Jackson council continues decision on $4.05 million Nelson Drive housing option after lengthy public hearing

The Town of Jackson council on Dec. 1 stopped short of committing $4,050,000 to secure six rental rights at the Nelson Drive workforce-housing project, instead voting to continue the matter to Dec. 15 after a lengthy public hearing and council deliberation.

Staff presented the request as a targeted use of a voter-approved 2022 special-purpose excise tax specifically earmarked for Town of Jackson employee rental housing. Staff said the fund totals $10,000,000 in ballot authorization but that only about $545,000 has been collected so far and that collections are expected to be complete by about 2031. The proposal before council would use $4,050,000 of that fund to secure six three-year rental options (rights to lease) at a 36-unit development on federal land under a 30-year Bridger Teton National Forest special use permit. Town staff said the permit structure and partner financing make the proposal legally and practically distinct from typical local zoning or land purchases.

Anne Creswell, executive director of the Jackson Hole Community Housing Trust, said the Housing Trust has a financing commitment and a nearly finalized construction price and asked the town to act so modular factory procurement could proceed in January and site work begin in spring. Creswell said the town'facing cost per option is $675,000 and argued the arrangement delivers significant leverage: free access to 3.15 acres under a 30-year permit, a $2.3 million U.S. Department of Agriculture grant, philanthropic contributions and below-market developer margin that together substantially reduce per-unit cost to the town.

Public comments split between supporters—who argued the project will help retain essential forest and park staff and provide shovel-ready rental housing—and opponents—who urged caution. Opponents raised several recurring concerns: that siting private-sector occupants on public lands creates an undesirable precedent unless the lottery is restricted to public employees; that the development's density and vehicle counts could worsen traffic and wildlife impacts on Nelson Drive; and that the per-unit subsidy appears high compared with other options (several commenters and councilors cited different per-unit subsidy calculations). Multiple speakers asked the council to compare the Nelson Drive proposal with the separate Virginia Lane project before spending a large portion of the $10 million fund.

Councilors debated timing and prudence. Some members said the project is a rare opportunity that could be lost if the town delays; others said they wanted additional financial detail, clearer cash-flow scenarios (including whether the town would temporarily draw from other accounts and be reimbursed by excise-tax receipts), and review from the housing supply board scheduled in the next two weeks. The council also discussed potential conditions—such as securing perpetual protections or options if the federal permit is not renewed.

A continuance motion was made by Dr. Beeman and seconded by Dr. Sechter; the motion passed by voice vote with the mayor recorded in opposition. The council directed staff to return with additional financial details and to consider input from the housing supply board before the Dec. 15 meeting.

What happens next: the item is continued to the council's Dec. 15 meeting for further consideration; staff will provide follow-up material on timing of payments, potential internal loans and reimbursement schedules, and any additional clarifications requested by council. The housing supply board will review the proposal in the coming weeks and may provide recommendations to the council before the Dec. 15 hearing.