Teton County commissioners and the Jackson Town Council on Oct. 6 continued a months-long discussion about whether to place a countywide lodging-tax question before voters, heard options from staff about how additional cents could be collected and spent, and took public comment; neither board voted to move a measure to the ballot.

Town Manager Tyler Sinclair presented the background, statutory limits and allocation scenarios for adding up to two local cents to the existing state lodging-tax framework, and sketched two allocation approaches staff had prepared: a department-by-department approach and an “effective population” approach that applies an estimated share of visitor use (staff cited roughly 23 percent for overnight visitors) to joint and municipal budgets. Sinclair described the item as informational. "This was put forward as an informational item, not for action," he told the boards.

Why it matters: the lodging tax is one of the few local revenue levers available in Wyoming. Adding up to two local cents (in 1¢ increments) could raise millions of dollars annually: staff estimated roughly $950,000 per penny to the town and about $1,400,000 per penny to the county based on FY26 budget projections. State law caps combined local and state lodging assessments at seven pennies and requires periodic voter reapproval every four years if a local measure passes.

Key points from staff and counsel

- Allocation rules: Sinclair and staff explained that, under Wyoming law, a local lodging-tax increase can be imposed countywide or by individual jurisdictions, and that the statutory framework specifies certain eligible uses for the portion earmarked to mitigate visitor impacts (examples include parking, public transportation, public restrooms, pedestrian and bicycle pathways and museums).

- Revenue scale: Sinclair presented rough order-of-magnitude estimates showing how additional lodging-tax revenue could be applied to operations and capital needs across departments that serve visitors, including parks and recreation, police, sheriff and public health. He cautioned that an operations-heavy reliance on a four-year voter-approved revenue stream carries risk if the electorate does not reauthorize the tax.

- Use of the 60 percent tourism share: the Bridal and Tourism Board receives 60 percent of local lodging-tax revenue designated for travel and tourism promotion; staff said each additional penny to that 60 percent could generate about $3.4 million. Deputy County Attorney Keith Gentry said the board has already pushed traditional definitions of marketing by funding local visitor-services programs such as ambassadors and even, in one past instance, plowing to facilitate visitation. "On the 60%, we have already started stretching the limit, with the ambassador program," Gentry said, noting the legal boundary that 30 percent is the statutorily defined visitor-impact portion.

Public comment: opposition from Teton Village lodging interests

Several speakers from Teton Village told the boards they oppose a countywide increase because of already-high local tax rates and local property-tax burdens. 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." Cody Miller, owner of a Teton Village hostel and a member of the Teton Village Lodging Association, warned that "If the lodging tax is increased to 7%, our sales tax for Teton Village hotels will be 16%, which is extremely high." Robert Chinman, commercial director for Seasons Resort and Private Residences Jackson Hole, said group and incentive business can be price sensitive and could respond to higher tax rates.

Other public commenters urged guardrails on how the Bridal and Tourism Board would spend added revenue, noting that substantial new funds could accelerate visitation growth. Patrick Dominic, who identified himself as board chair of the Jacksonville Conservation Alliance, said his group "would like to see some sort of guardrails or parameters put on the expenditures" of the tourism board.

Elected officials’ positions and next steps

- Mayor Jorgensen said he wants the question placed before voters and said he would prefer a 2% measure countywide. "I would like to have it go to the voters," he said, adding that he favored either the simple existing allocation approach or the effective-population method if staff follow up with legal checks.

- Several county commissioners and council members expressed varying views. Commissioner Probst said he is "comfortable putting it on the ballot," and emphasized letting the electorate decide. Commissioner (last name Gardner) also said he was "comfortable putting it on the ballot." Other members urged caution: Councilman Schechter and others said they prefer to wait and focus on a larger general-revenue sales-tax question in 2028; Schechter argued placing a lodging increase earlier could hurt that broader effort.

- Staff follow-up requested: elected officials asked for more information before a final decision. Specific requests included a town-only revenue estimate for comparison with a countywide measure, a schedule from the county treasurer showing when existing SPET (special purpose excise tax) pennies will be fully collected, and additional legal advice about whether certain uses (for example, subsidizing free local bus service) are defensible under the statutory split between the 30 percent visitor-impact allocation and the 60 percent tourism/marketing allocation.

Outcome

No formal motion or vote was taken on the lodging-tax measure. Boards directed staff to return with requested clarifications and timeline details; commissioners and councilors signaled they expect further public outreach and a future decision about whether to place a measure before voters.

Ending

The joint meeting closed after the lodging-tax discussion and public comment period. If the boards decide to proceed, staff noted that statutory deadlines (including a roughly 110-day deadline to submit a ballot resolution to the county clerk) will constrain the calendar for any November ballot placement and that any passed measure would require periodic reapproval by voters under state law.