Kentucky filed two short-term rental bills pointing in opposite directions — neither got a committee
Kentucky filed two short-term rental bills pointing in opposite directions — neither got a committee
2026-09-10 · Kentucky · Legislation · Did not pass
What happened. Kentucky's 2026 Regular Session opened with two Senate bills on short-term rentals that could not have been further apart. Neither was ever referred to a standing committee. Both died where they were filed.
Senate Bill 54, filed 9 January 2026 by Senators Reginald Thomas and Gerald Neal, would have confirmed and enumerated local authority to regulate short-term rentals. Senate Bill 112, filed 21 January 2026 by Senator Craig Richardson, would have preempted most of it. Each bill's record shows a single action: introduced, to Committee on Committees.13
SB 54: what local governments could do
SB 54 would have created a new section of KRS Chapter 65 providing that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a local government may enact ordinances regarding short-term rentals that include but are not limited to” — and then listed them: creating a registry; imposing licensing or inspection fees; restricting the locations or zones where short-term rentals may operate; prohibiting use of a property that has been the subject of ordinance violations or criminal activity; restricting the total number in the jurisdiction or marketed by one person; restricting the number within a portion of the jurisdiction or the proximity of one to another; and requiring an owner to occupy the property while it is in short-term use.
Its definition of “short-term rental” expressly reached a “unit in a condominium, cooperative, or timeshare,” and any detached or attached accessory dwelling unit on the same lot as a residence, rented for terms of less than thirty days.
SB 112: what local governments could not do
SB 112 ran the other way through KRS Chapter 100. A local government could not require a conditional use permit; impose density-based restrictions, including spacing between rentals or caps on the percentage of units in a building or district; prohibit operation in a residential zone; regulate the time, duration, frequency or time of year of use; limit how many properties one person or entity operates; impose any residency requirement; restrict short-term rental platforms; or bar a tenant with the landlord's permission from offering a leased property.
It offered a single permitted mechanism in exchange: a one-year permit per property, capped at $150 for an initial permit, with no fee for renewal, a thirty-day decision deadline, and revocation available for up to a year after three or more citations in a calendar year.
And it would have voided contrary local rules outright: “This section shall supersede and render void and unenforceable any local ordinance or regulation to the contrary,” with attorney's fees and costs available against a local government found to have violated it.
The clause that mattered to associations
SB 112 closed with this:
“This section shall not be construed to affect, prohibit, preempt, or render unenforceable any property or use restrictions contained in the properly enacted rules or regulations of a homeowners association, condominium association, or other similar property owner association or cooperative.”
Had SB 112 passed, a Kentucky city would have kept a registration form and a $150 permit, and lost nearly everything else — while the recorded declaration kept every power it has. In a covenanted subdivision the association would have become, in practical terms, the only body able to say no.
That is not a hypothetical about drafting preference. The same sentence appeared in HB 617, in HB 530, and in Section 18(8) of the House Committee Substitute to SB 9 — the omnibus that carried a fuller version of the same preemption and died in conference on the last day of the session on a report marked “Cannot agree.”
What Kentucky law is today, which is the practical answer
Because both bills failed, Kentucky has:
- No statewide short-term rental statute. No definition, no licensing scheme, no state registry.
- No preemption of local regulation. Cities and counties regulate short-term rentals under their general zoning and licensing powers, and Kentucky's larger cities do so quite differently from one another.
- No state limit on an association's authority to restrict rentals. Neither the Kentucky Condominium Act nor the Horizontal Property Law constrains it, and the Planned Community Act does not address rentals.
So the answer to “can our association restrict short-term rentals” remains what it has been: whatever your recorded declaration says, adopted the way your declaration requires.
The harder question the courts just answered
The covenant has to reach the lot. On 21 August 2026 the Court of Appeals held, in the one published Kentucky community-association decision of the year, that a no-commercial-use covenant appearing in 168 of a subdivision's 174 deeds did not burden the lots whose own chain of title omitted it — and the owner's short-term rental listings therefore could not be stopped. The court never reached whether short-term renting was a commercial use.
Two related points from the same period. A pre-emptive declaratory-judgment action against a rental that had not yet started was dismissed as unripe in January 2025. And an association or neighbour who brings a covenant claim in good faith and loses does not thereby expose itself to an abuse-of-process counterclaim.
Practically, for a Kentucky board: confirm the restriction is in the burdened lot's chain, wait until the use is actual and ongoing, and then enforce.
Why the legislature deadlocked
It is worth noticing that the two bills came from the same chamber in the same fortnight, and that SB 54's sponsors included Senator Neal, who also sponsored the session's only bill written specifically about property owner associations. This is not a partisan split so much as a city-versus-state one, and Kentucky's local-government lobby has a standing published position opposing state mandates and preemption that override local decision-making.
The sponsor of the omnibus that carried the preemption said afterwards that housing, including short-term rental regulation, would continue to be discussed through the year, and that “sometimes it takes multiple sessions to pass something.”
What to watch next
The 2027 Regular Session convenes in January for 30 days. Kentucky abolished bill pre-filing in 2022, so there are no 2027 bill requests to read and no successor bill to point at — anyone offering a 2027 Kentucky bill number today is describing something that does not exist.
What a board can do in the meantime is the thing that is within its control regardless of which way Frankfort goes: establish that its rental restriction is recorded in the chain of title of every lot it means to bind, and that it was adopted the way the declaration requires. Both of those questions are answerable now, and both decide cases.
Related Kentucky HOA Topics
- SB 54, Kentucky General Assembly 2026 Regular Session — bill record; single action, to Committee on Committees ↩
- SB 54 (2026) — full text authorising local short-term rental ordinances ↩
- SB 112, Kentucky General Assembly 2026 Regular Session — bill record ↩
- SB 112 (2026) — full text of the preemption, including the association savings clause ↩
- Steele v. SRH, LLC (Ky. App. 21 Aug. 2026) (to be published) — covenant did not burden the short-term rental lots ↩
Stay on top of Kentucky HOA law
Every week: new Kentucky legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.