For eleven years, Teton Rock Gym introduced thousands of people to climbing, developed dozens of youth programs, partnered with schools and community organizations, and provided a gathering place for Teton Valley adults and families. Built largely through volunteer labor and community contributions, TRG supplied the climbing infrastructure, equipment, staff, and expertise needed to operate it.

In 2026, the City of Driggs terminated our lease, ending those services at the Driggs City Center. Now the Teton Valley Parks and Recreation District is pursuing a publicly funded replacement in the same space. Four of the five Climbing Gym Advisory Committee members represent competitive climbing families. Several members were directly involved in the disputes preceding TRG’s closure, including a former TRG board member whose membership was suspended in August 2025.

To understand how this happened, we need to examine a longstanding struggle over who controlled Teton Rock Gym, how that struggle drew in City and State agencies, and how the District came to consider replacing the nonprofit the City had displaced.

A Complicated Beginning

Teton Rock Gym opened in January 2015 through an extraordinary community effort involving substantial volunteer construction labor, and the pre-sale of what eventually became over 90 lifetime memberships. But while the gym’s first staff was building out the operations and programs of a nonprofit climbing gym, the founding board left serious gaps in governance records and financial documentation.

The organization has no records of board meetings during its first three years. Financial arrangements were informal, and substantial debts appeared in the accounts without supporting agreements or documented board approval. For years after opening, visitors routinely believed the gym was owned by one of the founders, although the nonprofit had no private owners.

When a functioning board began addressing these problems in 2018, it inherited the consequences. Among them was a substantial claim for construction debt allegedly owed to a founder. Although the debt appeared in the organization’s records, we found no corresponding agreement or board authorization for the underlying expenditures. The resulting dispute continued for years and was not finally resolved until 2021. These were not minor administrative oversights. They reflected fundamental failures of financial accountability and nonprofit governance. Some founding-era board members later took roles with Victor Rock Park or the Recreation District’s climbing committee.

Throughout these governance disputes, TRG developed thriving youth programs and experienced staff. By 2023, its governance was independent of its founders. Professionalizing the organization meant confronting the expectations inherited from its founding, including the belief that those who had helped create the gym were entitled to special access, privileges, and authority over its operations.

But TRG was never the personal property of its founders or any particular family. It was a community nonprofit whose board was responsible for its mission, not the personal interests of those who established it.

The Return of an Old Dispute

Nearly a decade after the gym opened, some of those involved in its founding returned through their children’s participation in youth climbing programs. A small group of families, including former board members and individuals with longstanding ties to TRG, began pushing for greater control over the organization and competitive climbing programs. They launched petitions, demanded board resignations, and sought leadership changes that would give members of their group and their supporters a greater role in governing TRG.

When TRG declined some of their demands, they developed their own climbing team, Team Crimpium, and a separate nonprofit, Victor Rock Park. Creating alternative climbing opportunities was never the problem. The conflict arose over demands to represent TRG as coaches, bring an outside team’s training into our facility, and influence our programs and governance despite decisions to the contrary made by our staff and board.

What began as disagreements over youth coaching escalated into a prolonged campaign of pressure against the organization and its leadership. Complaints became petitions, legal threats, public accusations, and efforts to undermine the credibility of our staff and board. The allegations themselves grew increasingly serious, evolving from disagreements with coaches the families had initially praised into public allegations of professional misconduct. As attempts to influence the organization failed, the conflict expanded beyond its programs and policies into attacks on the reputations and personal lives of those responsible for running it.

The conduct went well beyond ordinary criticism or disagreement. We documented harassment, intimidation, threatening behavior, repeated boundary violations, and incidents in which individuals entered private property without permission. TRG staff, board members, and families were drawn into a conflict that increasingly extended beyond the gym itself. What should have been a disagreement over climbing programs had become a sustained disruption of the organization.

Throughout this period, TRG made extensive efforts to resolve the conflict through meetings, policy revisions, board review, and even professional mediation. Yet the pressure continued, consuming extraordinary time and resources for an organization with just two full-time employees.

By August 2025, the organization faced a question that had little to do with competitive climbing: how long could we be expected to tolerate conduct it determined was bullying, threatening its employees and board, disrupting its operations, and undermining its ability to govern itself? After months of unsuccessful efforts at resolution and continued escalation and inappropriate behavior, the organization suspended the adult members of three families for a period of one year.

The suspensions were not about silencing criticism or opposing competitive climbing. They reflected the organization’s determination that their continued presence in the facility had become incompatible with our responsibility to protect staff, enforce policies, and maintain a safe and functional environment.

We hoped that decision would finally allow TRG board and staff capacity to focus on running the organization. Instead, the campaign against our organization moved into local government, first through City Hall and later through the Recreation District, where private grievances became a matter of public policy, leading to the eventual eviction of Teton Rock Gym.

When a Private Dispute Became Public Policy

Following the suspensions, individuals involved in the dispute began appealing to the City of Driggs, our landlord, to intervene in TRG’s membership and governance decisions.

In November 2025, after sustained lobbying by suspended members and their supporters, the City Council voted to condition renewal of TRG’s lease on reinstating those members. We challenged the reinstatement condition as unlawful favoritism and unconstitutional special legislation, arguing that the City was using its authority as landlord to demand special treatment for a small, identifiable group involved in a private dispute. Following our legal challenge, the City withdrew the condition.

But the pressure continued. Mayor August Christensen repeatedly told me and Board President Patrick Hertz that TRG was expected to “resolve our disputes” with the suspended families. We explained that we had already spent months attempting to do so and had documented the escalating conduct, legal threats, and boundary violations that led to the suspensions. We understood the City’s message to mean that our continued tenancy depended on accommodating individuals whose conduct our board had determined warranted suspension.

City Attorney Sam Angell expressed essentially the same concern as the Council considered policies governing how recreation center tenants could restrict access. “We should be in the business of leasing property and not controlling what’s going on within the four corners of that property once it’s leased,” he warned.

Nevertheless, the City continued pursuing policies requiring TRG to revisit membership restrictions, establish appeals procedures, and notify the City when access was restricted. An earlier draft would even have required City consultation before suspensions. The stated purpose was fair access and due process in publicly subsidized facilities, legitimate concerns in their own right. But a municipal landlord should not be intervening in an independent nonprofit’s disciplinary decisions, particularly when individuals directly involved in the dispute were participating in government decisions affecting that organization.

Those connections were becoming increasingly consequential. After adult members of her family were suspended from TRG, and while her family was threatening legal action against the organization and its board, Sarah Johnston ran for Driggs City Council. Her published campaign platform identified development of a new community recreation center, including a climbing gym, among her top priorities. She took office in January 2026, while her family’s dispute with TRG remained unresolved, and subsequently participated in City decisions directly affecting the organization. Seth Weinert, whose membership was also suspended, joined the City’s Parks and Recreation board. Jansen Gunderson, a former TRG board member whose membership had also been suspended, later joined the Recreation District’s Climbing Gym Advisory Committee.

Even as TRG worked with City attorneys to address the City’s concerns, Johnston moved to adopt policy changes proposed by Gunderson. The Council approved them despite substantial progress that had already been made through negotiations with TRG. Weinert, also a Victor Rock Park board member, publicly discussed replacing TRG as the recreation center’s occupant and expressed interest in applying to operate a climbing facility there.

Individuals who had challenged TRG’s authority internally were now participating in public processes concerning its operating policies, continued occupancy, and potential replacement.

On April 3, 2026, we submitted a formal conflict-of-interest complaint documenting Johnston’s family’s ongoing legal dispute with TRG, their financial relationship with the organization, her efforts to influence membership decisions, and her participation in City policies affecting those matters. We requested formal review, disclosure and recusal where appropriate, and an examination of how the disputed policies had been introduced and adopted.

We received no substantive response.

Six weeks later, on May 19, the City Council voted to terminate TRG’s lease. Johnston brought the motion to terminate. Council Member Allison Michalski, the sole dissenting vote, called Johnston’s participation an “abuse of power.” Despite our request for several months to conclude existing programming commitments and prepare for relocation, the Council gave TRG just 30 days to end operations.

Even after the eviction vote, the effort to change control of TRG continued. Within days, an anonymous website appeared under the name Save Teton Rock Gym, circulating an open letter demanding that our board of directors appoint seven new directors and overhaul the organization’s leadership and policies. “We believe that there is a path forward with the City of Driggs, but only if there is substantive governance reform within TRG’s leadership,” the campaign declared.

Consider the implications. The City had just terminated our lease, yet an anonymous campaign was claiming there was still a way to save the gym as long as we surrendered the organization. The letter offered no explanation of who was behind the website, who had determined that the City might reconsider, or what authority its authors had to suggest such an arrangement. The website has since disappeared, its authors never publicly identified.

But its demand was unmistakable: after more than a decade of building and operating a community institution, we were being told that the way to save it was to hand over control of the organization.

The Loss of a Community Institution

TRG’s closure was not the result of financial insolvency, declining demand, or an inability to provide climbing services. It followed months of political pressure over our membership decisions, operating policies, and independence.

When Mayor August Christensen and City Administrator Doug Self delivered our termination notice, they repeatedly insisted, “We have no plans for this space.” Yet discussions about changing who operated the climbing facility had already taken place. Recreation District Director John Beller had met with Sarah Johnston and Jerod Pfeffer, another competitive climbing team parent, about TRG as early as January, while the conflict over our tenancy was still unfolding.

In March, Self informed us that the City was exploring a partnership with the Recreation District that could replace TRG’s lease with a contract-for-services arrangement. He then asked whether we would be interested in responding to a request for proposals to operate the climbing gym. When we asked whether he meant our existing facility or a future recreation center, he confirmed that the City was contemplating changing the operating arrangement for the existing facility.

Consider what the City was proposing. After eleven years of building, equipping, maintaining, and operating a nonprofit climbing gym, we were being asked whether we wanted to compete for a contract to continue operating that very same gym. The climbing walls and equipment belonged to TRG. The programs, staff, and operational infrastructure were ours. Yet the City was considering replacing our existing lease with a process in which another operator could potentially be selected to run the facility we had created.

The implications were extraordinary. Rather than providing stability to an established nonprofit that had spent over a decade serving the community, City officials were contemplating a structure under which our continued operation could depend on winning a government-issued contract to operate our own facility. And when the City terminated our lease just weeks later, we were told it had no plans for the space.

The conflict continued as we dismantled the gym. Individuals involved in the original dispute, including a Victor Rock Park board member and a member of the Johnston family, submitted complaints to the Idaho Attorney General accusing TRG staff of theft, fraud, and improper diversion of charitable assets for removing its equipment. One complainant requested an emergency injunction to freeze the organization’s assets and prevent removal of our climbing infrastructure. Johnston family members also appeared during the dismantling, photographing our work, posting accusations on social media, and confronting us in person with allegations that we were stealing the nonprofit’s property. Records also indicate that Mayor Christensen explored whether TRG could be required to leave its climbing walls behind.

We rejected the allegations. The City owned the building, but the climbing walls, holds, flooring, training equipment, and other infrastructure belonged to our nonprofit, built and acquired through years of community contributions and investment. Losing our lease did not entitle anyone to our organization’s property, nor did it justify using accusations of theft and threats of legal intervention to pressure us into leaving that property behind.

The Recreation District’s approach to our equipment raised further questions. Although District Director John Beller had discussed the climbing facility with individuals involved in the dispute before our eviction, he approached TRG only after our lease was terminated. When we finally met, he offered no concrete plan to preserve the existing operation or its community services. He did, however, express interest in TRG donating its equipment to the District.

We ultimately removed our property and dismantled the facility we had spent more than a decade building. Youth programs ended, community partnerships were disrupted, and Teton Valley lost an established climbing provider. What had taken years of volunteer labor, charitable contributions, and professional work to create was taken apart in a matter of weeks. We have seen no public impact study preceding the decision or public explanation from the City for terminating our lease.

The Recreation District’s Plan to Rebuild

Following TRG’s lease termination, the Recreation District formed a Climbing Gym Advisory Committee that included individuals directly involved in the disputes preceding its closure. The committee began developing a proposal to rebuild a climbing gym in the very same space, this time using hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funds and placing responsibility for construction, staffing, insurance, maintenance, programming, and ongoing financial risk on the District.

Despite discussing the facility’s future before TRG’s eviction, the District made no meaningful effort to preserve the existing operation before advancing its own replacement. We have seen no comprehensive public comparison showing that District ownership and operation would serve the community better than supporting an independent provider or inviting alternative proposals for the space.

The process used to develop the proposal raises serious questions. The District relied heavily on a five-member Climbing Gym Advisory Committee composed predominantly of representatives of competitive youth climbing families. The published materials we reviewed do not include an independent professional feasibility study. Among its participants is Jansen Gunderson, a former TRG board member whose membership was suspended during the dispute preceding our eviction. Gunderson is also involved with Victor Rock Park, a separate climbing organization that includes individuals connected to the same conflict, including the Johnstons and Weinerts.

These connections matter because the original dispute was not simply about whether Teton Valley should have competitive climbing opportunities. It involved demands that an outside climbing organization be permitted to conduct training in TRG’s facility, disagreements over who could represent TRG as coaches, and challenges to our organization’s authority to determine how the gym operated. Now individuals connected to those disputes are central to shaping a publicly funded replacement.

Competitive climbing families deserve a voice in public consultation, alongside recreational climbers, families, seniors, adaptive athletes, and other users. But a committee dominated by interested users is no substitute for independent expertise in climbing gym operations, construction management, financial analysis, and public facility governance. The District has not demonstrated how potential conflicts will be managed or why experienced operators and community partners were not meaningfully consulted.

The financial projections raise serious questions about the proposal’s credibility. In September, the committee presented a plan promising a $41,612 annual surplus, no District operating subsidy, and profitability under every scenario tested. Just 24 days later, its revised projections reduced that surplus by 93%, to just $2,917 annually, while disclosing startup support requirements ranging from $42,000 to $181,000 depending on membership growth. Under its expected and slow-growth scenarios, the combined cost of construction, deferred improvements, and startup support reaches approximately $489,000 to $559,000, before accounting for unresolved construction expenses, working capital, or additional operating losses. Yet neither the construction estimate nor the operating expense budget changed between reports. The revised model assumes 330 members but requires approximately 326 to break even, leaving almost no room for error. These projections rely on unverified demand assumptions, incomplete staffing plans, and construction estimates assembled from vendor proposals with different scopes, without an independent professional review included in the published materials we examined.

We have published a separate technical and financial assessment examining these deficiencies in detail. But even a financially sound proposal would leave the more fundamental question unanswered: Why should the District build and operate this facility itself?

The campaign to establish the Recreation District emphasized supporting existing recreation organizations. The District should explain how directly operating a replacement for TRG advances that commitment. Independent nonprofits and private providers have long supported Teton Valley recreation by raising funds, employing staff, developing programs, investing in facilities, and assuming operational risk. A recreation district could strengthen that network through partnerships, facility support, and investment in unmet needs.

The District is advancing a particular solution—rebuilding a climbing gym in the Driggs City Center under its own operation—without presenting a comprehensive public comparison of alternatives. Where is the comparison with supporting an independent climbing provider, partnering with established community organizations, or inviting other proposals, including the Senior Center’s multi-use concept? What long-term security does the District have in a building the City may eventually reclaim, and who would bear the cost of another relocation?

The District also faces unresolved governance questions. Who will decide whether outside competitive teams receive dedicated training time, whether independent organizations can conduct programs, and how limited space is allocated? Who will have final authority when participants dispute safety or disciplinary decisions? Will professional staff be empowered to enforce rules, or will those decisions again become matters for elected officials and influential users?

These are among the very conflicts that contributed to TRG’s closure. Replacing the operator does not eliminate those responsibilities. It transfers them to a public agency, along with the financial and legal consequences.

TRG remains an active nonprofit with substantial climbing equipment, experienced staff, viable potential locations, an engaged architect, and financial models for reopening. Yet the District’s proposal could create a publicly subsidized competitor to an established local organization attempting to restore the services the City displaced. That uncertainty directly affects whether we can responsibly commit our remaining resources to a new long-term facility.

Before committing public funds, the District owes the community an independent professional evaluation, a transparent examination of the advisory committee’s composition and potential conflicts, an accounting of its pre-eviction involvement, and a genuine comparison of alternatives, including partnerships with existing providers.

Where We Stand

Teton Rock Gym was not perfect. We inherited serious governance problems and made mistakes navigating an increasingly contentious conflict. The experience reinforced the importance of professionalized independent board oversight with industry experience, clear disciplinary procedures, and well-defined boundaries between members, coaches, and organizational leadership.

But none of those imperfections erase what TRG accomplished. For eleven years, our staff, volunteers, board members, donors, and supporters sustained a climbing gym that served thousands of people and provided a place for Teton Valley families to learn, train, and connect.

We remain committed to bringing climbing back and we are positioned to rebuild. We are also beginning a feasibility study for a broader community space with climbing as one part of a larger vision to serve more community needs. The District’s proposal creates uncertainty about where and how we can responsibly invest those resources.

The Recreation District still has an opportunity to examine this history, seek independent expertise, invite alternative proposals, and determine whether direct government operation is the best use of public funds.

Teton Rock Gym’s story did not begin with a membership dispute in 2025, and it did not end with our eviction in 2026. What happens next will test whether a group can use positions on public committees to steer public resources toward its own priorities—or whether the District will insist on an independent, transparent process that serves the broader community.