Springdale council vets partnership with SwitchPoint to develop Parcel S-100-C for workforce rentals

Springdale town leaders discussed but did not approve a formal contract on Sept. 16 to develop Parcel S‑100‑C on Trapper Circle as multifamily rental housing aimed at town workers, after hearing a presentation from SwitchPoint Community Resources and months of background from town staff.

Tom Dancy, town staff contact, summarized the site history and constraints, saying the triangular parcel is about 0.6 acre in the central commercial zone, is accessed by an easement from Trapper Circle and “based on this zoning and the property size, the property can be developed with up to 10 multifamily units.” He told the council the town acquired the lot near the end of 2023 and originally issued a combined RFP that also covered several Redhawk lots; only two responses were received and Mountain Country Home Solutions has focused development on Redhawk.

The discussion centered on whether to pursue a partnership with SwitchPoint to develop S‑100‑C while Mountain Country continues Redhawk work. Jeff Quayle, representing SwitchPoint, described the nonprofit’s development experience and interest in the Trapper Circle parcel: “we were super excited when…we had this opportunity to come and take a look at the piece of property,” and said SwitchPoint believes it can assemble financing options and manage the project if the town specifies the desired tenant selection and operating standards.

Council members and residents raised questions about scale, funding, tenant eligibility and local control. The council emphasized that the town — not the developer — will define occupancy priorities and selection criteria. Councilmember Randy Eitan framed the council’s authority: “we are the ones, as a town, working with SwitchPoint that is gonna draw up a contract for exactly what we want.” Staff and SwitchPoint said that the parties could embed tenant eligibility, hours-worked thresholds, and other requirements in a development agreement rather than by rezoning.

Funding questions surfaced. SwitchPoint cited a Western‑states nonprofit funding source (RCAC) and other potential pots, and staff reminded council of an October funding cycle the presenters had flagged; presenters later said some application checkboxes (site control, geotech, market study, financials) make meeting an immediate deadline difficult. The council and SwitchPoint agreed a market study, soils/geotechnical work and site control documentation will be required before a financing package can be finalized.

Speakers noted technical and site constraints that could limit unit counts: irregular parcel shape, slopes, soils, drainage and access easement. Dancy read from the town’s earlier RFP language: “there are constraints on development, including slopes, soils, drainage that might limit the number of feasible units to construct.” Several participants said 8 units would be acceptable if the site cannot physically accommodate 10.

Residents at the meeting voiced concern that SwitchPoint’s past work included homeless services and supportive housing; SwitchPoint representatives said their portfolio now includes a range of affordable and workforce housing and that the Trapper Circle project would be designed for workforce tenants. Gil Kiefer, a Moanave resident, and Robin Chancy, who spoke during public comment, asked about unit sizes, likely rents and ownership/management. Staff answered that the town’s intent in the RFP was to transfer site control to a housing partner and that SwitchPoint indicated it would likely own and manage the property subject to whatever development agreement is adopted.

Council discussion returned repeatedly to process: several council members and the planning commission chair urged use of the existing resident selection criteria (the Redhawk scoring system) to prioritize town workers and essential-service employees. Tom Keniston, chair of the planning commission, recommended applying that tested selection process to S‑100‑C. Tom Dancy confirmed that any development agreement would require public hearings before the planning commission and the council and would include a design development review.

There was no formal vote to award a contract. Council members conducted a straw poll and the majority expressed support for continuing negotiations with SwitchPoint and engaging the housing committee and planning commission to draft a development agreement that clearly defines tenant eligibility, operating standards, and the town’s rights. Staff said another RFP for only the Trapper Circle parcel is an option but is not legally required; multiple council members said they preferred to pursue a willing local partner with the caveat that the town retain control through contract terms.

Next steps identified by staff and council: obtain a market study and geotechnical report, involve the housing committee and planning commission to finalize resident selection criteria and development requirements, and draft a development agreement to be reviewed in public hearings. The council did approve the evening’s agenda and later adjourned; no contract was signed for Parcel S‑100‑C at the Sept. 16 meeting.