Jackson and Teton County elected officials continued a months‑long discussion Oct. 6 about whether to place a countywide lodging‑tax measure before voters, hearing sharply divided views from lodging businesses, conservation advocates and members of the Bridal and Tourism Board. The meeting produced no vote; staff were asked for additional revenue projections, timing information and a payoff schedule for existing special‑purpose sales pennies before the boards consider placing a measure on a ballot.

The issue matters because Wyoming law limits how lodging tax revenue may be spent and divides new collections among state and local uses. Town staff said each additional penny would generate about $950,000 for the Town of Jackson and roughly $1,400,000 for Teton County; the Bridal and Tourism Board’s share (60% of local option revenue) was shown in staff materials as roughly $3,400,000 per additional cent at the county level. Tyler Sinclair, Jackson town manager, described the meeting item as "to continue to discuss the lodging tax ballot initiative" and summarized past discussions dating to June and an Aug. 4 joint briefing.

Why this matters: lodging tax revenue can be used both for tourism promotion and for visitor‑impact mitigation (statutorily identified uses include public transportation, parking, public restrooms, trails and similar services). The boards must decide whether to ask voters to add up to two additional local cents (Wyoming law sets a 7¢ combined maximum including the state assessment) and how any new revenue would be allocated locally between promotion and visitor‑impact needs.

What officials and staff said
- Sinclair explained options staff had modeled: either allocating new lodging revenue to departments based on an "effective population" approach (he used a 23% overnight‑visitor share to estimate visitor‑related portions of joint department budgets) or funding specific departmental needs such as transit, parks and recreation, police and public health. He cautioned the effective‑population approach "has not been tested around the state" and would need legal review.
- Keith Gentry, deputy county attorney, said the law has been interpreted flexibly in Teton County’s experience but warned of legal uncertainty: "I'm not saying legally we have concluded that you could do it, but I think it's something to explore." He cited past local uses of the 60% marketing allocation (for example, funding ambassador programs and, once, plowing to facilitate visitation when a federal shutdown closed Yellowstone).
- Mayor Jorgensen said he supports taking a lodging‑tax initiative to voters, "I would prefer to do it at 2%... countywide," and emphasized the board would be asking voters to decide rather than the boards deciding to raise rates directly.

Public comment and stakeholder positions
- Megan Quinn, executive director of the Teton Village Association and Teton Village Resort District, said, "the Teton Village Association is opposed to increasing any kind of lodging tax for Teton Village, district," arguing the village already faces a competitive disadvantage with a high local tax burden (she cited a Teton Village lodging rate at about 14%).
- Cody Miller, owner of a Teton Village hostel and member of the Teton Village Lodging Association, also said he "stands in opposition to increasing the countywide lodging tax," and presented comparisons to other ski destinations and detailed additional local property tax burdens facing village properties.
- Robert Chinman, commercial director for Seasons Resort, said the resort opposes the 2% tax increase and warned of price sensitivity among group and incentive travel business.
- Patrick Dominic, board chair of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, said the alliance has no formal position but urged guardrails on how the Bridal and Tourism Board would spend increased funds, noting the risk of further increases in visitation that community members oppose.
- Chris Valentino, executive director of the Jackson Hole Bridal and Tourism Board, described current spending categories (marketing/education and visitor services/management) and said the board currently returns roughly $2.5–$3 million annually to the community through grants and programs; she estimated visitor services/ambassador funds at roughly $1.7 million and marketing at about $3.3 million in draft budget figures.

Elected officials’ views and next steps
- Several commissioners and council members said they are willing to put a lodging‑tax question before voters rather than unilaterally raise rates. Commissioner Gardner said he is "comfortable putting it on the ballot." Councilman Schechter and Commissioner Probst expressed concern that placing a measure before 2028 could undermine a later, larger general‑revenue sales‑tax effort (a referenced goal to seek an additional general sales penny in November 2028), and Schechter said he opposes lodging tax proposals before that timeframe.
- Multiple officials requested more detailed financial information before taking a final position: town and county staff were asked to provide a town‑only revenue estimate for comparison, a schedule from the treasurer showing when the special‑purpose (SPED) pennies will fully pay off, and additional detail on how Bridal and Tourism Board funds have been allocated in recent years.

Formal action
- No vote was taken on placing a lodging‑tax question on a ballot. The lodging‑tax item was presented as "an informational item, not for action," and both boards instead directed staff to return with additional information and timing estimates.

Background and constraints
- Under Wyoming law summarized in staff materials, local option lodging tax can be imposed in up to two additional cent increments; combined with the state assessment the legal maximum is seven pennies. Staff said any local measure must be voter‑approved and that if passed it must be reapproved by voters every four years. The county and town legal counsel noted some uses are expressly described in statute while others have been interpreted more broadly in local practice.

What comes next
- Staff will return to the boards with the requested financial breakdowns, an estimate of revenue if a town‑only measure were pursued, and a timetable from the county treasurer for when existing special‑purpose pennies will be fully collected. Officials said they expect further public engagement and additional briefing before any resolution is introduced by either body to place a measure on a specific ballot date.

Ending
- The boards closed public comment after a half‑dozen speakers and left the lodging‑tax discussion open for further information and future consideration; no ordinance, motion to place a measure on the ballot or commitment of funds was made during the Oct. 6 joint session.