Idaho senators send rental application-fee limit bill to amending order after hours of testimony

Boise — The Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee voted to send Senate Bill 10-42 to the fourteenth order for possible amendment after extended testimony about what proponents called predatory application-fee practices and opponents warned would be unnecessary regulation.

Sen. Ali Rabie, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the proposal would “require that landlords can only charge application fees for rentals to two households at a time,” while carving out exceptions for listings that use third-party platforms or operate waiting lists.

“Most landlords are good and we’re here to try to rein in some of the bad actors,” Rabie said. He described the bill as “a step in the right direction” to reduce the time families spend and money they lose while seeking permanent housing.

The bill drew sustained testimony both for and against. Evan Stewart, program director at Jesse Tree, an eviction-prevention nonprofit, said his agency receives thousands of calls and emails from people struggling with rent and that nonrefundable application fees on top of deposits and first month’s rent are pushing some residents into homelessness. “This bill would help ease the financial strain for many families in Idaho searching for housing,” Stewart said.

Tenants and tenant advocates described stories of people paying hundreds — in one account, more than $1,000 — in application fees with no response or with immediate denials. Sayre Peterson of Boise Tenants United said he paid roughly $200 in fees while searching for housing and was repeatedly denied; he told senators such practices “take advantage of vulnerable Idahoans.”

Property managers and industry groups also testified. Tyler Walters, executive director of the Idaho Apartment Association, and Spencer Henderson, legislative chair for the National Association of Residential Property Managers’ Southwest Idaho chapter, said most of their members already follow first-come, first-served screening practices and supported the bill’s intent to curb bad actors. “This is standard operating procedure for the majority of our members,” Walters said.

Opponents included several property managers who said the bill would impose administrative burdens, especially in college towns where landlords must accept applications well in advance of occupancy. Dan Schoenberg, a property manager from Latah County, said the bill’s 60-day advertising rule as drafted could harm owners who plan months ahead for student tenants. “We need to be able to list properties well in advance of a vacancy,” Schoenberg said.

Committee debate produced a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee, which was defeated on a roll call (yes: 3; no: 7). The committee then approved a motion to send the bill to the fourteenth order for possible amendment; senators said they expect clarifying amendments in amending order to address concerns such as the 60-day provision and how “reasonable” fees are defined.

Sponsor Rabie said he has discussed an amendment to treat future-availability advertising as disclosure rather than a strict limitation; he also said the bill does not override federal law and that the exemption for landlords who do not charge application fees is intended to avoid burdening small mom-and-pop owners.

The committee’s action does not adopt the bill; advancing to the fourteenth order keeps it eligible for amendment before the Senate floor. Supporters urged senators to remain focused on consumer protection, while opponents urged caution about adding state rules for private contracts.

Votes at a glance: a substitute motion to hold SB 10-42 in committee failed on roll call (3 in favor; 7 opposed). The committee approved sending SB 10-42 to the fourteenth order for possible amendment by voice vote; no roll-call tally was provided for that final motion.

The bill’s future depends on any amendments drafted in the fourteenth order and on whether the full Senate schedules it for debate.