AN ACT relating to short-term rentals.
SB 54 would create a new section of Kentucky law governing short-term rentals, defined broadly to include dwelling units rented for fewer than 30 days at a time, such as single-family homes, condominium units, timeshares, and accessory dwelling units. The bill requires all short-term rentals to comply with existing state and local zoning, building code, and fire safety requirements.
The measure also expressly authorizes local governments to regulate short-term rentals through ordinances. Those ordinances could establish registries, impose licensing or inspection fees, restrict where short-term rentals may operate, limit the number of rentals in a jurisdiction or in a specific area, prohibit rentals at properties with ordinance violations or criminal activity during prior short-term rental use, and require owner occupancy during rental periods. In effect, the bill confirms and expands local regulatory authority over the short-term rental market.
SB 54 would add a new statutory framework in KRS Chapter 65 that clarifies local governments’ authority to regulate short-term rentals and sets baseline compliance requirements for property owners and operators. It would affect cities, counties, and other local governments by expressly allowing them to adopt ordinances on registration, fees, zoning, density limits, occupancy rules, and enforcement-related restrictions. Short-term rental owners, hosts, and platform users would be the primary regulated parties, while existing zoning, building, and fire code enforcement would remain applicable.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from discussion. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to take a regulatory approach that may be viewed favorably by local governments seeking more control over short-term rentals, while potentially drawing concern from property owners and hosts who may face new local restrictions, fees, and occupancy requirements.
The main points of contention likely involve the scope of local control versus property-owner flexibility. Local governments would gain explicit authority to limit the number and location of short-term rentals, require owner occupancy, and impose fees or inspections, which could be supported by communities concerned about neighborhood impacts, safety, and enforcement. Opponents may object that these powers could reduce housing-use flexibility, increase compliance costs, and allow uneven regulation across jurisdictions. No specific contested amendments or speakers are available in the provided record.