Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advisory Committees Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents push for clearer committee rules, more diverse membership and better public notice; impact fees and road funding also raised
Summary
Speakers at a Teton County town hall urged clearer recruitment, required recording and posting of advisory‑committee meetings, and reforms to the application and conflict‑of‑interest processes; commenters also raised impact‑fee increases, historic preservation concerns and looming road funding cuts.
At a Teton County town hall, residents called on commissioners to make advisory committees more accessible, to advertise vacancies more broadly, to record and archive committee meetings, and to strengthen conflict‑of‑interest and appointment procedures.
Several speakers stressed that committees influence policy decisions that affect development, historic preservation and infrastructure spending. "We need to follow state statute," said Ida Hanson, recommending that committees include representatives from Victor, Tetonia and Driggs and that meetings be posted and archived so residents can review them.
Cindy Bridal, who served on county bodies and discussed the impact fee process, explained how impact fees are charged: "Developers . . . don't pay impact fees. It's the person who builds the house. Their fees are paid when you get your building permit." Bridal also said the county’s new impact fees are calculated by square footage and grow with house size.
Other speakers described cost pressures on prospective homeowners and sellers. Kurt Bailey and other commenters said impact fees that were once a few thousand dollars have risen substantially; Bailey described impact‑fee payments in recent practice of roughly $18,000–$20,000 for some projects and said the county’s impact fees are tied to specific infrastructure costs required by state statute.
Several residents asked the county to address apparent inconsistencies in how advisory boards are named and recorded online. Dan Reyes, Teton County manager, described seven county volunteer groups and said the county could clarify website listings and improve notice for meetings.
Speakers also raised separate fiscal concerns. Pete Moyer, a long‑time resident, said the state was reducing local allocations to road and bridge funding and cited a figure that Teton County would lose roughly $164,754; he suggested creating a road and bridge advisory body to address funding and maintenance priorities.
Other procedural recommendations included better public posting of meeting times and agendas, clearer term lengths and expiration dates for advisory members, and mandatory annual conflict‑of‑interest disclosures. Penny Vasquez urged that advisory meetings be videotaped and archived so residents who work evenings or cannot attend in person can view proceedings.
The Board of County Commissioners did not adopt new rules at the meeting; commissioners encouraged residents to apply for open seats and said staff would look at improving notices and conflict‑of‑interest processes. No formal votes on committee composition or impacts fees were taken.
