Jackson and Teton County move project forward for 221‑unit Virginian workforce housing; staff seek public funding and protections

Town and county elected officials voted March 9 to advance the 90 Virginia Lane affordable and workforce housing project — known as the Virginian — while directing staff to finish development documents and extend the development‑agreement timeline to May 4, 2026.

The housing authority and staff presented the project as a 5.15‑acre, NH‑1‑zoned site in Midtown that would deliver 221 permanently protected homes, including 161 rental units and 60 for‑sale units. April Thornton, Housing Director, said staff recommends building the rental phase first to deliver units quickly and to put on‑site shared amenities that serve the entire campus. "Building one delivers 161 homes quickly, which is the greatest immediate impact for our workers and their families," Thornton said.

Developers and funders outlined the financing plan and the public ask. Shannon Cox Baker, regional vice president for Penrose, said Penrose has invested more than $500,000 in predevelopment, plans another $2 million before permits, and expects to secure about $100 million in conventional debt plus private equity. Penrose asked the town and county to confirm an additional public commitment: staff recommended that the initially committed $10 million be used to reimburse horizontal‑infrastructure costs (estimated at about $8.5 million) once the LLC closes and financing is in place, and asked whether the bodies would commit to up to a second $10 million to close a remaining gap.

Public commenters strongly urged swift approval. More than a dozen residents and nonprofit leaders said the project is needed to prevent local workers and longtime residents from being priced out. Ariel Kazunas, a 12‑year resident, said the community’s “extreme wealth inequity” and vacancy rates make the project urgent. Claire Stumpf, executive director of Shelter GH, urged officials to remember the people these homes will serve as they debate technical details.

Elected officials pressed staff and the developer on risk‑mitigation measures. Councilors and commissioners asked how to ensure the for‑sale phase is completed after the rental phase is built. Penrose and housing counsel said the developer will entitle and design the entire site before rental construction and that the housing authority would secure entitlements and an interest in the rental project as a special limited partner (SLP). Consultant Tim Nash described additional mitigants under negotiation: back‑weighted developer fees, withheld reimbursement tranches for predevelopment costs, assignment rights and guarantees that would allow the authority to replace the developer if necessary.

Staff also recommended that the housing authority take an SLP interest to secure public protections such as consent rights, removal for cause, rights of first refusal, transfer and refinance fees, and a compliance monitoring fee. Officials indicated broad support for the SLP approach in straw polls, while reserving final legal review.

On affordability, staff proposed splitting some AMI bands (for example, separating 80–120% into two narrower bands) to enable more precise underwriting without changing the overall community goals. Thornton said the change would not reduce the number of low‑income units but would help close funding gaps and better target sales and rental pricing.

Motion and next steps: Councilor Hunter Schechter moved and the council and county approved a motion to extend the development‑agreement timeline to May 4, 2026, and to direct staff to prepare the suite of development documents for the next joint review. The motion passed unanimously. Staff and Penrose said completing the development agreement will allow Penrose to resume predevelopment activity and to pursue additional impact investors, subordinated bonds, and program‑related investments to reduce the amount of public subsidy needed.

What remains unsettled: staff seeks confirmation about the second $10 million (the timing, the funding sources — mitigation fees, STEP/employer funds, or general funds — and whether portions may be exchanged for rights of first rental or pre‑purchase). Officials asked for a market‑study update and additional detail about investor commitments before finalizing how much public money will be allocated and how it will be split between the town and county.

The joint bodies will return to the project at a future joint meeting to review finalized documents and any updated market and funding information. For now, the extension and direction to staff allow the project to move into the next phase of negotiations and lender diligence.