Council hears staff plan to rework zoning incentives into a menu to spur affordable, sustainable housing

Boise City staff told the City Council that most of the incentives in the city's modern zoning code are not financially feasible and proposed a menu-style approach that would give developers flexible options to earn zoning benefits in exchange for sustainability or affordability commitments.

Kyle Patterson, director of the Department of Organizational Effectiveness, briefed the council on a financial feasibility analysis used to test current incentives and new options. He said the city surveyed and interviewed code users ("about 70 surveys to date and 16 interviews") and hired two outside consultants to run pro formas and compare incentive value to the cost of requirements. "In almost all cases, these incentives are not financially feasible to get used," Patterson told the council, while noting one narrow exception: a parking-reduction incentive paired with sustainability requirements on podium-style apartments showed positive value in the consultants' models.

The finding that incentives often do not "pencil" led staff to recommend three broad changes: raise the value and simplify the structure of incentives, reduce the variety so the system is easier to market, and offer a menu of stackable options so developers can select the mix that fits a specific project. Key proposals discussed included standardizing the affordability target to 80% of area median income (AMI) for zoning-level incentives, reducing required affordable-unit shares from the current 25'to'50% range down to roughly 10'to'5% to improve feasibility, and extending the required affordability period from 20 years to 50 years for units provided through the zoning incentives. Patterson said extending the affordability term "doesn't really impact developers' financial calculus" in the models and therefore would provide longer community benefit at little added developer cost.

Staff emphasized the menu idea would assign points for community benefits (for example, sustainability or an affordability commitment) and let projects spend points on different zoning relaxations such as modest height increases, additional units, minor land divisions or parking reductions. The consultants reported that, except for the prohibited option of city property-tax exemptions, no single incentive is likely to be sufficient on its own; incentives will need to be stackable and calibrated by project type.

Council members pressed staff for more data and clarity. Several asked to expand developer interviews and to publish the underlying survey and interview results; Patterson said staff would continue interviews through the summer and aim for at least 30 in-depth interviews before wider public reporting. Council members also raised specific concerns: whether a 50% parking reduction is too large in many neighborhoods; whether smaller lot-size bonuses might make some affordable outcomes achievable without incentives; and whether incentives for universal design (accessible housing) should be included on the menu. Diana Dupuis of Planning and Development Services described the city's planned process: staff will pursue a focused code change this summer to implement a menu approach, conduct broader public engagement this fall, and fold results into the formal ordinance adoption process.

The council did not take a final ordinance vote on the item at the meeting but generally signaled support for the direction of a menu-based approach and asked staff for additional public outreach, more detailed survey/interview results, and clearer point-level calibrations before bringing ordinance language back for formal readings.

What this means now: staff will draft code-change language over the summer, expand developer outreach and publish a public dashboard this summer and revised performance indicators in FY26. The proposal is limited to zoning changes that carry no direct city subsidy (height, parking, lot-size and similar regulatory relief); deeper affordability at 60% AMI or lower would remain the focus of separate financial subsidy programs such as the housing land trust or gap financing programs.