Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sandpoint council workshop weighs three paths to worker housing, favors voluntary density bonuses
Summary
City staff outlined three legal pathways to expand workforce housing—by-right land-use reform, voluntary deed-restriction density bonuses, and funded incentives. Council members favored a voluntary density-bonus approach with targeted incentives and asked staff to return with refined proposals and administrative needs.
City staff presented three legal pathways for advancing Sandpoint's workforce-housing goals at a June strategic-planning workshop, and council members signaled a preference for a voluntary density-bonus program rather than a broad by-right overhaul.
Jason, the consultant/staff presenter, began by defining terms commonly used in local housing policy, distinguishing "workforce" (roughly 80'120% AMI in Sandpoint), "affordable," "attainable," and deed-restricted housing. He told the council the comp-plan prioritizes housing variety, incentives for smaller units, and downtown housing: "We want to remove barriers to those deed-restrict housing types," he said.
He outlined three options. Option 1 would legalize smaller lots and allow accessory dwelling units, duplexes and cottage developments more broadly. Jason warned there is no guarantee new units would serve local workers and that short-term rentals or second-home purchases could capture new supply.
Option 2 would offer voluntary density bonuses and other relaxations in exchange for deed restrictions on a share of units. "You could set it to minimum 30 years, minimum 50 years," Jason said, citing recent programs in Driggs and other Idaho towns. He noted the model requires administrative oversight, monitoring and partnerships with a housing trust or land bank.
Option 3 would create a funded incentive program—direct cash subsidies, reduced fees or in-lieu payments—to encourage owners or developers to deed-restrict units. Jason presented examples in McCall and Ketchum where a mix of incentives, land trusts and in-lieu fees funded a small number of deed-restricted homes.
Council members used a live survey exercise to rank preferences and later discussed trade-offs. Several members expressed concern that unrestricted by-right reform would increase short-term rentals and purchases by nonresidents. One councilor warned it could "exacerbate" housing pressure by creating units attractive to second homeowners. Another urged council to think about targeted measures such as reserving a small number of units for city employees.
After reviewing the interactive survey and daylighting concerns about administration and funding, staff concluded "as a group, you're leaning more heavily toward a voluntary deed-restriction density program with a little bit of a funded incentive" and recommended next steps: refine potential program design, identify administrative responsibilities, and scope budget implications.
The council did not adopt any ordinance at the workshop. Staff will return with follow-up materials that detail program administration, expected production capacity, monitoring requirements and possible funding sources.
