Highland pushes Alpine for bigger share of Lone Peak Public Safety costs amid staffing concerns

Highland City Council members told the Lone Peak Public Safety District board and their Alpine City counterparts this month they want the district’s funding formula changed so contributions better reflect taxable value and actual service costs.

The discussion followed months of board-level debate about adding at least one firefighter position; the board approved funding for an additional on‑duty position (which translates to three hires across platoons) but made filling that post contingent on revising the interlocal allocation formula.

Why it matters: Highland officials say the current formula — a 10% “base” split, then 45% by population and 45% by equivalent residential units — results in Highland paying roughly 65% of the district cost while receiving only about 45% of combat staffing. That mismatch, Highland leaders said, leaves their residents paying more while frontline staffing frequently drops below minimums at the Highland station.

Highland officials and Lone Peak staff described daily staffing realities: when the district is not at full strength (vacations, sick time, part‑time variability), the district commonly operates with seven on‑duty firefighters; under that configuration Alpine typically staffs four on one station and Highland three. Fire chiefs testified that four firefighters on a station is the minimum safe staffing to conduct an interior structural fire attack or to concurrently staff an engine and an ambulance.

What Highland proposed: City staff and council members presented a taxable‑value allocation as a defensible option — i.e., splitting assessments by property taxable value like many taxing jurisdictions. Staff said that taxable‑value weighting would shift more of the district cost to Alpine (moving Alpine’s share closer to a 42–58 split instead of 35–65) and would be easier to explain to residents than population estimates that rely on permit projections and household size assumptions.

Alpine’s proposals: Alpine offered alternatives during board discussions, including multi‑factor splits that would use ERUs, call volume and taxable value. Highland rejected Alpine’s initial offers and stressed the need for an outcome that Highland staff could defend to taxpayers.

Timing and next steps: Highland staff told the board they consider the taxable‑value proposal available through the end of October and asked Alpine to respond. Alpine asked to meet with its full council before agreeing; council members from Alpine cited scheduling and vacation conflicts as reasons for the delay. Highland set follow‑up board meetings and told Alpine staff it expects a firm answer; Highland leaders said they will pursue council action to amend the interlocal agreement if necessary.

Council comments: Multiple Highland council members said they prefer to keep the district intact but will consider alternatives if Alpine will not negotiate a fairer split. Highland stressed it wants the district to function as a durable public‑safety partnership and said regular formula reviews should be built into any amended interlocal agreement.

What remains unresolved: The board approved funding for an additional daily combat position but has not hired for it because the formula change is still pending. Highland staff said the allocation issue will need formal amendment of the interlocal agreement and final action by both city councils before changes are implemented.

Evidence: Highland presented staffing percentages, budget shares and multiple allocation scenarios at the board meeting; Highland administrators said staff costs account for about 81% of the district budget and that any “base” allocation should reflect staff‑driven fixed costs.

Outlook: Highland officials said they prefer to negotiate a district solution but will act to protect their taxpayers’ interests if Alpine declines to accept a revised formula.