Teton County commissioners on April 28 heard a consultant briefing on options to modernize the Teton County Scenic Preserve Trust and how the county might use the trust to advance conservation goals in the comprehensive plan.

The briefing, led by consultant Sean Hill of GSBS Consulting and consultant Scott Petra, laid out five options ranging from keeping the trust as-is to creating a new county conservation department. The consultants recommended a two-step approach: implement a "status quo plus" model now (adding a staff position and advisory board) and use that foundation to evaluate one of several unified conservation frameworks over the next one to three years.

Why it matters: The trust holds county-conveyed easements and other holdings that are intended to preserve open space and implement the county's comprehensive plan strategies on ecosystem stewardship. County staff and commissioners said they want a practical, affordable near-term fix but also to preserve the option of a larger reorganization if funding and staffing allow.

Sean Hill, the lead consultant, told the commission that "Teton County is at the center of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Stewardship here matters globally." He summarized the report's finding that the trust can continue to steward existing easements while also being positioned to convene partners and pursue larger conservation plays.

The "status quo plus" option would restore dedicated staff capacity for the trust (a new part-time or possibly full-time position), absorb or supervise the existing monitoring contract over time, and create an advisory board with expertise in conservation, land use and public engagement. Consultant Petra described the longer-term opportunity: "think of it as a position of wealth instead of a position of poverty" and said the county could move pragmatically from stewardship to convening and incubating larger conservation projects.

County staff and commissioners discussed practical details during the workshop. Erin Monroe, associate long range planner, said the status quo plus option was "modeled after what we think of as the Maggie Schilling sort of era when... she was a half FTE," referring to a prior staff role that provided continuity with landowners. Commissioners pressed about costs and sequencing; Commissioner Carlin asked whether status quo plus was chosen because it was "the first next step, cheapest, lightest lift?" Hill and Petra said the approach provides a modest, implementable improvement now while allowing the county to evaluate a departmental realignment or open-lands division later.

Commissioner Gardner questioned the scale of any expansion, noting the county's large share of federally protected land and the county's tight budget: "97% of our land is already federally protected," he said, and cautioned against creating a large new department the county cannot sustain. Several commissioners nonetheless supported restoring dedicated trust stewardship capacity and wanted staff to return with concrete implementation steps.

Key details and clarifications discussed at the meeting:
- Number of county-held easements discussed in the report: about 58.
- Monitoring and stewardship: consultants recommended transitioning monitoring from the current contractor (referred to in the report) to county staff over a biennial monitoring cycle. Commissioners discussed a monitoring budget line; one commissioner referenced a roughly $35,000 monitoring contract figure.
- Stewardship fee tied to new easement acceptance in the LDR framework cited in discussion: $13,500 (current stewardship fee cited in the consultant briefing materials).
- Recommended near-term governance steps: hire a dedicated staffer (part-time or full-time), maintain the monitoring contract during a handoff, and establish an advisory board to advise staff and align the trust with comp-plan conservation strategies.

What comes next: Staff were asked to return with a short memo summarizing guidance from the April 28 workshop and practical implementation steps for the status quo plus framework. Commissioners suggested that an initial staff working group could scope advisory-board roles and timing; some commissioners proposed seeking a six-month window for staff planning before recruiting members, while others urged quicker movement if capacity allows. No formal action or budget appropriation was taken at the workshop.

Ending: Consultants framed the modernization as an incremental, implementable process: restore stewardship capacity first, then assess whether a broader organizational realignment is warranted to leverage the trust for larger, county-led conservation efforts.