means a city loses its primary mechanism for knowing where short-term rentals are located, how many exist, and who to contact when a problem arises.
The health and safety carve-out in subsection (3) does not include an inspection mechanism to verify compliance, because subsection (2)(a)(ix) separately bars requiring inspections - so cities have no way under this bill to confirm the required smoke alarms and extinguishers are actually installed. Classifying short-term rentals as non-transient residential use under building code also removes local flexibility to apply commercial-adjacent building standards to these properties. Section 2's extension of marketplace tax duties to owners renting directly adds a new compliance and enforcement question for cities that currently rely on marketplace platforms for collection, with no additional state funding provided to help local tax administrators or code enforcement staff adjust to the July 1, 2026 effective date.
Talking Points FOR (what supporters may argue):
- Section 1 provides that a county or city may enact reasonable health-and-safety regulations on short-term rentals only if those regulations do not impose different restrictions or obligations than are imposed on comparable single-family dwellings, which prevents cities from singling out rental properties for stricter treatment than neighboring homes.
- Subsection (3) preserves a clear, statewide list of health and safety requirements - smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors, escape ladders, occupancy limits, and tenant safety handouts - giving cities enforceable tools without an open-ended regulatory scope.
- Subsection (6) explicitly preserves city authority to enforce noise, parking, nuisance, curfew, and traffic ordinances against short-term rental properties, so cities are not left without recourse for neighborhood disruptions.
- Section 2 closes a tax compliance gap by requiring owners who rent directly to guests, without a marketplace platform, to register with the State Tax Commission and collect and remit the same taxes marketplaces already collect.
- The fiscal note reports no fiscal impact at the state or local level, and the statewide standard reduces the compliance burden on owners who previously had to navigate different licensing and permitting rules in every jurisdiction.
Talking Points AGAINST (what critics may argue):
- Subsection (5) eliminates local licensing, permitting, and registration authority for short-term rentals, removing the primary mechanism cities use to track the location and number of these properties within their borders.
- Subsection (2)(a) enumerates seventeen prohibited requirements, including inspections, conditional use permits in residential zones, and caps on the number of short-term rentals in a jurisdiction, which forecloses tools some cities currently use to manage concentration of rentals in residential neighborhoods.
- The health and safety list in subsection (3) does not include an inspection mechanism to verify compliance, since subsection (2)(a)(ix) separately bars requiring inspections, leaving cities without a way to confirm that required smoke alarms and extinguishers are actually installed.
- Classifying short-term rentals as non-transient residential use for zoning and building code purposes under subsection (1) limits cities to building codes adopted by the Idaho Building Code Board.
- Section 2's extension of marketplace tax duties to owners renting directly without a platform creates a new compliance and enforcement responsibility with no additional funding identified for local tax administration ahead of the July 1, 2026 effective date.
Note: These arguments represent positions supporters and critics may take. They are provided to help you prepare, not to advocate for either position.
7Key Questions
Q: Section 1 eliminates all local licensing, permitting, fee, and registration authority over short-term rentals under new subsection (5). How will cities identify which properties in their jurisdiction are operating as short-term rentals in order to enforce even the narrow health and safety requirements that remain permissible, and how will code enforcement staff verify compliance without a registration or inspection mechanism?
Supportive: Registration and permitting requirements have historically been used as revenue-generating red tape rather than genuine safety tools, and property owners should not have to pay fees or seek permission to rent property they legally own. Cities can still identify problem properties through complaint-driven enforcement of noise, nuisance, parking, and other generally applicable ordinances preserved in subsection (6). Removing licensing burdens reduces costs for homeowners while still allowing cities to act when an actual public safety issue arises at a specific address.
Skeptical: Without any registration, permit, or licensing system, code enforcement and fire officials have no reliable list of which residential addresses are operating as short-term rentals versus owner-occupied homes, making proactive verification of smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, and escape ladders essentially impossible. Cities will be forced into a purely reactive posture, only discovering noncompliant properties after a complaint or an incident occurs, which undermines the very public-safety purpose the statute claims to preserve. This also complicates coordination between city planning, fire, and tax departments that previously relied on registration data to cross-check occupancy and safety compliance.
Q: Section 1's list of seventeen prohibited 'different restrictions or obligations' includes bans on caps on the number of short-term rentals, proximity restrictions between rentals, and conditional use permits in residential zones. Does this provision preempt city planning commissions and councils from addressing neighborhood-scale concentration of short-term rentals through their zoning authority, even where a locally elected body has determined such measures serve public health and safety?
Supportive: The bill's uniform statewide standard prevents a patchwork of inconsistent local rules that create confusion for property owners and unpredictable investment climates for the tourism and lodging economy. Elected city councils retain full authority to enforce noise, nuisance, parking, curfew, and traffic ordinances against problem properties, which addresses the actual harms neighbors experience rather than restricting property use based on speculative concerns about density. Treating short-term rentals the same as any other single-family use protects property rights while still allowing targeted enforcement against genuine bad actors.
Skeptical: This section removes a core zoning tool that city planning commissions have used to manage neighborhood character and housing stock availability, regardless of local factual findings about saturation effects on long-term rental supply or neighborhood cohesion. Because caps, proximity limits, and conditional use permits are now flatly prohibited rather than left to local discretion, a city council responding to documented resident complaints about a concentration of rentals on one block would have no zoning-based remedy available, only after-the-fact nuisance enforcement. This shifts significant land-use policy authority from locally accountable elected bodies to a one-size-fits-all state standard that may not fit rapidly growing tourist destinations the same way it fits stable residential subdivisions.
Q: Section 2 adds subsection (5) to Idaho Code 63-1804, requiring owners who rent directly to guests without a marketplace platform to independently register with the State Tax Commission and collect, report, and pay all applicable taxes. What administrative burden and revenue tracking challenges will this create for city or local option tax collection compared to the marketplace-facilitated model, and does the fiscal note's claim of 'no fiscal impact' adequately account for local government administrative costs of tracking direct-rental compliance?
Supportive: Extending marketplace-style tax obligations to direct-booking owners closes an existing loophole where property owners avoided registration and tax collection simply by renting outside a platform, ensuring a level playing field between marketplace-listed and independently marketed rentals. This should, if anything, increase compliance and local tax revenue over time as more owners are brought into the same reporting framework already used successfully for marketplace bookings. The fiscal note's finding of no impact is reasonable because this section standardizes an existing tax collection duty rather than creating a new tax or a new administrative program for local governments.
Skeptical: Unlike marketplace platforms, which have centralized systems and business incentives to handle tax registration and remittance accurately, individual owners renting directly may lack the accounting sophistication or awareness to self-register and correctly calculate applicable local option taxes, increasing the risk of underreporting that falls on local finance departments to detect. Cities that rely on local option taxes for tourism-related infrastructure may see enforcement and audit costs rise as they attempt to identify direct-rental owners who never register at all, a compliance gap the fiscal note does not appear to address. Given that Section 1 simultaneously eliminates local registration requirements for short-term rentals, cities lose one of the few tools they had for cross-referencing which properties should be paying these taxes in the first place.
Q: Section 1, subsection (6) preserves city authority to enforce 'generally applicable ordinances' such as noise, parking, nuisance, curfew, and traffic regulations against short-term rental properties. Given that subsection (2) broadly defines prohibited 'different restrictions or obligations' as anything 'not... imposed but for a property's use as a short-term rental,' how will cities determine which of their existing nuisance or property maintenance ordinances survive this test without inviting legal challenge?
Supportive: The statute draws a clear line: ordinances that apply to all residential properties regardless of rental status remain fully enforceable, while only rules singling out short-term rentals specifically are prohibited, which gives cities a workable and predictable standard. This approach protects short-term rental owners from being treated as second-class property owners while ensuring neighbors retain the same nuisance and noise protections they have always had. Any city ordinance already written in general terms applicable to all residences will not need revision under this framework.
Skeptical: Many existing city nuisance, occupancy, and property maintenance ordinances were drafted or amended over time specifically with short-term rental complaints in mind, even if they are nominally written to apply citywide, creating real ambiguity about whether they would survive a challenge under the new 'different restrictions or obligations' test. City attorneys will need to conduct a provision-by-provision legal review of municipal code before the July 1, 2026 effective date to identify ordinances at litigation risk, consuming staff time and legal resources with no funding provided. Smaller cities without dedicated legal staff are particularly exposed, since they may lack the capacity to conduct this review and could face costly litigation if a property owner challenges an ordinance the city believed was generally applicable.
8Uncertainties to Watch
- Cities and counties with existing STR ordinances may face legal challenges from property owners on July 1, 2026, before local governments have had opportunity to audit and revise their codes. The bill does not establish a separate compliance deadline requiring local governments to affirmatively amend their codes, and local provisions that conflict with the new statute become unenforceable on the effective date regardless of whether the jurisdiction has taken corrective action.
- Without any local registration or permitting mechanism - now prohibited by Section 1(5) - local code enforcement officers will have no systematic inventory of which properties are operating as short-term rentals. Enforcing even the permissible Section 1(3) health-and-safety requirements depends on identifying which properties are subject to them, and cities may find practical enforcement of the smoke alarm, fire extinguisher, and carbon monoxide detector provisions difficult without a registration baseline.
- The bill's equal-treatment framework - prohibiting any requirement that would not be imposed 'but for' short-term rental use - may generate litigation over whether specific local regulations meet that standard. Courts will need to interpret the 'but for' causation test in Section 1(2)(a) and the scope of the seventeen enumerated prohibited categories, producing a period of legal uncertainty for both local governments and property owners until case law develops.
9Legislative Activity
Likely Sponsor
- Rep. Jordan Redman (R, LD3) - Probable
How we identified this: Bill Briefer deduces the likely sponsor from public records - the Statement of Purpose contact, committee minutes, and floor reading calendars. For this bill, Redman presented the bill in committee; was designated as floor sponsor in committee minutes (2 of 3 available records agree).
Caution - not all records agree. Also appearing in this bill's records: Representative Mike Moyle (SOP contact).
Confidence labels: Corroborated = 3 or more records agree | Probable = 2 records agree | Possible = only 1 record available | Inconclusive = records name different people, the strongest is shown | Unidentified = no usable records.
Bill History/Actions
- 2026-03-17: Reported Signed by Governor on March 16, 2026 Session Law Chapter 22 Effective: 07/01/2026
- 2026-03-12: Delivered to Governor at 3:13 p.m. on March 12, 2026
- 2026-03-12: Returned Signed by the President; Ordered Transmitted to Governor
- 2026-03-11: Signed by President; returned to House
- 2026-03-11: Received from the House enrolled/signed by Speaker
- 2026-03-10: Reported Enrolled; Signed by Speaker; Transmitted to Senate
- 2026-03-10: Returned from Senate Passed; to JRA for Enrolling
- 2026-03-09: Read third time in full - PASSED - 23-12-0 (Floor Sponsor: Lakey)
- 2026-03-02: Read second time; filed for Third Reading
- 2026-02-27: Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation; Filed for second reading
- 2026-02-13: Introduced, read first time; referred to: Commerce & Human Resources
- 2026-02-13: Received from the House passed; filed for first reading
- 2026-02-12: Read Third Time in Full - PASSED - 54-16-0 (Floor Sponsor: Redman)
- 2026-02-11: Read second time; Filed for Third Reading
- 2026-02-10: Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation, Filed for Second Reading
- 2026-02-05: Reported Printed and Referred to Business
- 2026-02-04: Introduced, read first time, referred to JRA for Printing
Roll Calls
- 2026-03-09: Senate roll call - Passed (Yea 23, Nay 12, NV 0, Absent 0)
- 2026-02-12: House roll call - Passed (Yea 54, Nay 16, NV 0, Absent 0)
Vote Record
HOUSE (54-16-0)
| J Alfieri (R) - Y |
D Garner (R) - Y |
J Petzke (R) - N |
| V Barbieri (R) - Y |
B Green (D) - Y |
D Pickett (R) - Y |
| R Beiswenger (R) - Y |
D Hall (R) - Y |
M Pohanka (R) - N |
| S Berch (D) - N |
C Handy (R) - Y |
E Price (R) - Y |
| E Bingham (R) - N |
K Harris (R) - Y |
C Rasor (R) - Y |
| J Boyle (R) - Y |
D Hawkins (R) - Y |
B Raybould (R) - N |
| C Bruce (R) - Y |
A Haws (D) - N |
J Raymond (R) - N |
| T Burgoyne (R) - Y |
D Healey (R) - Y |
J Redman (R) - Y |
| D Cannon (R) - Y |
T Hill (R) - Y |
I Rubel (D) - N |
| L Cayler (R) - Y |
J Holtzclaw (R) - Y |
M Sauter (R) - N |
| R Cheatum (R) - Y |
C Hostetler (R) - Y |
H Scott (R) - Y |
| M Church (D) - N |
D Leavitt (R) - Y |
C Shepherd (R) - Y |
| J Cornilles (R) - Y |
D Manwaring (R) - Y |
J Shirts (R) - Y |
| B Crane (R) - Y |
K Marmon (R) - Y |
B Skaug (R) - Y |
| J Crane (R) - Y |
C Mathias (D) - Y |
J Tanner (R) - Y |
| S Dygert (R) - Y |
L McCann (R) - N |
S Tanner (R) - Y |
| M Egbert (D) - Y |
R Mendive (R) - Y |
F Thompson (R) - Y |
| B Ehardt (R) - Y |
S Mickelsen (R) - N |
M Veile (R) - Y |
| J Ehlers (R) - Y |
S Miller (R) - Y |
J Weber (R) - N |
| M Erickson (R) - Y |
B Mitchell (R) - Y |
J Wheeler (R) - Y |
| B Fuhriman (R) - Y |
J Monks (R) - Y |
T Wisniewski (R) - Y |
| R Furniss (R) - N |
M Moyle (R) - Y |
J Woude (R) - Y |
| S Galaviz (D) - Y |
J Nelsen (R) - N |
|
| J Gannon (D) - N |
J Palmer (R) - Y |
|
SENATE (23-12-0)
| B Adams (R) - Y |
M Harris (R) - N |
Rundhaug* (for Carlson) (R) - Y |
| K Anthon (R) - Y |
P Hart (R) - Y |
C Semmelroth (D) - N |
| T Bernt (R) - Y |
L Hartog (R) - Y |
B Shippy (R) - Y |
| C Bjerke (R) - Y |
J Keyser (R) - Y |
R Taylor (D) - N |
| C Blaylock (R) - Y |
J Kohl (R) - Y |
B Toews (R) - Y |
| V Burtenshaw (R) - N |
T Lakey (R) - Y |
J VanOrden (R) - Y |
| Coho* (for Lenney) (R) - Y |
D Lent (R) - N |
J Ward-Engelking (D) - N |
| K Cook (R) - N |
T Nichols (R) - Y |
M Wintrow (D) - N |
| D Foreman (R) - Y |
D Okuniewicz (R) - Y |
J Woodward (R) - N |
| C Galloway (R) - Y |
A Rabe (D) - N |
C Zito (R) - Y |
| C Grow (R) - Y |
D Ricks (R) - Y |
G Zuiderveld (R) - Y |
| J Guthrie (R) - N |
J Ruchti (D) - N |
|
Note: * Substitute legislator, sworn in to vote in place of the absent member named.
10Advocacy & Interest Group Positions
- AIC: Strong Oppose, -5.
- CAI: tracking, Due Process
- IFF: support, +1
Note: Positions are drawn from each organization's own public bill tracker, as last checked on 2026-05-22. Inclusion reflects only that the organization has published a position - it is not an endorsement, and organizations may revise positions as bills change.
Key: CAI = Citizens Alliance of Idaho | IFF = Idaho Freedom Foundation.
11National Context - Similar Legislation in Other States
At least two states - Arizona and Kentucky - have bills in their current sessions addressing the regulation of short-term rentals in ways closely comparable to Idaho H0583. In Arizona, HB2430 (short-term rentals and online lodging marketplaces) and HB2566 (vacation rental regulation) were both read a second time in the House in January 2026, while HB2429 (short-term rental occupancy) advanced further and received a Senate reading in March 2026. Kentucky SB112, which directly addresses short-term rentals, was referred to the Committee on Committees in January 2026 and has not advanced since. Overall, these companion measures appear to be in early to mid-stage consideration, with none yet enacted in those states.
- AZ HB2430: Short-term rentals; online lodging marketplace - 2026-01-21: House read second time
- AZ HB2566: Vacation rentals; short-term rentals; regulation - 2026-01-21: House read second time
- KY SB112: AN ACT relating to short-term rentals. - 2026-01-21: to Committee on Committees (S)
- AZ HB2429: Short-term rentals; vacation rentals; occupancy - 2026-03-18: Senate read second time
Note: Found by legislative text search (LegiScan) across other states, then reviewed for subject match. The date shown is each bill's most recent recorded action. These indicate comparable subject matter, not identical text, and not a shared origin or coordinated effort.
ABOUT THIS BRIEFER
This analysis combines official legislative documents, fiscal data, and demographic information with artificial intelligence to produce a structured briefing. All source data comes from verified government sources. AI is used to analyze, summarize, and identify policy considerations - not to generate facts, statistics, or quotes.
Data Sources
Idaho Legislature, LegiScan (multi-state legislation), and advocacy organizations' public bill trackers
Disclaimer
This briefer is an informational time-saver, not a replacement for personal judgment. It is not legal advice or a voting recommendation. Please verify any details you plan to cite by reviewing official sources at legislature.idaho.gov.
AIC Bill Briefer- from Quiet Impact • info@billbriefer.com
Informed city officials make better decisions. Better decisions serve everyone.