Council approves sketch plan for 80,000‑square‑foot Teton County justice center at 180 South King Street

Jackson Town Council unanimously approved a sketch plan July 28 for an approximately 80,000‑square‑foot Teton County justice center at 180 South King Street, moving the project to the development‑plan stage subject to conditions in the staff report and prior Design Review Committee (DRC) and planning‑commission comments.

The council voted on a motion by Councilwoman Beeman, seconded by Councilwoman Schechter; members present voiced “aye” and the motion passed unanimously. Council members said they supported the project’s civic function but expected further refinements before development‑plan approval.

The county and its consultant team described the schedule and rationale for the project during the special meeting. Jason Berney of Berney Project Management, identified as the county’s project manager partner, said design development is underway with an updated estimate anticipated in October, construction drawings targeted for December and a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract planned to start construction in mid‑February, pending approvals. Berney said demolition, shoring and early site work would follow and that earlier starts reduce winter‑weather impacts and construction cost risks.

Architects and county representatives told the council the building’s program — including courtrooms, secure parking and sheriff’s office functions — drives its size. Stefan (from Anderson McSindale) said the county completed a master‑planning study that considered spreading justice functions across the block but concluded a compact footprint on county‑owned land would preserve flexibility for future growth. A CLP Architects representative described the design intent as “a tale of two porches,” with a prominent porch gesture on King Street and a recessed third‑level “porch” that provides shading and maintains interior daylight while remaining a secured, nonpublic space.

Council members pressed the team on bulk, scale, materials and site logistics. Councilman Schechter said the building appears larger in elevation than in the illustrations and asked the team to compare it to existing local buildings; staff replied the building ranges about 45–52 feet at street level in places and rises to about 65 feet where the courtroom volume is located. The project team compared total square footage to the Ranch Inn and other local developments and said some town buildings approach similar square footage though with different footprints and street contexts.

Design questions included the large roof “hat” and an upper overhang that is not publicly accessible. The design team and DRC argued the overhang contributes to local architectural vernacular, provides shading for a glassy elevation and was supported in DRC and planning‑commission review; the team said they will continue to refine materials and articulation, especially on Simpson Avenue and the northeast elevation, as required by DRC conditions.

Council members and the team discussed alternatives the design team evaluated, including lowering more of the building below grade. The design team said deeper excavation was limited by secure parking and ramp geometry, cost, groundwater considerations and the need to provide daylight to offices for sheriff and emergency responders, which led them not to push more program underground.

Several council members raised stormwater and grading concerns raised by neighboring property owners whose parking lot floods each spring. The applicant said discussions with the adjacent property owner have occurred and that the project will include interventions to avoid directing water onto neighboring parcels; details will be refined during development plan review.

Construction logistics and parking during construction were also discussed. The team said they plan to keep the existing extension center operational during most construction, expect about four to six months of structural site work related to parking and will work with neighbors to provide temporary parking offsite and manage alley closures for safety. The applicant said development‑plan submittal will include a more detailed construction‑management plan, commitments from neighbors for temporary parking and refinement of alley access.

Council members reiterated that civic buildings are typically large and that the public process exists to improve projects. Several asked the county to continue outreach as construction will be disruptive and the project timeline proceeds. Councilwoman Beeman suggested the county consider a project website to centralize updates, schedule, construction impacts and contact information for neighbors; the county team said they would consider the suggestion.

The motion approving sketch plan P25‑019 was made by Councilwoman Beeman and seconded; the motion cited findings and conditions in the staff report dated 07/28/2025. The staff report and DRC conditions were incorporated as conditions of approval. No amendments to the motion were recorded in the transcript.

The council directed that the design team return with development‑plan materials addressing DRC condition 1 (Simpson elevation articulation), material detailing for the northeast elevation, stormwater/grading mitigation for the adjacent flooding parcel and a clarified construction‑management plan including temporary parking commitments.

The vote record in the transcript is a unanimous voice vote of the council present; the motion passed.

The council and project team noted the schedule assumptions are contingent on approvals in the coming weeks and that delays could affect estimated construction timing and costs. The project remains subject to development plan review, final permitting and building permits before construction begins.