Officials say new analysis shows $5M condo subsidy gap at 90 Virginia Lane; town, county set preliminary funding directions
Loading...
Summary
At a joint Jackson town-county meeting, staff said the county—s prepurchase of condos does not equal a subsidy and that a $5 million gap remains for the for-sale portion of the 90 Virginia Lane project. Commissioners and councilors pressed for written analysis; the county approved a contingent $4.25M, and the town moved $5M.
Shannon Norton, the staff lead on the 90 Virginia Lane housing project, told the Jackson Town Council and Teton County Commission on April 6 that new information revealed a misunderstanding about how county pre-purchase commitments affect project financing. Norton said pre-purchasing condos gives a government entity the right to own units at fair market value but "that—s not a subsidy," and that the project still faces a roughly $15 million overall gap, including a $5 million shortfall on the condo (for-sale) side.
The disclosure prompted immediate concern from several elected officials, who said the new framing was not clear in materials they had previously reviewed. "The public has no notice," Commissioner Brooks said, urging the boards to postpone decisions until staff provided written analysis. Commissioner Probst and others said they had left the March meeting with a different understanding of whether the town or county purchase commitments would close financing gaps.
After discussion and amendment, the county commission adopted a motion directing a $4,250,000 contribution toward the funding package, contingent on the town agreeing to its portion; the transcript records the county motion as carrying 3 to 1 with Commissioner Gardner opposing. On the town side, council members approved a separate motion to contribute $5,000,000 toward the project—s committed $10,000,000 portion.
Board members emphasized the need for clarity about which funds are "subsidy" (direct public support for units sold below cost) versus transactional purchases or rights (such as rights of first rental or purchase). Several commissioners asked staff to produce a single, clear table showing the project's capital stack: current investor equity, debt, rights-of-first-rental/purchase assumptions, mitigation-fee balances and the amount of local public subsidy that remains to be identified.
Penrose, the project development partner, told the boards it has been exploring multiple options to fill the remaining gaps, including selling rights of first rental or purchase, value engineering, and seeking socially motivated investors. Norton said staff could re-run pro formas and return in May with a revised unit mix and AMI scenarios that could eliminate or reduce the condo-side subsidy need.
The boards also voted to table several detailed questions about the rental funding and whether the town should pre-purchase condos, sending staff back to refine assumptions and provide written analysis. Officials said the April meeting—s purpose was to narrow the development-agreement direction, but that several decisions required more time and a clearer public record.
Next steps: staff will deliver a follow-up briefing with a consolidated financing table and options (including AMI and unit-mix changes) and return to the joint meeting in May for further direction.
