Sandpoint P&Z delays recommendation on short-term rental ordinance changes

By Zach Hagadone
Reader Staff

The Sandpoint Planning and Zoning Commission deferred a recommendation to the City Council on proposed changes to an ordinance regulating short-term rentals, voting at its Nov. 18 regular meeting to reconsider the matter on Tuesday, Dec. 16.

Commissioners Ivan Rimar and Reid Weber joined Commission Vice Chair Wayne Benner — who presided over the meeting — in directing city staff to further investigate parking and occupancy standards for short-term rentals, as well as work on a definition of “neighborhood integrity” ahead of the Dec. 16 regular meeting, which will also offer another opportunity for public input.

Commissioner William Mitchell dissented.

“I’m hoping two weeks or a month aren’t going to make a difference,” said Rimar, who made the motion, suggesting that with additional time for consideration and more citizen engagement, “we could maybe tighten this up a little bit.”

If approved by the council as written, the ordinance would amend City Code to remove the current cap on 35 non-owner occupied short-term rentals in residential zones; create distinctions between “standard” and “high-occupancy” STRs, with 12 or fewer or 12 or more guests, respectively; require a conditional use permit for “high-occupancy” STRs; require that STR operators have a local representative within 20 miles of Sandpoint; and require that two spaces of off-street parking be provided per STR unit, plus one per bedroom over two and with a maximum of four.

Other elements of the proposed amended ordinance include annual permit renewals that are non-transferable, though with “limited exceptions”; retaining safety and inspection posting; tying the fine for operating without a permit to the city’s fee schedule; and clarifying provisions for revoking permits, appealing revocation and illegal advertising.

The number of owner-occupied STRs would remain unlimited citywide, of which there are an estimated 170 licensed with the city out of about 200 of all types.

Rather than “deregulation,” Planning and Community Development Director Jason Welker said the proposed amendments bring Sandpoint’s ordinance into alignment with Idaho Code while actually strengthening protections for neighborhoods.

“We believe this is the strongest [STR ordinance] in the state of Idaho because we’ve taken the strongest components of different cities and implemented them into ours,” Welker said.

“This is a state law issue,” he later said, referring to an unsuccessful push last year in the Legislature to further limit cities’ ability to regulate STRs, and indications that a similar bill or bills would resurface in the Statehouse during the 2026 session.

“[T]his is coming back this year full steam ahead. The Airbnb-funded group [Idaho Vacation Rental Alliance] has put more than $1 million toward lobbying in Boise to try to shrink local authority even further.” 

Changing the city’s STR ordinance has been discussed for several months, gaining urgency after the meeting of a state-level housing committee in Sandpoint in August. 

In a presentation at that time, Coeur d’Alene Vacation Rental Alliance representative Melissa Radford said, “Vacation rentals are an easy scapegoat for difficulties that face a community during rapid growth,” and “overregulation” around the state was, “Trampling on the private property rights of short-term rental owners.”

She cited a handful of court cases brought against Idaho cities for STR regulations that plaintiffs considered overreaching, including in Lava Hot Springs and McCall — the former where the Idaho Supreme Court ruled some regulations such as a cap were unlawful, and the latter where STR regulations were upheld.

“In 2026, we need to pass new legislation … that replaces these sections with clear preemptive protections,” she said, later adding, “These lawsuits aren’t isolated. They signal a statewide crisis.”

Worries over a potential lawsuit against Sandpoint over its STR regulations featured in the Nov. 13 meeting of the City Council, when Mayor Jeremy Grimm said changes to the ordinance would not be considered “out of a desire,” rather, “out of a practicality of litigation and cost.”

At the Nov. 18 meeting of the P&Z, Welker reiterated, “This was not something that staff was excited and enthusiastic about,” but added, “our current STR ordinance is not legally defensible.”

Specifically, the legal question centers on Sandpoint’s cap of 35 non-owner occupied STRs within residential zones.

According to the city’s staff report, the Fourth District Court “largely upheld McCall’s STR ordinance as a reasonable exercise of local police power under [Idaho Code 67-6539] — emphasizing that municipalities retain authority to impose objective, health, safety and welfare-based regulations so long as they do not amount to a functional ban.”

I.C. 67-6539 was added in 2017 and amended in 2018, stating in part, “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.”

Sandpoint’s first STR regulations date to 2018, with some small changes in 2020. The court decisions in Lava Hot Springs and McCall were handed down this year.

Some members of the public who testified before P&Z on Nov. 18 questioned why the city wouldn’t opt instead to let its ordinance stand as it is and address changes if, or when, a challenge comes — or wait to see the outcome of the 2026 Legislature before making any amendments.

“It appears that we are not in violation of the law by restricting the number of vacation rentals that we have,” said resident Tari Pardini, drawing a distinction between “prohibition” and “restriction.”

“Many of the new amendments are great and they should have been there all along, and I think they will protect the integrity of the neighborhoods,” she said, though added that by removing the cap, “you are just really opening up the city perhaps for other lawsuits.”

Rimar also questioned whether the city was being too hasty with its proposed changes.

While he said that “litigation is not good for anybody,” he preferred that the city take “as aggressive a posture as we can.”

“Are we that terrified of litigation that we’re not willing to walk a little bit into the gray on that?” Rimar said.

The amended ordinance is expected to return to P&Z at its Tuesday, Dec. 16 meeting, which will take place at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall (1123 Lake St.). Watch a recording of the full Nov. 18 meeting on the city of Sandpoint’s YouTube channel.