Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Land Transaction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Driggs 160 state land sale draws divided public comments; commissioners delay final position
Summary
A state‑level proposal involving the Driggs 160 state endowment parcel prompted extensive public comment and a request to the county for its opinion. Commissioners heard calls both to remain neutral and to oppose county involvement; the board deferred a final position to a future meeting to gather more input.
Get email alerts on the State Land Transaction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and community groups pressed the Teton County Board of Commissioners on a proposed state‑level transaction involving the Driggs 160 parcel during public comment on Aug. 25.
Speakers framed the issue differently: some asked commissioners to refrain from directing the county into state business, saying the matter is a legal and policy decision for state officials; others urged a public position against the proposed sale or urged commissioners to consider historical impacts of land‑use code changes. One commenter asked commissioners to “stay in our lane” and focus on county business while another said the issue has local consequences that warrant a county response.
Commissioners acknowledged receiving a formal request for the county’s opinion from the state and said they had not yet reached a final view. One commissioner noted the volume of public correspondence and said he would like more time to hear from both supporters and opponents before sending a formal reply to the state. The board agreed to revisit the letter and discussion at a future meeting, giving staff time to circulate draft language and solicit additional public feedback.
The exchange highlights tensions that arise when state land‑management decisions involve local values — scenic, agricultural and historical — that residents say deserve local input even if the ultimate authority resides at the state level.
The board did not adopt a formal position at the meeting and instructed staff to return the issue to a subsequent agenda for further consideration.
