County and town set funding split as staff reanalyzes $5 million condo shortfall for 90 Virginia Lane project

Teton County and Jackson town officials on April 6 voted to lock in funding direction for the 90 Virginia Lane affordable housing project while ordering staff to return with clearer numbers after project partners said a previously unrecognized $5 million subsidy remained for the condominium (for-sale) portion of the development.

Shannon Norton, a project presenter, told the joint meeting that the project team and staff had discovered a difference in how "prepurchase" of condominiums and a direct subsidy function. "Pre purchasing condos buys the county or the town the right to own condos, but that's just at the fair market value of whatever that purchase price is. That's not a subsidy," Norton said. She added that, under the projects current AMI (area median income) mix and unit mix, "there's still, all things equal, a need for a $5,000,000 subsidy on the condo project." Norton said staff and the developer (Penrose) could run a parallel analysis of AMI and unit-mix alternatives to see if changes would remove the need for that additional subsidy and return with recommendations in May.

Commissioners and councilors disagreed about process after the mornings clarification. Several elected officials said the information had arrived too late for public notice and considered adjourning to allow more public input. "I'm inclined to adjourn and come back and talk about it after the public has been informed," Commissioner Mitchell Brooks said during the discussion, urging more written materials for the record.

Despite those concerns, the county commission approved a motion, as amended, for the county to contribute $4,250,000 toward the first $10,000,000 funding commitment, contingent on the town contributing $5,750,000; the county vote carried 3-1. The town council later voted to contribute $5,000,000 toward the first $10,000,000 allocation. Both bodies voted to table several related technical questions (including detailed rental financing and the town pre-purchase of condos) and directed staff to return with clearer options and pro formas showing how subsidy, AMI distribution and unit mix would change project feasibility.

Staff told the boards they are pursuing multiple avenues to close the projects overall financing gap: selling rights of first rental and first purchase, seeking socially-motivated investors, cutting construction costs, and pursuing grant opportunities. Staff also reported $415,000 already returned under a prior bond arrangement and an estimated $300,000 more this year; those funds are currently earmarked for a housing-preservation program but could be reallocated if the boards direct it.

What remains unresolved is whether the town will commit to pre-purchasing condos (which staff stressed is not equivalent to subsidy) and exactly how many rights of first rental/purchase the town or county would reserve under a stated 40% cap on such rights. Commissioners asked staff and the developer to provide market-testing and pro forma evidence, including the financing impacts of converting one-bedroom for-sale units into two- or three-bedroom units, and to outline specific funding-source options (mitigation fees, general fund, housing-authority tools, or bonds) before finalizing the development agreement.

The meeting concluded with both bodies tabling technical items for future decisions and scheduling follow-up work; staff said it aims to return with the requested analysis and refined options in May. The joint meeting then adjourned.