A City Council committee gave preliminary approval Thursday to one bill that’s considered a key component of Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s affordable housing strategy, but held off taking a vote on a companion measure.

Bill 59 (2017), which provides incentives to developers and property owners for setting aside units for those in lower income categories, was given a preliminary approval by the City Council Zoning and Housing Committee.

The committee also made key language changes but did not take a vote on Bill 58 (2017), a measure requiring developers to build and market a greater percentage of their affordable housing units to those in the lowest income brackets.

Bill 59 is expected to go for a final vote of the full Council on Jan. 31. Bill 58 might join it but “needs more work,” Zoning and Housing Chairwoman Kymberly Pine said.

Caldwell’s affordable plan is a controversial one. Most developers have decried it for being too onerous and argue that the additional requirement will make it even more difficult for their projects to be feasible or obtain financing. Affordable housing advocates, however, support the attempt to make available more housing for those families earning the least.

Caldwell urged committee members to move both bills out immediately, describing them as “probably the most significant legislation you’re going to be moving in years and years and years.” To move out Bill 59, the incentives measure, without also passing Bill 58, the stricter requirements proposal, would net fewer affordable units, he said.

There was consensus among all stakeholders on Bill 59, which gives different financial incentives for those who develop affordable sales and rental units.

Specifically, the bill calls for giving property tax exemptions for affordable rental dwellings for as long as they stay affordable; capping the property’s assessment for tax purposes during an affordable project’s construction period; waiving building and other permit fees for affordable units; and waiving park dedication requirements for affordable rental units.

Most of the discussion at Thursday’s meeting involved Bill 58.

Pine’s draft, which was adopted by the committee but not advanced to the full Council, offers the developer a menu of options to meet affordable housing requirements.

A developer who provides affordable rentals would need to place 15 percent of units into the affordable category if the project is within a transit zone, 5 percent if outside a transit zone. They could be built either on- or off-site, must be marketed to those making 80 percent or less of area median income, and must be affordable for a minimum of 30 years.

A developer of a project in a transit zone choosing to provide affordable sales units on-site would need to set aside 20 percent for those making up to 120 percent of area median income, 25 percent of units if building on-site for those making up to 140 percent. A developer of a transit-zone project choosing to build affordable units off-site would need to set aside 30 percent for those making up to 120 percent AMI.

A developer of a project outside transit zones choosing to provide affordable sales units on-site would need to set aside 10 percent of units for those making up to 120 percent of area median income, 15 percent of units if building on-site for those making up to 140 percent. A developer of a project outside transit zones choosing to build affordable units off-site would need to set aside 15 percent for those making up to 120 percent AMI.

Caldwell said he opposes the idea of allowing affordable units to be marketed to those making more than 120 percent AMI. Pine told Caldwell, “I’m not wedded to it.”

Additionally, Pine’s latest draft allows a developer or property owner to pay a per-unit cash fee or give the city undeveloped land in lieu of providing the actual housing. The proposal tentatively calls for $45 per square foot. Councilman Ikaika Anderson said he opposes any in-lieu fee option, and instead wants the city subsidies, waivers and other incentives from Bill 59 to be given only as a condition of providing the affordable units.

Pine’s latest draft allows for the developer or property owner to have four marketing periods, each of 120 days, allowing units that have not been sold or rented to then be made available to an increasingly higher income bracket but at the same prices. The fourth period, which would start on the 361st day, would allow for affordable units to be available to those making up to 140 percent AMI. Developers said it’s sometimes hard to sell affordable homes.

Additionally, Pine’s draft makes a key change to the original bill which called for all affordable units to stay affordable for a minimum of 30 years. Pine’s draft says if unsold after the first 120 days on the market, the units would carry an affordability period of only 10 years. Developers and bankers say it’s hard to market, and gain financing for, a unit that is required to be affordable for 30 years.