Faced with the choice between funding affordable housing for the community at large or housing for its own employees, the Town Council chose to do neither. Instead, it came up with a more flexible solution.

The Jackson/Teton County Affordable Housing Department is requesting $1 million to create affordable housing units. But with law enforcement officers and other essential staff already struggling to live in Teton County, some elected officials preferred to give preference to those town employees.

“I think it’s incumbent on us,” Councilor Jim Stanford said, “to follow through on something we said was a priority, and that I think is really going to be a significant investment that will pay dividends for the Town of Jackson for years to come.”

He argued that with about $5.7 million in the affordable housing fund, and with housing projects already underway at King Street, Mercill Avenue and West Kelly Street, the endeavor to provide cheap dwellings for the average citizen is looking healthy. With that in mind, he said, the town should divert more money to retaining its critical employees.

Stanford suggested placing the money directly into the town’s employee housing fund, which holds about $1.1 million as of now, where it could go toward the first steps of building high-density ownership units on Flat Creek Drive. Even then, if the Affordable Housing Department were to propose a “really compelling opportunity,” the money could be transferred from one fund to the other, he said.

But some councilors worried that it would be difficult to move the money around quickly, potentially jeopardizing urgent affordable housing opportunities. So the council may skirt both the affordable and employee housing funds and stow the $1 million in the capital budget — essentially reserving it to be divvied up later on, as it becomes clear which housing projects appear most promising.

As officials work toward the goal of housing 65% of the town and county’s workforce, everything counts, said Housing Director April Norton. She said she doesn’t differentiate much between public servants and the general populace.

“At the end of the day, housing for town employees is housing for the community,” she said.

The council will finalize its budget for fiscal year 2020 at a 9 a.m. meeting Monday at Town Hall, then approve it at a 6 p.m. meeting later that evening.

Contact Cody Cottier at 732-5911 or town@jhnewsandguide.com.

Cody Cottier covers town and state government. He grew up with a view of the Olympic Mountains, and after graduating Washington State University he traded it for a view of the Tetons. Odds are the mountains are where you’ll find him when not on deadline.

(3) comments

Judd Grossman

Employers should provide housing for their employees. The town should provide housing for their own employees. The taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize private businesses by providing housing for their employees.

Tim Rieser

I’m sorry Judd, but your position doesn’t make any sense. Why should taxpayers provide subsidies for government employees and not private employers? Why should taxpayers subsidize government (public sector employees) and not private? There’s no decernable logic in that. That said, I think taxpayers should subsidize both. I actually disagree with government giving itself preference on housing subsidies. Government should suffer the same difficulties the private sector does in this and not use taxpayer money to put itself in the front of the line.

Judd Grossman

We are all stakeholders in government. We have no choice about that, but we do get to vote for the people who determine how the money is spent. All taxpayers have an interest in government providing its services at the best possible value. If our representatives determine that the best compensation package for government workers is a mixture of pay and subsidized housing I can see how that strategy could be in our interest as taxpayers. I am not a stake holder in a private business unless I am part owner or a customer. Both of those are voluntary relationships. I can support a business by purchasing it's product or service if I think it's a good value. I should not be forced to subsidize that business by having my involuntarily paid tax dollars pay for part of that businesses employee compensation package Businesses should pay the full cost of their employee compensation packages and not rely on the taxpayers to subsidize the housing portion. In an overheated economy where commercial growth is, in my opinion, a net negative why would I want our tax dollars used to subsidize more commercial activity?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.
No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view.
No political attacks. Refrain from using negative slang when identifying political parties.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts or history behind an article.
Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not allowed.
If you share a web address, please provide context as to why you posted the link.