Town Council Candidate Questionnaires
We released a questionnaire to all candidates. We added the bold font to their responses emphasize the most important aspects of their views. Otherwise, their responses are unedited.
We have only included responses from candidates who advanced during the primary election. To see responses from Jesse Rauch please email info@shelterjh.org. Primary candidate Jason Fritts did not submit a questionnaire response.
We have set ambitious housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan, but we do not yet have enough stable funding to achieve these goals. How would you obtain permanent and dedicated revenue for safe, secure and affordable homes for our community members—especially the most vulnerable and lowest-income among us?
Scott Anderson: SPET funding has been an effective money raising strategy. I am concerned that the money has been used to create public private partnerships that have provided some housing, it has led to housing for higher income folks rather than lower income people.
Kevin Regan: First, it is vital to address the general funding challenges at the Town and County levels. The Town has had to tap into reserves in the last two budget cycles. It is going to take a combination of increasing revenue and reducing expenditures to right the Town’s financial ship. Important questions about how to pay for Teton County’s new courthouse directly affect the Town’s financial position. As a Town, we need to work with the County to advance a SPET measure to fund the courthouse without taking on expensive debt. However, we need the County to work with the Town when it comes to the funding split between Town and County. There is great potential for negotiations to relieve budget pressures for both Town and County and help ensure funding for housing initiatives. An advantage of lodging tax or sales tax tools is that visitors would help carry the water. It is important to keep in mind that Jackson doesn’t charge a property tax, unlike most municipalities, and homeowners are already suffering from high property taxes. Second, while local efforts are key, it is important to also consider the state-wide context. One example of a potential state-wide solution was the recent bill proposing a real estate transfer tax. The proposal was for an excise tax on the sale of real property with a tax rate of 0% for sales up to one million dollars, and a rate of 1% for sales exceeding this amount. It also included 21 transfer exemptions to minimize the impact on specific groups and transaction types. Another state-wide concern informing funding involves the Regulatory Reduction Task Force, which is scrutinizing how local regulations play a role in economic development. Rep. Stith has expressed concerns about whether affordable and workforce regulations are “onerous.” It is necessary to be sensitive of the legislative context while threading the needle on seeking housing mitigation; the June field visits in Jackson appear to have been a positive step to increase understanding.
Perri Stern: SPET has been a successful mechanism for raising monies for housing. We have tens of millions of SPET dollars dedicated to housing; the Town and County also own properties. The only way that funding truly affordable housing seems to have worked is with a combination of government funding/ land donation and philanthropy. Still, we need to think creatively and try to create or uncover additional funding sources. Inequity is a huge problem. One possibility could be to explore the implementation of a local sales tax or fees that are specifically targeted at services that are used by wealthy 2nd homeowners, part time residents (people with disposable income). A sales tax or fee that is levied on services like landscaping and maintenance, care-taking services, catering services, etc. and specifically targeted for housing could be an effective way to raise money but not add additional burden to our core community members. We should continue to lobby for a real estate transfer tax that is specifically dedicated to housing. Although this is a contentious issue in our state, I believe our Jackson/Teton County State Representatives are on the right track and I support their efforts. Still, the more the town grows, the more housing we will need and the more funding we will need. There are key (albeit difficult and uncomfortable) questions that need to be asked, discussed and answered as best as possible. What is the number we are working towards, striving for in terms of housing? Is it a constantly moving target? When will we know that we have accomplished our goal? How much housing density can the Town of Jackson really manage? What is our capacity, our limit, our tipping point? We need to have some honest conversations about the realities of our housing shortage and think about long term strategies.
Devon Viehman: We need to focus on housing solutions for our most vulnerable, and it seems we aren’t. Workforce units are important and serve a part of our population, but they certainly do not benefit our most vulnerable. I have been questioning for a long time why we do not have transitional housing here. If people get behind on even just one month of expenses, it becomes impossible for them to catch up, and many times they leave the valley. Valuable members of our community leave, and that isn’t right. There is federal and state funding that we could use to build transitional housing. There just needs to be a will from our elected officials to focus on this critical housing piece that we currently lack. Money is wasting away. For instance, there are grants that need to be utilized by September or will go unused. Why aren’t we looking into solutions like this? Since this question references the most vulnerable, that is where we should start. Where else has a homeless shelter that charges you to spend the night? I am curious to know Shelter’s ideas about this topic. Transitional housing is a need that could help the most vulnerable who can’t get back on their feet after one financial hardship that breaks the bank, and thereby their ability to pay their rents. However, I know this question is probably alluding to the real estate transfer tax. The reality is the makeup of our legislature is simply not going to support this anytime in the foreseeable future. I understand this more than any other candidate because of the time I spend working with our legislature. We must focus our goals on things that we can achieve, like the constitutional amendment we will see on the ballot this fall to add a fourth tier to our tax structure. Let me know if you want to know more about how that will impact our community and might get us a step closer to being able to mitigate the impacts of second and third homeownership.
What is your vision for the Virginian neighborhood? Do you support the current recommendation to move forward with Pennrose as the developer? Do you support the new Affordable category (120-160% MFI) incorporated into these plans? Do you support the original breakdown of Affordable and Workforce homes proposed by Pennrose?
Scott Anderson: I prefer a proposal that includes more units for lower income people.
Kevin Regan: I support the 90 Virginian Lane Development in general and the selection of Pennrose. This project is consistent with the “Town as Heart of Region” concept; it encourages density in an area where the zoning already supports density and where key infrastructure already exists. It also furthers the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to house 65% of the workforce locally. The project is an opportunity to provide Affordable and Workforce housing at a range of bands. The Housing Supply Board unanimously voted to recommend Pennrose, and the Housing Director also supported Pennrose as one of two recommended potential partners. I watched the Pennrose interview video and am supportive. I support the new Affordable category (120-160% MFI). It is important to have a range of Affordable housing bands to support different professions in our workforce, and because the 120-160% bracket helps subsidize other housing brackets. The current proposal includes 93 rental units and 43 ownership units within the 120-160% bracket. The Housing Supply Plan suggests there is a pent-up need in this category; many market renters are struggling with yearly increases. I generally support the original breakdown of Affordable and Workforce homes, but I also believe this assessment should be carefully analyzed and fine-tuned if necessary. We need to measure twice and cut once. I like the fact that the current proposal offers 69% rental and 31% ownership. Key issues coming down the pike for the Town are negotiating a development agreement and ground lease. It is critical to optimize the mix of units. The recent May 30, 2024 letter from Pennrose emphasizes that Pennrose is willing to negotiate: (1) the unit mix; (2) the income mix (i.e. “between 80% and 160% AMI”); and (3) the layout of the site plan (including parking configuration and open space). Concerns about optimizing parking and greenspace and minimizing groundwater impacts from underground garages merit careful analysis.
Perri Stern: I support the Virginian; in general, I support Pennrose. The proposal shows 226 units, (61% 1-bedroom apartments). I prefer fewer 1-bedroom units and more 2 and 3 bedroom apartments/town-homes to meet families’ needs. Financing and access are key. Pennrose states a need for additional $10M in subsidy and now proposes LIHTC financing. Other teams proposing LIHTC financing were penalized. Pennrose shows property access through START; this is unlikely. Town and County elected officials wisely noted that as more information is gathered, new questions arise. They directed staff to work with Pennrose on an alternative proposal, showing ~ 150 homes. Let’s compare the two proposals and determine the benefits and overall impacts of each. A traffic study must be completed before any proposal is approved. Snow King Avenue is not going to get any wider. There should be a significant amount of green-space; the Fir trees that rim the perimeter of the property should be preserved. We must respect the surrounding neighborhoods and not overwhelm our town’s infrastructure, wildlife habitat, water quality, etc. We must respect and preserve our town character. I support the new Affordable category. Pennrose’s HOA fees ($350/month) add approx. $4,200 to each family’s costs. How often do these numbers change? What happens to a person who is living in an affordable home and the AMI increases? To what extent are people able to manage rent increases, HOA fees/increases? Should we consider capping rent increases? How do we enable people living in affordable housing to build equity so that they can move up and into new housing as they, their family grows? How do we help our community members who earn too much for affordable income limitations but can’t afford market rate homes? There should be a minimum of workforce units. I would like to see the Town and County reduce the density, have a minimum number of workforce apartments and use public money for true affordability.
Devon Viehman: My vision for the Virginian neighborhood is to create housing that meets the needs and desires of our community, guided by data from the housing department. Currently, there are approximately 200 people on the waiting list for workforce units, i.e. people who make beyond the 120% AMI as per the Housing Department’s Housing Supply Plan. The Virginian is slated for 166 units for people who make beyond 120% AMI. The new proposed category (120-160% AMI) creates the impression that there are only 30 “workforce” units in Penrose’s proposal. However, based upon the housing department’s current rules, there are actually 166 units that qualify as “workforce” — the current rules do not include “affordable housing” deed restrictions in that range. Regardless of these technicalities, there are still only 200 people who have filled out intake forms whose income is beyond 120% AMI. To further clarify, even if that “affordable housing” category of 120-160% AMI existed, you’d imagine that those same 200 applicants who have filled out intake forms would remain the same. Regardless and even moreso, no matter how you cut it, that new category is not targeting our most vulnerable population. It’s just not adding up to me from a numbers standpoint or from an information standpoint. There should be strategies to address overall housing needs but at the most basic of them is to build the housing that meets the needs of those literally waiting for housing — for those who have literally taken the time to fill out the intake forms and for those who may not have, i.e. the most vulnerable community members, like those who are even too afraid to sign their kids up for free lunches at school! We don’t need to over complicate matters and merely overcomplicate the affordable housing programs in the meantime. ShelterJH was started to address the housing needs of the most vulnerable — for the people who actually need “shelter”, not those who make 120-160% AMI. Let’s keep our eye on the ball here.
What would your response be to community members who expressed opposition to incorporating deed-restricted homes into their neighborhoods? How do you communicate the importance of housing locals locally?
Scott Anderson: I’m not sure why anyone would oppose a deed restriction on housing in their neighborhood, but I do understand why a neighborhood would be opposed to a specific project that would alter the makeup of their immediate neighborhood.
Kevin Regan: First, welcoming deed-restricted homes is the right thing to do. These are our neighbors. We all share the economic challenges of living in a community with less than 2% private land and high demand to live here. There are good reasons why the Comprehensive Plan set the goal of 65% of the workforce living locally. It notes: “In other mountain resorts, the loss of a local workforce and associated diversity has indicated the loss of a sense of community. By ensuring that at least 65% of our local workforce lives locally, we can retain our valued community character.” Neighborhoods that have a diversity of incomes offer social benefits and contribute to stronger communities. The National Housing Conference explains that there is “widespread agreement among housing practitioners that including a mix of incomes within a development can be helpful in creating a safe, healthy and sustainable living environment for families,” including:
• Deconcentration of poverty and racial and socioeconomic integration: mixed-income communities provide a safer environment with a greater range of positive role models and exposure to job leads
• Economic development
• Higher quality maintenance and amenities (i.e. facilities, access to public transportation)
• Political acceptance: the inclusion of higher priced housing makes the affordable housing more acceptable to those who might otherwise oppose the projects
• Protecting the ecosystem from impacts of long commutes
• Allowing the resident workforce to invest socially, civically, and economically in the community in which they live.
Second, having the people that work in our community be able to live here builds economic security. Local businesses struggle to retain employees. The recent experience with the closure of Teton Pass demonstrates the perils of relying on a commuter workforce. Small and large businesses, including St. John’s Hospital and the Mountain Resort, are key for the safety and enjoyment of residents and visitors alike.
Perri Stern: We are all in this together. Every neighborhood in the Town of Jackson and Teton County must do their part. I do not believe people are objecting to adding deed-restricted homes. I believe people are objecting to density that overwhelms our town. There is a difference. The 2018 zoning changes yielded unbalanced density increases in town. Some neighborhoods in the Town of Jackson have already absorbed a significant amount of added density. The NH1 zone needs to be restricted to the highway 89 corridor and medium levels of density should be evenly dispersed across town. We need to make it easier for property owners to add ARUs that help reduce our housing shortage. We need a 3-dimensional representation of what the current zoning, if maxxed out, could result in across town because we do not have a clear understanding of how much density our current zoning could actually produce and whether that is good for our town. We must anticipate and mitigate impact of added density before it happens. For example, the Jackson Street Apartments, while overall a good project, has had a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood in terms of light spill, increased traffic, insufficient infrastructure and parking issues. Complete sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and pedestrian signage are all lacking. Our town needs to do a better job of tying infrastructure, neighborhood connectivity and improvements to all housing projects. If we are all sincere in wanting community “buy-in” to density, we must work with community members and not use divisive rhetoric and labels when concerns are raised and reasonable suggestions are made. This only short circuits productive conversation and detracts from our community. If we work with community members and value their input for adding density and retaining neighborhood character, we all win.
Devon Viehman: Deed-restricted housing is essential for a healthy community where people can live and work in the same area. A concern I hear often is the increased density and design of new developments, such as 440 West Kelly. However, many suitable locations in town can support higher-density housing, and we need to focus our efforts on these areas. There are many design options that can make a larger building more appealing from the curb so that neighbors don’t feel like it is just a giant box going in next to them. Our zoning regulations should support the creation of the housing we need, rather than what is currently being built. Additionally, the current zoning and conditional uses process makes it easier for large developers to build. This results in larger developments that don’t fit in with the neighborhoods, which unnecessarily upsets neighbors while also making it near impossible for local developers to be able to do their part with dense, smaller scale affordable developments. Some of the spot zoning the town has created has driven up property values, instead of seeing multi-family units being built. We need to go back and fix these issues. While some of it can happen during the 120-day moratorium, it is going to take more time than that to truly address. Once we have solid zoning in place, then we need to stand behind it. This requires leaders who are brave enough to enforce zoning rules without giving into external pressures.
It will take unprecedented and strategic partnerships to move the housing needle meaningfully. Which entities (besides other housing-specific organizations) should be working together to address housing insecurity? In practical terms, how would you use the levers of local government to help build collaborative partnerships among stakeholders in this region?
Scott Anderson: Well, local government must take the lead to create opportunities for housing. It costs money – but we have to pay the price to make it happen.
Kevin Regan: The FY 25 Housing Supply Plan reflects the importance of public-private partnerships, including the Jackson St. Apartments, Flat Creek Apartments, and Parkside projects. One important area for collaborative partnerships is philanthropy. By many reports, Teton County is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest counties in the U.S. The Hughes Foundation’s recent $20 million toward subsidizing affordable housing represents a positive step forward. I would like to see collaborative partnerships with philanthropies developed and expanded. Good working relationships between elected officials and representatives can expand this potential. Another area for partnerships includes employers. Although there are concerns among neighbors about some aspects of the proposed project, the Presbyterian Church’s recent efforts to endeavor to provide housing for its employees are laudable. Similarly, efforts of key employers, such as St. John’s Health’s efforts to provide housing, which included rezoning for the Hitching Post, should be encouraged. I am also very interested in the idea of the “Pre-Approved ARU Program” referenced in the Housing Supply Plan. This program would help property owners by streamlining the process (i.e. providing model plans that meet zoning requirements, expediting the building permit process, and reducing pre-construction fees. Unfortunately, this tool was removed for FY24, but added into the FY 25 Housing Department Work Plan. This would allow private property owners to help be part of the housing solution. The Housing Supply Plan indicates several “housing toolbox” tools are in use or under consideration. I support the endeavor in the Plan of auditing the current housing tools and seeking expansion of their use, as well as exploring new tools.
Some of those key tools include:
• Density Bonus Tools
• Minimum Density (i.e. consistent with the Town as Heart concept in the Comp Plan)
• Streamlined planning review process
• Parking minimums
Perri Stern: I think it would be helpful and productive to always think of housing holistically, as part of a complex and interrelated “ecosystem” that also includes infrastructure, wildlife habitat, climate change, water availability and quality, health care and social services, education, etc. Change in one area will likely affect other areas. I come back to the questions: How much does Jackson need to grow? How much does Jackson want to grow, How much growth can Jackson realistically manage? I do believe Jackson should continue to evolve as a town/community but we also need to consider these challenging questions/issues. We have a housing preservation program that needs to be used more often, enhanced, emphasized as a way to add affordable homes. We need to figure out creative incentives to reuse, repurpose, restore and retain historic properties that could serve as new affordable housing opportunities. Housing specific organizations, philanthropy, the private sector and government should continue to work together. As I said above, I believe government funding and philanthropy have been most successful at funding affordable housing. The free market private developers can take care of building workforce/market rate housing. We need to focus on collaboration, mutual give and take, and the whole of our community.
Devon Viehman: As I mentioned earlier, we should begin by utilizing the available grants and reimbursements from the state and federal government. This is a straightforward first step. Other communities have successfully hosted affordable housing charettes, which are similar to housing summits. These events bring together all stakeholders to generate inclusive and effective solutions. They have proven to be effective. Additionally, there are grants available to fund these charettes, so it’s puzzling why we haven’t taken advantage of this opportunity yet. There are “disconnects between housing organizations” that “undermine the collective efforts to build homes” (taken from Shelter JH’s “values” page). It is essential for our local government to take the lead in these discussions, listen to the outcomes, and implement the solutions. Sadly, they have yet to prioritize taking this simple and clear action to unite the various housing and community organizations that would create solutions we need.
Town of Jackson elected officials have recently pushed the pause button on commercial development in certain town zones so we have time to recalibrate our land development regulations (LDRs) to incentivize the development we want to see in our community. What changes would you make to LDRs, zoning regulations, or other local government systems to house more locals locally?
Scott Anderson: Get rid of 2 for 1 and reinstitute the cap on Commercial FAR – consider re-introducing th PMUD option.
Kevin Regan: The moratorium presents an important opportunity to refine LDRs and Design Criteria governing building size. However, discussions at recent Town Council and Town Planning Commission meetings suggest the Council will likely only be able to address maximum building size and the 2:1 density bonus (i.e. allowing the developer to expand the size of their development as a bonus when they provide workforce housing). In terms of the density bonus, it appears the bonus has benefits, but there are questions about what ratio is most appropriate (i.e. how much of a bonus the developer gets). We need a community conversation to decide these issues. We also need to look at the forest, not just trees. A revision of the Comprehensive Plan (as well as zoning and rules to implement it) will allow us to define a vision and chart a course. We can:
• Refine the “Town as heart” concept, which encourages density in Town rather than in wildlife in sensitive areas.
• Harmonize with affordable and workforce housing needs, including the goal of housing 65% of the workforce locally.
• Define the economic role of hotels in the community and balance beneficial contributions to the economy with the workforce impacts.
• Integrate transportation planning with the new housing initiatives, including the upcoming Route Plan process involving START Staff, the START Board, and the public.
To ensure success, policies to encourage for housing initiatives through zoning and regulations include:
• Fine tuning mitigation (including in-lieu rates)
• Convenient location of housing with access to public transportation and schools
• A continuum of income levels
• A well-designed community that fits into the surrounding neighborhood, including pedestrian friendliness and green space
Perri Stern: The moratorium has a very narrow scope. It is limited to LDR adjustments for commercial development in the downtown core. However, we now understand that many more issues exist and need to be addressed. Large buildings, in and of themselves, may or may not be the root of the problem. We need to significantly strengthen our town’s design guidelines which are more than 20 years old. We need to determine whether the 2 for 1 workforce bonus is actually helping our town. We need to address the secondary impacts from large developments such as traffic, the environment and climate. We need to institute smart growth principles that enhance the form and quality of our town’s increasingly urban environment. We need an Urban Design Plan that presents a cohesive and visionary strategy and shows housing solutions as part of an overall urban design blueprint for our town. We need a sustained and valued public process that builds consensus and buy-in with the larger community. We need to control job-creating new developments (luxury condos, hotels) that only exacerbate our housing shortage. Ideally, we would extend the moratorium until we are able to address these issues. In the absence of that, Council needs to condition the lifting of the moratorium on staff creating a specific work plan and timeline to fully address these issues in an expedient manner, and identify urban design consultants to assist planning staff in addressing these bigger picture issues so that the transition to the next Council is seamless. We need to get this right. As soon as the moratorium ends, we know that developers will come in fast and furious to have projects approved. Is there really any harm in slowing things down until we do the job the right way, the first time? We also need to take a breath, tone down the rhetoric, increase transparency and work together. It is going to take some time to recalibrate for our common good.
Devon Viehman: I am thrilled that our town council had the courage to enact a moratorium, but 120 days isn’t enough to make all the changes we need. The processes involved are too cumbersome, as was evident during the first planning commission meeting on the topic — there is an absolute risk of making this short term fix far too complicated. We can start on the path to improvement with simple changes, like eliminating the 2-1 bonus and limiting maximum square footage, which will be meaningful. This moratorium is meant to stop the bleeding and make quick fixes. Next, we need to learn from other communities – what has worked and what hasn’t? There is no need to experiment or reinvent the wheel. Stopgap fixes are no longer acceptable. Let’s make things easier and simpler, not harder and more complex! This work doesn’t need to take years; it just needs to be completed by next year. The moratorium is just the start.
