Jackson leaders direct staff to draft development agreement for 90 Virginia Lane workforce housing

Jackson officials directed staff to draft a development agreement for 90 Virginia Lane, a proposed affordable and workforce housing development in Uniontown, and asked staff to return a funding agreement that lays out the public investment and financing details.

The directive came after a multi-hour, joint review by the Jackson Town Council and Teton County commissioners of development terms, unit mix and transportation mitigation for a Penrose-proposed project on the former Virginia RV Park site. April Burton, housing director, opened the discussion: “We're here to talk about the development agreement terms for 90 Virginia Lane,” and walked the joint boards through the RFP commitments, Penrose's response and the staff-recommended terms for the development agreement and the separate but related funding agreement.

Why it matters: Staff and the developer propose public funds to support deed-restricted housing at market levels that have been difficult to serve locally, including a new band the town described as 120–160% of median family income. The project includes hundreds of homes, multiple building types and substantial transportation mitigation; the public subsidy proposed in Penrose's response is $10,000,000. Councilors and commissioners said they want the funding agreement spelled out before final approval and asked staff to model the financial impacts of any changes to the unit mix.

Most important terms and outstanding questions

- Units and affordability: The RFP required a minimum of 150 units; Penrose proposed 226 permanently deed-restricted homes and staff's recommended development-agreement language sets a floor of 200 homes. The development agreement will require a minimum of 30 units in each income band (0–80%, 80–120% and 120–160% MFI) and a cap of 30 workforce units included in the initial 150 units, consistent with the RFP. April Burton summarized the housing terms and how Penrose's response compares to the RFP.

- Rental vs. ownership ratio: Penrose's proposal shows about 69% rental and 31% ownership. The development agreement language proposed by staff reflects the RFP minimums — a minimum of 30% rental and a minimum of 30% ownership — but multiple councilors and commissioners asked staff to return cost analyses showing the fiscal impact of raising the ownership minimum (a frequently discussed option was a move to 40% ownership). Staff agreed to model that change and return with numbers before the funding agreement is finalized. Several elected members said they were not ready to alter the RFP minima without seeing financial tradeoffs; others pushed for examining a higher ownership share to support long-term community stability.

- Unit sizes and accessibility: The RFP and proposed development agreement include size thresholds for unit mixes (percent minimums for 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units). Staff and commissioners clarified that 10% of units must meet IBC Type B accessible/adaptable standards. The developer said they plan to provide two bathrooms in the 3-bedroom units (staff suggested this should be explicitly captured in the draft agreement).

- Permits, schedule and phasing: Staff reiterated schedule expectations carried forward from the RFP/ground-lease option: a complete development option plan due three months after agreement execution (unless extended by the housing director), building permit application for the first residential building within nine months of agreement execution and site-work starting within two months of permit approval (extensions possible by the housing director). Certificates of occupancy for each building must result in full occupancy for those units within one year unless an extension is granted. Project completion for all buildings is proposed within five years of the first building-permit approval, unless extended by the housing director.

- Funding: Penrose's response and staff's summary list a proposed public subsidy of $10,000,000; staff separated the funding agreement from the development agreement so the parties can model funding scenarios and the public subsidy before the boards adopt final documents. Tom Anderson, senior vice president at Penrose, told the boards the current pro forma assumes limited or no profit on initial condo sales and warned that shifting more units to ownership will increase the public subsidy required: “What does that mean? That means I cannot attract private capital to the for-sale. So where do I get the capital for the for-sale? It all has to come from subsidy, as opposed to a portion of it on the rental.”

- Transportation and mitigation: The project will be required to submit a transportation management plan (TDM) and a transportation demand-management program to reduce external vehicle trips. Staff cited a TDM target drawn from the traffic impact study: reduce external vehicle trips by 50% of new trips generated by the development in excess of the existing RV park use. The project must design and construct a multimodal pathway on the site's north side; parking will be provided on-site and may be a mix of surface and structured parking. The traffic impact study notes existing capacity problems at nearby intersections (the report uses the phrase that some movements operate at level-of-service F) and highlights possible intersection improvements including a future roundabout; staff and the boards discussed preserving right-of-way and design flexibility to accommodate future mitigation.

- Public comment and site concerns: Nearby resident Joe Burke, who lives at 744 West Snow King, told the boards he had initially welcomed a neighborhood on the former RV park site but raised concerns about traffic and the scale of on-site parking: “When I looked at this plan and some of the numbers that go along with it, this really is not what I had envisioned ... That's a lot of automobiles.” Burke also asked whether soil testing and past site conditions (he said the site may have been a leach field and wetland) had been fully evaluated; staff did not offer a new soil-report at the hearing but noted standard permitting and design processes will address site contamination and geotechnical issues.

Board direction, votes and next steps

- Motion and outcome: A motion to direct staff to draft a development agreement for 90 Virginia Lane that includes the terms outlined in the staff report and “as discussed today,” and to return with the funding agreement for consideration at a future joint meeting, passed in both the town and county bodies. The town vote passed with one member recorded as opposed (Councilman Schechter); the county commissioners also approved the motion. Staff said they will return with a funding agreement (staff initially scheduled it for the next meeting but indicated it may shift one month so staff and the developer can model affordability and cost changes).

- Follow-up requested by the boards: model the fiscal impacts of (a) increasing ownership share (examples discussed: move minimum ownership from 30% to 40%), (b) altering bedroom mix (several commissioners asked staff to analyze changing minimums for 2- and 3-bedroom ownership units and the cost implications), and (c) identify the financial and implementation implications of TDM measures and off-site mitigation. Staff also flagged that design changes to increase ownership could delay the developer's immediate design timeline by weeks to months because building types and floorplates differ for rental and for-sale product.

- Implementation caveats: The proposed development and funding agreements will be jointly drafted by town/county legal staff and Penrose's counsel. Final approvals will require execution of both the development agreement and the funding agreement. Several commissioners requested explicit language that the county not be responsible for funding off-site TDM mitigation unless the county later agrees to a specific contribution.

Ending

The boards authorized staff to craft the legal documents and to return with a funding agreement and the additional financial modeling requested. Staff and the developer will continue design and permitting discussions; the project remains subject to required design-review, permitting and funding approvals before construction begins.