Jackson and Teton County direct staff to draft development, funding agreements for 90 Virginia Lane housing project

Town of Jackson and Teton County officials directed staff on Monday to draft a development agreement and return with a funding agreement for 90 Virginia Lane, a proposed affordable and workforce housing project on a site in midtown Jackson.

The directive follows a staff presentation by April Dorton, the housing director, and public comment and a lengthy discussion about unit mix, affordability ranges, parking, traffic mitigation and the size of a proposed public subsidy. “We’re here to talk about the development agreement terms for 90 Virginia Lane, our future affordable workforce housing development,” Dorton told the joint boards as she opened the item.

Why it matters: the project is among the largest single affordable housing efforts under formal consideration by the town and county, and would attach permanent deed restrictions to the homes. Staff and the developer said the project could create roughly 200–226 deed‑restricted homes; the town and county must still finalize financing and precise unit mix. The boards asked for additional financial modeling on whether to shift more units toward homeownership and asked staff to return with a funding agreement that reflects any changes.

What was discussed and decided

April Dorton summarized planning steps to date, noted the ground lease option agreement already approved by the joint boards and described the two documents the boards requested: a development agreement that spells out site, design and performance terms, and a separate funding agreement that lays out how public dollars would be provided. She described the RFP requirements and how Penrose, the developer, responded.

A resident who lives across the street, Joe Burke, urged sensitivity to traffic and parking and asked for neighborhood‑scaled housing rather than higher density. “This really is not what I had envisioned that we were gonna have another neighborhood across the street,” Burke said, raising parking, snow storage and soil‑condition questions.

Tom Anderson, senior vice president at Penrose, said the firm responded to the RFP more than a year ago and has adjusted its plans to provide additional open space. Anderson told the boards Penrose’s proposal meets the RFP unit and AMI mixes and that the developer will deliver documentation of construction and permanent financing before the ground lease is executed.

Key numbers and terms under discussion

- Units: Penrose’s initial proposal included 226 permanently deed‑restricted homes; staff recommended the development agreement require a minimum of 200 homes. - Income bands: the RFP and staff terms reflect minimums of 30 units in each income tranche (0–80%, 80–120%, 120–160% of median family income). - Tenure split: the RFP required at least 30% of units for rent and at least 30% for sale; Penrose proposed a mix with about 69% rental and 31% ownership. Several board members asked staff to model the fiscal impact of raising the ownership minimum (for example, from 30% to 40%). Staff agreed to return with cost modeling; the boards did not change the RFP minimum during the meeting. - Bedroom mix: staff and commissioners discussed adjusting the ownership bedroom distribution (for example, increasing two‑bedroom ownership units to 30% and reducing three‑bedrooms to 5%); commissioners asked staff to model any cost impact and bring numbers back. - Livability and accessible units: the development agreement will require deed restrictions administered by the housing department and that units meet the housing department’s livability standards at the time a building receives a certificate of occupancy; at least 10% of units must meet IBC Type B (adaptable) requirements. - Sustainable design: the RFP required National Green Building Standard Gold certification; Penrose indicated it will meet NGBS Gold. - Transportation and parking: staff said the project must include at least one parking space per unit (to be included in rent or sale price) and a transportation management plan (TMP) that includes travel demand measures intended to reduce external vehicle trips. The project’s traffic impact study and proposed TMP aim to reduce new external vehicle trips by 50% above existing RV‑park trips. Staff and several commissioners said they want a follow‑up briefing on the traffic study’s assumptions and mitigation measures. - Public subsidy and financing: Penrose presented an outline in which construction financing would be a market construction loan and the firm assumes roughly $84.7 million construction financing and an equity contribution. Penrose’s proposal includes a requested public subsidy of $10,000,000 tied to a long‑term ground lease for the land; staff said the funding agreement under preparation will specify the public investment amount and how it is provided.

Board action

Councilwoman Sperry moved — and Councilwoman Beaman seconded — a motion to direct staff to draft the development agreement that incorporates the terms in the staff report and the clarifications discussed during the meeting, and to return with the funding agreement for a future joint meeting. The Town Council motion passed, with Councilman Schechter recorded as opposed.

A substantially similar motion on the county side also passed. Staff will return with the draft legal documents and the funding package after modeling the ownership/rental permutations and the cost implications the boards requested.

What was not decided

No final funding commitment was approved at the meeting: staff will return with a funding agreement that specifies how public funds would be delivered (sources, timing, conditions) and with a clearer financial model showing the cost to change tenure or bedroom mixes. The boards also deferred any final decisions about an access drive to Karnes Meadow Drive pending coordination with adjacent property owners and federal partners (the site configuration depends in part on approvals outside the town’s control).

Quotes

“We’re here to talk about the development agreement terms for 90 Virginia Lane, our future affordable workforce housing development,” April Dorton, housing director, said as she opened the item.

“This really is not what I had envisioned that we were gonna have another neighborhood across the street,” resident Joe Burke said, urging attention to parking and snow storage.

“We were the only group that actually gave what you asked for in the RFP,” Tom Anderson, senior vice president at Penrose, said of the firm’s response and said Penrose is prepared to provide financing documentation when required.

What happens next

Staff will draft the development agreement and a separate funding agreement that reflects any changes the boards ask to study (including ownership/rental ratios and bedroom mix). Staff said it will return to a future joint meeting with the draft legal documents and a funding proposal; the developer and town/county legal teams will jointly draft the formal contract language. The boards also requested a follow‑up briefing on the traffic impact study and more detailed cost modeling related to tenure and unit mix choices.

Community context

The project is intended to advance the town and county’s workforce housing plan and create deed‑restricted homes for local workers and their families. Staff emphasized the project is being structured as a public–private partnership; the town and county are acting as funding and regulatory partners while the private developer will hold construction and permanent financing responsibilities.

Ending

The joint boards’ vote Monday directed staff to prepare the development and funding agreements and to return with the financial details requested by commissioners and council members. Formal approval of any public subsidy and the final agreement remains a later step after the town and county review the completed draft agreements and the funding proposal.