Commissioners pause and set Oct. 20 review on proposed legislative transfer of Snake River BLM parcels, including Parcel 910
October 06, 2025 | Teton County, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Teton County commissioners opened an extended discussion on Oct. 6 about pursuing a legislative transfer of Bureau of Land Management parcels along the Snake River, with particular focus on BLM Parcel 910 and the possibility of congressional action for parcels that require boundary changes.
Commissioner Karlman told the board he supported moving ahead with a legislative transfer and said parcels 23 and 24 could not be effectively transferred under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act without congressional action because the transfer would require changing boundary lines and swapping private land between subparcels. “The Recreation and Public Purposes Act doesn't let us change boundary lines,” Karlman said, arguing this limitation is a motive for a legislative approach.
The chair and other commissioners discussed process questions and stakeholder materials. Chair Newcomb said the county attorney received notice from local attorney Stefan Fodor that his client, 4 W LLC, advised it would no longer participate in consideration of Parcel 910. Newcomb proposed circulating both 4 W’s original proposal and the board’s alternate draft for public review and suggested allowing a week for stakeholder submissions; several commissioners said that timeline was too tight and asked for two weeks.
Commissioners debated the appropriate public‑engagement timeline, staff responsibilities and whether to hire an outside consultant. Commissioner MacKer and others urged a clearer, consolidated staff package that lays out the timeline, decision points and outstanding questions. Commissioner Gardner, among others, recommended delaying final board action until Oct. 20 so the public and commissioners can review compiled documents and submit written comments.
The board agreed to ask staff to compile existing MOUs and proposed drafts (including 4 W’s original proposal and commissioner-drafted alternatives), information about the Highway 22 right of way under WYDOT’s corridor screening (existing right of way and scenarios with +20 and +40 feet), and possible legislative-package formats. Chair Newcomb said staff will attempt to circulate material so that stakeholders have time to comment before the next meeting on Oct. 20, 2025. No formal vote was taken; the board did not adopt a final policy at the meeting.
Commissioner Karlman told the board he supported moving ahead with a legislative transfer and said parcels 23 and 24 could not be effectively transferred under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act without congressional action because the transfer would require changing boundary lines and swapping private land between subparcels. “The Recreation and Public Purposes Act doesn't let us change boundary lines,” Karlman said, arguing this limitation is a motive for a legislative approach.
The chair and other commissioners discussed process questions and stakeholder materials. Chair Newcomb said the county attorney received notice from local attorney Stefan Fodor that his client, 4 W LLC, advised it would no longer participate in consideration of Parcel 910. Newcomb proposed circulating both 4 W’s original proposal and the board’s alternate draft for public review and suggested allowing a week for stakeholder submissions; several commissioners said that timeline was too tight and asked for two weeks.
Commissioners debated the appropriate public‑engagement timeline, staff responsibilities and whether to hire an outside consultant. Commissioner MacKer and others urged a clearer, consolidated staff package that lays out the timeline, decision points and outstanding questions. Commissioner Gardner, among others, recommended delaying final board action until Oct. 20 so the public and commissioners can review compiled documents and submit written comments.
The board agreed to ask staff to compile existing MOUs and proposed drafts (including 4 W’s original proposal and commissioner-drafted alternatives), information about the Highway 22 right of way under WYDOT’s corridor screening (existing right of way and scenarios with +20 and +40 feet), and possible legislative-package formats. Chair Newcomb said staff will attempt to circulate material so that stakeholders have time to comment before the next meeting on Oct. 20, 2025. No formal vote was taken; the board did not adopt a final policy at the meeting.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting