The Teton County Board of County Commissioners will reconsider Monday its 3-2 vote against putting public dollars toward a rental assistance program that would have been administered by the nonprofit One22.
Commissioner Mark Newcomb, who joined Commissioners Greg Epstein and Mark Barron in voting against putting $50,000 of town and county funds toward the program, asked the Teton County Board of County Commissioners to reconsider the vote Dec. 7, a day after the board made its decision during a joint information meeting with the Jackson Town Council.
“I don’t think I asked quite the right questions or worded them well to get the information that I needed,” Newcomb said Tuesday. “So I’m just hoping that we can reconsider.”
Newcomb had asked a number of questions during the meeting, wondering whether it would be better to have One22 come back around and ask for this funding during the town and county’s budgeting process. In that springtime bonanza of government meetings, human service organizations like One22, Teton Youth and Family Services and others request and generally receive town and county funds. Newcomb had argued that One22 could request funds for the program then and design the program based on its experience.
One22 is already running a first-last-deposit program and plans to continue doing so, regardless of support for the town and county.
In response to a question from Commissioner Mark Barron on Tuesday, Newcomb said he was hoping to better understand “the division between our housing program and One22’s safety net program and how the how the two will either work together or be separate.”
The town and county have been exploring a first-last-deposit assistance program for some time, including the idea in this year’s Housing Supply Plan, which was approved in May.
Housing Director April Norton told town and county elected officials Monday evening that, in her department’s search for a private sector partner, they settled on One22 because “they are already doing the work.”The Jackson Town Council voted 4-1 to support funding the program, so, if one county commissioner changes their mind when the board reconsider the issue Monday, public funding for a first-last-deposit program may move ahead.
The public who weighed in was split on whether or not the funding was a good idea. Rebecca Bextel, who opposed publicly funding the program, described it as a “great money giveaway.” Julien Hass, who was in the other camp, lauded it as “something new to help people.”
The county commission will consider the issue as part of their Monday voucher meeting, which starts at 9 a.m. Public comment begins shortly after, but commissioners will take public comment on this item specifically when its discussed.
The public can attend the meeting virtually or in person at the Commissioners’ Chambers at 200 S. Willow St. The Zoom Webinar ID is 824 8374 6975. People can dial in by calling 1-669-900-6833 and entering that ID.
Billy Arnold has been covering the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the people who manage it since January 2022. He previously spent two years covering Teton County government, and a year editing Scene. Tips welcomed.
Why is the County considering using taxpayer money to subsidize individuals who aren't disabled?
Why is the County considering using taxpayer money to subsidize private sector individuals who may have more education and family wealth than the taxpayers themselves?
Why is the County considering using taxpayer money to allow private employers to expand, and improve their margins?
Why is the County considering giving away money to people without asking for it back at the end of the lease?
Please note: Online comments may also run in our print
publications. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Please turn off your CAPS LOCK. No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions
rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view. No political attacks. Refrain from using negative
slang when identifying political parties. Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or
anything. Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each
comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness
accounts or history behind an article. Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not
allowed.
.
The News&Guide welcomes comments from our paid subscribers.
Tell us what you think. Thanks for engaging in the conversation!
(1) comment
Why is the County considering using taxpayer money to subsidize individuals who aren't disabled?
Why is the County considering using taxpayer money to subsidize private sector individuals who may have more education and family wealth than the taxpayers themselves?
Why is the County considering using taxpayer money to allow private employers to expand, and improve their margins?
Why is the County considering giving away money to people without asking for it back at the end of the lease?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Please note: Online comments may also run in our print publications.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.
No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view.
No political attacks. Refrain from using negative slang when identifying political parties.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts or history behind an article.
Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not allowed.
.
The News&Guide welcomes comments from our paid subscribers. Tell us what you think. Thanks for engaging in the conversation!