Teton County pushes to fill two planning positions, debates contractors and public counter hours

Teton County commissioners and planning staff spent a lengthy work-session discussion on staffing, recruitment and operations in the county planning and building departments, focusing on two budgeted planning positions, use of private contractors to augment reviews and inspections, and office hours for the public counter.

The discussion matters because staffing and process choices affect how quickly building permits and land-use approvals reach applicants, the county’s capacity to review floodplain and wildlife habitat assessments, and how inspection and permitting costs are passed to developers.

Planning Administrator Joshua (planning administrator) told the board the county currently has two planning positions budgeted: a senior/environmental planner that has been advertised for about a year and an associate planner focused on processing applications. He said applicants for the environmental-planner posting have been strong but that department priorities favor hiring an associate planner first to handle permit processing. The board and staff agreed there is capacity in the budget to hire two people but discussed flexibility in pay grades and whether to start new hires at lower grades and promote as they gain skills.

Recruitment challenges were a recurring theme. Commissioners and staff noted local cost of living and limited local housing make it hard to attract candidates living elsewhere; Joshua said typical advertising channels include county website and regional job boards and the county offers a modest relocation payment. The board emphasized potential use of pay flexibility, relocation assistance and start-at-lower-pay strategies for candidates with “potential.” The transcript included a stated pay range for the environmental planner posting (pay grade 9) of about $59,000 to $69,000.

Board members and staff discussed credentialing and technical capacity the county needs in-house. Several participants said the county should have at least one Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) on staff to reduce liability when reviewing floodplain matters; staff noted the county has a standing contract with a local engineering firm (Harmony Design) as backup for complex floodplain work. The board directed that certification and continuing-education needs be part of hiring and training planning staff discussions rather than relying solely on outside contractors.

Private contractors and an expedited, fee-based permit service were debated as stopgap options if the county cannot hire quickly. Commissioners described a vendor presentation they had received and asked staff to prepare a vetted list of questions and limits to any contracted services. Staff and commissioners outlined a set of concerns that must be resolved before any contract: who retains legal accountability, how county oversight will work, limitations on remote inspections, confirmation of inspectors’ training and current code knowledge, and how fees would be assessed (developers or applicants paying for expedited service). Staff noted the county already uses outside engineering and floodplain support in some cases and that a contractor model can work if the county retains oversight and clearly defines scope.

On hiring process and next steps, staff said applications have been shared with the commissioners. The board asked to pick a joint top-five candidate list so interviews can be scheduled; Joshua said he will serve as the staff representative on the interview panel with a board representative and return the final selection to the full board. That direction was agreed to during the meeting but no formal vote was recorded.

The meeting also covered front-counter hours and public access. Planning and building staff explained the public counter had operated with a shorter “open window” to allow staff uninterrupted blocks of time for concentrated permit review work; building-department staff reported they often work later than the posted window to complete reviews. Commissioners argued the public expects a 9 a.m.–5 p.m. service window similar to other courthouse offices. The parties discussed options including rotating a greeter at the counter, appointment-first policies, a shared front-desk person for both departments, limited Friday counter closures, or hiring part-time staff to provide a constant public-facing presence. No binding decision was made; commissioners asked staff to explore workable schedules and small staffing or internship options that would preserve uninterrupted review time while providing a visible public contact at the counter.

Staff described several operational steps already planned to reduce incomplete applications and speed permit reviews: pre-application meetings tailored to project type, a checklist and application process review, and improved public information. Commissioners endorsed continuing and broadening those efforts.

Discussion versus formal decisions - Discussion only: the merits and limits of remote inspections and which contractor services would be acceptable. - Direction/assignment: commissioners asked staff to (a) compile and share top candidates so the board can identify a top-five list for interview scheduling, and (b) draft vetting questions and limits for any contractor or expedited-service proposal and return options to the board. These items were agreed in the meeting but not formalized by motion or recorded vote. - Formal action: none recorded in the transcript; no votes were taken on hiring, contracting, or changes to hours during the session.

Next steps noted in the meeting included selecting top candidates and scheduling interviews at a special meeting, staff returning recommended counter-hour and staffing options (including possible part-time/front-desk help or internships), and developing a vetted list of contractor service limits and oversight requirements for future consideration by the board.