Teton County commissioners balk at giving adjacent ranch veto power over Parcel 9/10; consider excluding it from federal transfer package
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners debated management terms for Parcel 9/10 and rejected language that would give a neighboring landowner a perpetual veto over the county'managed parcel. They directed staff to refine options, consider limiting any special authority to a small agricultural zone, and to move forward with other parcels in a federal legislative package if needed.
Chair opened discussion on Parcel 9/10 after staff presented logistics and management options.
Keith, a county staffer, summarized the technical side: the county must decide whether to include a flexible management agreement or to put explicit terms into the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would accompany any congressional transfer. He said moving the irrigation ditch will be necessary for some pathway alignments and that ditch work is seasonally constrained. He described three proposed zones for Parcel 9/10 — an agricultural zone, a wildlife habitat zone and a recreational zone — and listed examples of uses commissioners might allow or prohibit, including campfires, overnight camping, motorized bikes and opening hours.
A commissioner read language from a draft management agreement that said "any modifications, amendments or changes to any of the provisions of this agreement shall be effective only if in writing and executed by all parties," and called that provision a veto for the adjacent landowner, 4W. The commissioner argued that "giving a neighboring property owner a veto over the management of public lands would be a radical departure from public ownership" and suggested limiting any special authority to the 70‑acre agricultural zone rather than the entire 377‑acre parcel.
Other commissioners echoed that a broad veto was a "nonstarter." One said the board should be willing to include clear restrictions in the MOU and proceed with the federal package for the parcels that are ready, while continuing to negotiate Parcel 9/10 separately. Another emphasized the pathway access benefits of acquiring the parcel but agreed that the commission must be explicit about what it will and will not accept before presenting terms to 4W and Congress.
Staff and commissioners discussed public process and next steps: commissioners asked for a clearer structure for public input and for the commission to resolve internal disagreements in a public setting before directing legal staff to draft a management agreement. The Chair agreed to work with Parks & Rec and counsel to prepare a posted draft for public comment and to schedule further deliberations; commissioners also indicated comfort with moving forward on the legislative package without Parcel 9/10 if no agreement is reached.
Why it matters: Parcel 9/10 contains land that residents use for recreation, and the question before the board is whether to accept an arrangement that could give an adjacent landowner ongoing veto authority over county management. The decision affects public access, the county's negotiating position with a private landowner, and whether several parcels can proceed together in a federal transfer package.
What's next: Staff will draft options for explicit MOU terms and a public workshop/posted draft for comment; the commission signaled it may proceed with other parcels to the federal delegation while continuing to negotiate Parcel 9/10.
