For eleven years, TRG built, equipped, and operated a nonprofit climbing gym in the Driggs City Center without taxpayer funding. Following months of City intervention in our management and governance decisions, the City terminated our lease in May 2026.

Records obtained by TRG indicate that Recreation District Board Director John Beller was discussing the facility’s future with City officials before our closure, yet the District made no meaningful effort to preserve the existing operation. Now it proposes spending public funds to rebuild and operate a climbing gym in the same space.

The Recreation District has completed its master plan but has yet to present it to the public. Why is it advancing a major capital project before the community has had an opportunity to consider the District’s broader priorities?

The District has not demonstrated why rebuilding and directly operating this particular facility is preferable to supporting independent recreation providers or investing in other community needs. Nor has it explained whether this is an isolated project or part of a broader shift toward government ownership and operation of recreation facilities.

The District’s own scenarios puts the proposed gym’s possible construction, deferred improvements, and startup support at more than $550,000.

Those projections rest on incomplete construction estimates, unverified membership demand, and a staffing and programming model that has not been demonstrated to work.

The District is preparing to advance a major public investment without establishing what it will actually cost to build, operate, or sustain.

The District entrusted development of its replacement proposal to an advisory committee that included individuals connected to the disputes preceding TRG’s closure.

Meanwhile, questions remain about Board Director John Beller’s involvement in discussions concerning the facility before TRG’s lease was terminated.

These circumstances warrant an independent investigation into the District’s conduct, its decision-making process, and potential conflicts of interest.

The history of TRG’s closure, the District’s involvement, governance concerns, and the actions we’re asking its Board to take.

Download PDF

A detailed review of construction estimates, startup losses, membership assumptions, staffing, and the financial risks of the proposed operation.

Download PDF

A firsthand account of the events leading to TRG’s closure, the City’s involvement, and how the Recreation District’s proposal fits into the larger story.

We support bringing indoor climbing back to Teton Valley. But restoring a valued community service does not justify spending public money to replace an independent nonprofit without establishing that government operation is necessary, financially viable, or in the community’s best interest.

The Recreation District’s proposal fails that test. Its advisory committee included individuals connected to the disputes preceding TRG’s closure, its financial projections deteriorated substantially under revision, and its operating model remains unverified. The District has not subjected the proposal to independent professional review or meaningfully evaluated alternatives, including supporting existing recreation providers.

Equally troubling are unanswered questions about the District’s own involvement. Board Director John Beller was discussing the facility’s future with City officials before TRG’s lease was terminated, yet the District made no meaningful effort to preserve the nonprofit that had operated it for eleven years. These circumstances warrant an independent examination of the District’s role, including Beller’s actions, disclosures, and responsibilities as a board director.

TRG believes the Board should reject the current proposal, independently investigate the District’s involvement in the events preceding our closure, and reconsider the future of the space through a transparent process that includes independent providers and broader community needs. Public funds should not be committed to a replacement project whose justification remains unproven.