The Jackson Town Council on Monday unanimously approved a proposal to increase the payments developers must make when they do not meet their full housing-mitigation requirement.

Developers pay the fee when a project has a housing-mitigation requirement that is less than one person. In such a case, instead of rounding up and forcing a developer to build more housing than is required or simply forgetting about the fractional difference, the town exacts a fee, which goes to the Teton County Housing Authority to build affordable homes.

The current fee is $42.16 per square foot of employee housing. According to town regulations, the fee was supposed to be updated every two years, but the council has not revisited the rates since they were first adopted in 1994.

The council’s resolution could set the new fee at $112.50 per square foot. It is based on a recommendation from the housing authority and is supported by the housing authority’s 2007 Housing Needs Assessment.

Teton County Housing Authority Executive Director Christine Walker calculated the cost using the same methodology used in 1994, which took the cost of land and construction and subtracted the amount a person working in the valley could afford to pay for the home.

Jackson planner Jeff Noffsinger said he hoped one result of the increase would be that developers would be more likely to build their full housing requirement on site. Noffsinger said in some instances developers build less than what is required because the fee in lieu is lower than actual construction costs.

The council endorsed a similar resolution at a meeting in early August. The latest motion instructs staff to prepare a formal resolution to amend the fees.

Though the councilors could have formally approved the resolution at their first meeting in August, they decided to follow the same process as for ordinance changes, which require discussion and a vote at three meetings before becoming law.

Councilors said they realized the current fee was outdated but they hoped to get more information before the new regulation is put in place.

“I see the point of this but I have lots and lots and lots of questions that we don’t seem to be getting to when we are revisiting the themes and policies of the comp plan,” Councilor Mark Obringer said. “I am really struggling moving the top up on what I consider gap housing, and that is what I am seeing.”