Jackson council delays decision on joint Fire & EMS funding approach pending more analysis

Town Council on Sept. 15 continued discussion on how Jackson and Teton County should split funding for the joint Jackson Hole Fire & EMS department, sending the matter back for additional work and a recommendation to bring to the Nov. 2 joint meeting with the county.

Town Manager Hunter Sinclair and Fire Chief Mike Moyer reviewed a consultant report that evaluated six possible allocation factors — call volume, assessed valuation, response area, fleet/facility costs, staffing and population served — and presented two competing approaches: the consultant and county administrator recommended a weighted approach that emphasizes incident count and population; town staff recommended an evenly weighted approach across four factors. Sinclair recommended using incident count, population served, staffing and fleet costs, and suggested a 25% weight for each. Chief Moyer reviewed pros and cons of each factor and noted that staffing is the department’s largest shared expense.

The nut of the debate centered on whether assessed valuation — the total taxable property value in each jurisdiction, which heavily favors the county — should factor into the split. Sinclair and several council members warned that assessed valuation does not correlate directly with EMS call volume and that using it could shift costs in ways the town’s residents might not intendedly bear. Councilor Schechter asked how often any formula would be updated; staff proposed a recurring review every two years, or annually if the council preferred.

Council discussion ranged from technical questions about how the weighted formula is calculated to larger fairness questions. Sinclair explained the mechanics: the department’s approximate budget for Fire & EMS was shown in staff materials as $7,500,000; the weighted-factor method first applies a factor weight to the total budget and then splits each factor by jurisdiction percentages (for example, a 35% incident-count allocation would create a $2.6 million bucket to be divided between town and county according to incident shares). The county commission had favored a 35/35/15/15 split (incident, population, staffing, fleet) while town staff recommended 25/25/25/25.

Several council members asked for protections against being asked to pay for county-initiated spending that the town did not approve. Sinclair and Chief Moyer said budget approval for the joint department remains an annual, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction decision; if the town objects to specific budget items it may vote not to approve them. That underlying joint powers agreement and the annual budget process, staff said, are the primary safeguards.

After extended discussion and requests for additional time to meet one-on-one with staff, Councilor Beaman moved and Councilor Regan seconded a motion to continue the item to the town’s next available meeting in October so staff can refine recommendations and provide more scenarios. The motion passed unanimously.

What’s next: Town staff will refine the weighted-factor proposal, prepare numerical scenarios, and bring a recommendation back to the council ahead of the Nov. 2 joint meeting with Teton County.