House Business Committee holds bill limiting paid rental applications after hours of testimony

The House Business Committee on March 5, 2025, held Senate Bill 10-42 after extended testimony from tenants, property managers, landlord associations and service providers. The substitute motion to hold the measure passed 13–3, leaving the bill in committee for further work.

The bill, presented for the record by Representative Clay Handy (District 27) as a Senate-sponsored measure, would limit how many rental applications a property owner or manager may charge and begin screening at one time; the language in the current draft allows landlords to accept unlimited applications but restricts charging and screening to two paid applications at a time. The bill includes a carve-out for third-party screening platforms (for example, Zillow) when the applicant pays the third party directly.

Supporters told the committee SB 10-42 targets what they called abusive practices by some landlords and managers who collect multiple nonrefundable application fees for a single vacancy. Witnesses cited examples of application fees ranging from common amounts of $50–$100 to claims of fees as high as $427 and one testimony that a household paid $1,800 in nonrefundable fees for an apartment they were later denied. Tenants and advocates said those costs contribute to housing instability in an already tight market.

"Markets are not consistent and, when a market gets out of balance, then there's one side or the other that has an advantage," Representative Clay Handy said in his presentation of the bill. Handy and other supporters argued the bill would reduce the financial burden on renters who apply to many units and are charged multiple fees before finding housing.

Advocates who testified in favor included Samuel Pinson of Boise Tenants United; Evan Stewart and Kristen Donovan of Jesse Tree (a housing-stability nonprofit); Denise Carusi of the Boise/Ada County Homeless Coalition; Kendra Knighton of the Idaho Asset Building Network; and several individual renters who described paying large sums in application fees and receiving no refund.

Property managers, landlord trade groups and some managers opposed or urged amendment. Dan Schonberg, a co-owner of a property management company, told the committee he opposed the bill as written and raised concerns about the bill's advertising, disclosure and fair-housing implications. Lynn Bradescue, a property manager, said she feared the bill would impose delays and additional costs on small landlords. The National Association of Residential Property Managers (NARPM) Southwest Idaho Chapter and the Institute of Real Estate Management Idaho Chapter both provided testimony supporting the bill as drafted; Spencer Henderson, representing those groups, said many members already follow the bill's practices and welcomed clearer guidance.

Opponents focused on practical and legal concerns: the bill's advertising requirement and a 60-day availability threshold were identified as confusing or burdensome for managers who post future vacancies; the bill's requirement to disclose screening criteria raised concerns about how to balance transparency and fair-housing compliance; and some raised the point that the bill does not set per-application dollar caps or require refunds in all circumstances. Dan Schonberg suggested narrower fixes: require disclosure of screening criteria (in a concise form), allow reuseable third-party screening reports and clarify the standard for when a unit is reasonably available.

Committee debate at the end of the hearing centered on whether the bill needed additional work. Representative Green moved to send the bill to general orders to allow amendment; Representative Ehlers offered and won a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee. The roll-call substitute motion carried 13–3.

The committee did not adopt final statutory text or adoption of new limits; rather, the hold preserves the current language for further amendment and indicates committee members expect additional negotiation on advertising, disclosure and fair-housing language. Sponsors said they were open to friendly amendments and negotiations.

The hearing record includes detailed testimony describing tenants paying numerous nonrefundable application fees and managers describing operational concerns. Committee members repeatedly asked about the bill's interaction with third-party screening services; sponsors pointed to explicit wording in the draft that exempts property owners or managers who do not charge or receive rental application fees (a carve-out intended to cover third-party platforms).