Senate committee advances bill requiring 10-day notice on building‑permit completeness

The Idaho Senate Commerce Committee voted to send Senate Bill 1164 to the Senate’s fourteenth order for possible amendment after a discussion about whether local governments can reliably tell applicants within 10 business days that a building‑permit application is "complete." Senator Cody Galloway, sponsor of the bill, opened the hearing saying residents placed housing near the top of their concerns and that the measure is aimed at speeding administrative review without forcing approvals.

The bill would require local governments to publish the requirements for building permits and to notify applicants in writing within 10 business days if an application is incomplete. "It does not demand timed approval or denial," Galloway said in opening remarks, and he asked the committee to remove the word "residential" from the bill title because the text does not reference residential permits specifically.

Supporters from the building trades said the change would increase transparency. Ken Burgess of Veritas Advisors, speaking for the Idaho Home Builders Association, said members have experienced months‑long delays where a jurisdiction later reports missing materials. "It feels like ... you kind of have to go back and redo the packet and you end up getting stuck back into the bottom of the pile," Burgess said, adding that an early completeness check would help avoid that outcome.

Representatives of cities and municipal officials cautioned the committee that completeness is not the same as approval and that the 10‑day window could be difficult to meet in practice. Lance Sayers of the Association of Idaho Cities said commercial applications can require multiple departmental reviews — fire, public works, building officials and engineering — and argued a single shot‑clock for all permit types "would be unwise." Mike Kirkham, city attorney for Idaho Falls, warned the bill could create stakeholder expectations that a 10‑day notice equates to final approval and leave open the question of legal consequences if plan review later finds missing or incorrect information.

Contractors urged clarity and a simple checklist approach. Sean Shupak of the Idaho Associated General Contractors said his members want an upfront list of required documents and accountability on resubmissions: "All our folks are asking for is a simple list upfront of what's required."

Senators discussed the bill’s purpose as a procedural, nonpunitive step meant to reduce paperwork delays rather than shorten time for formal plan review. Galloway said the bill intentionally lacks an enforcement clause to make it more acceptable to local governments and described the measure as a collaborative first step while a broader legislative study committee examines housing policy.

The committee approved a motion to send the measure to the fourteenth order for possible amendment. The motion was made by Senator Lenny and seconded by Senator Lakey; the committee recorded a voice vote and the motion carried.