Council upholds Ada County jail expansion but trims EV‑parking requirement to four spaces

Boise City Council on April 25 denied an appeal by Ada County and upheld a Planning & Zoning Commission approval of a conditional use permit for an expansion of the Ada County Jail — but amended the permit’s condition on electric‑vehicle parking, ordering four EV‑capable spaces.

The dispute centered on how many EV‑capable parking spaces the city may require. Planning staff had recommended 31 EV‑capable spaces based on the expansion’s gross floor area and the city’s code formula; the county argued the requirement should be based on the number of newly installed parking stalls and sought either to remove the condition or reduce it. The applicant proposed several figures during the process — including a plan showing conduit for eight stalls and a later offer of four fully installed charging stalls — while staff and the commission relied on the code’s square‑footage calculation.

David Mosher, a city planner, told the council that the city’s development code requires square‑footage–based computation for parking and that “the total number of parking spaces being required for the individual project based on its size and use” is the basis for determining EV requirements. He said the commission’s 31‑space figure came from applying the code to the expansion’s floor area.

Ada County’s counsel, Amon Taylor, argued that the legislative landscape had shifted during the project and that House Bill 86 (signed earlier in 2025) limits local governments from imposing new EV infrastructure requirements in building plans. Taylor told council the county was concerned that leaving the 31‑space condition in place could create a conflict with state law during subsequent design‑review and permitting steps.

Council members questioned the county and staff about the evolution of the numbers. The record shows the applicant at one point proposed 21 EV‑capable spaces in negotiations with staff, later offered four fully installed chargers at the hearing, and had submitted design plans that showed conduit for eight stalls. City staff told council they had earlier recommended 33, then 31, after reviewing the proposed scope and the applicable code provisions.

An electrical engineering estimate provided in the hearing put rough retrofit costs for EV‑capable conduit in the range of $15,000–$20,000 per stall; adding a functioning charger was estimated at about $6,000 per stall in the staff discussion. Council members cited those costs in debating what was reasonable for this particular public safety project.

After deliberation, the council denied the county’s appeal of the commission decision but, citing ambiguity in how the code applied to this expansion and to resolve the matter, attached a condition requiring four EV‑capable spaces. The council asked staff to draft a reason statement explaining the decision and directed the county and city to continue coordination through the design‑review and permitting process.

The council vote on the motion to deny the appeal was recorded as four in favor, one opposed; the motion carried.