Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teton County commissioners weigh developer conduit requirement as broadband options multiply
Summary
County planning staff reviewed land development code expectations that developers install conduit; commissioners debated whether requiring conduit shifts costs to homebuyers, with calls to invite SilverStar, Starlink and state broadband officials to explain options, costs and alternatives before changing code.
The Teton County Board of Commissioners revisited a longstanding planning expectation that developers install telecommunications infrastructure during construction so future broadband can be added without trenching.
Planning staff summarized the land development code provision: meeting the requirement currently can include installing conduit or, in some cases, pedestals and infrastructure on each lot. Staff said many developers have complied by placing conduit in new subdivisions or by purchasing conduit themselves.
Commissioners and members of the public debated who should pay: some argued requiring developers to install conduit increases housing costs and ultimately raises home prices; others said conduit is a modest, one-time expense that preserves future consumer choice and avoids later disruptive construction. Several speakers said provider behavior matters—if one provider (SilverStar) is the only feasible fiber installer in rural areas, mandating conduit principally benefits that provider.
Multiple commissioners directed staff to invite telecommunications providers (SilverStar), satellite providers (Starlink), and state broadband officials to a future meeting so the board can assess real-world costs for conduit versus provider-funded installation, trenching differences, and options for protecting competition in new development. Planning staff suggested folding the discussion into the planning and zoning commission's land development code update or advancing policy direction so the code more clearly states that conduit alone is sufficient to meet the requirement.
Why it matters: the board must balance affordability and long-term broadband access. Requiring conduit can reduce future disruption and cost for homeowners who want broadband but may add up-front expense for developers. The county plans to seek provider input before changing code language.
Next steps: staff will invite SilverStar, Starlink and state broadband representatives to a board or joint P&Z meeting to present options and cost estimates.
