County and town approve Travel and Tourism Board budget after debate over ambassador funding

Jackson Hole and Teton County officials on May 13 approved the Jackson Hole Travel and Tourism Board’s proposed FY26 budget after a daylong joint budget review that focused heavily on how much to set aside for “ambassador” visitor‑service programs.

The town council approved the recommended budget as presented; the county commission debated an amendment that would have raised the ambassador services line from $550,000 to $800,000 and then rejected that amendment in a 3‑2 vote. The county later voted 4‑1 to approve the Travel and Tourism Board budget in the amount presented to the joint meeting: $7,843,671.

The debate centered on competing counts of need and available reserves. Board chair Mary Bass told the joint meeting the Travel and Tourism Board had separated ambassador funding into its own line and had reviewed applications; she said the portion of the applications that represents “boots on the ground” ambassadors totals $445,400 and that the $550,000 line item would cover the on‑the‑ground personnel as currently requested. Bass also described unallocated reserves the board could draw on for emergencies.

Supporters of increasing the ambassador line said federal staffing cuts to public‑lands managers this season create an emergency need for local ambassadors and visitor‑education efforts. Opponents said the board’s multi‑contract budget was the result of months of work and that directing a late, line‑item increase would undercut the board’s ability to manage nearly 100 contracts and to preserve a contingency for as‑yet‑unknown emergencies.

Members of both bodies and tourism board staff: described the funding requests in three parts — boots‑on‑the‑ground personnel ($445,400), additional program‑related costs such as training and equipment, and larger grant requests that together amounted to roughly $929,000 across six applicants. Commissioners and council members noted the board also retains about $375,000 in unallocated funds and roughly $1.4 million in reserves in the recommended budget, and they discussed the option of a budget amendment later in the fiscal year if conditions worsen.

After extended discussion, the county motion to change the ambassador line to $800,000 failed. The town council then approved the Travel and Tourism Board budget as presented; the county commission ultimately approved the same board‑recommended budget by a 4‑1 vote, with one commissioner opposed.

What this means going forward: the Travel and Tourism Board will proceed with its planned review of the six ambassador proposals and will allocate the $550,000 line and, if necessary, use unallocated funds or reserves in response to emergent needs. Board staff said they will reconvene to make funding awards (the board indicated its next relevant meeting date is in early June).