Teton county, Jackson council adopt consultant-backed formula to split Fire/EMS costs; town vote split
Loading...
Summary
The county and town debated competing funding models for Jackson Hole Fire & EMS and the county directed staff to adopt a weighted formula (incident count, population served, staffing and fleet each at 25%); the county approved the direction unanimously while the town later approved its matching motion with a split vote.
Teton County commissioners and the Town of Jackson opened a detailed review of funding options for their jointly run Fire and EMS services, ultimately directing staff to revise the joint powers agreement to use a combined weighted formula for cost allocation.
The discussion began when Tyler St. Clair, Jackson town manager, and Jody Pond, county staff, summarized a consultant report and described two competing proposals: the county’s combined weighted-factor approach and the town’s preference to include assessed valuation in the split. St. Clair told both bodies the point of the session was “to discuss each other's recommendation for a new funding split for the fire and EMS joint powers agreement.”
The county proposal recommended weighting four factors—incident count, population served, staffing and fleet—equally. Commissioner MacKer moved to “direct staff to revise the FireEMS joint powers agreement to utilize the weighted combined factors of incident count at 25%, population served at 25%, staffing at 25%, and fleet at 25%.” That motion carried unanimously in the county.
The island of disagreement centered on which factors best align incentives and who ultimately bears growth-related costs. Mayor Jorgensen argued for including assessed valuation in the formula, saying the county’s rising wealth and property values were a meaningful driver of service expectations: “I have been suggesting assessed valuation…because it's a measure of, through my lens, what's driving the increased level of service requests or expectation,” she said. Other council and commission members countered that assessed valuation distorts who actually uses emergency services in a largely visitor-driven valley and pointed to evidence that much of the recent cost growth is driven by wages, added full-time positions and rising operational costs.
Jackson’s Fire Chief Mike Moyer described the operational case for more staffing: “We’re gonna be most efficient and effective as a fire department, serving the community as a whole without attempting to look specifically at town or county… But when it comes to budgeting… response times and so forth, it certainly does come to play.” He and staff also explained a reporting quirk: earlier years’ tables omitted fund 11 (the former fire mill fund), which made recent year-over-year jumps look larger than they are. Staff said an addendum will present combined figures so the historical comparison is accurate.
Council and commission debate repeatedly returned to trade-offs between policy-controlled elements (staffing, fleet) and circumstance-driven elements (incident count, population). Commissioner MacKer and others emphasized that staffing and fleet are choices elected officials can control and therefore argued for giving them equal weight with incident and population counts. Council members worried that relying heavily on incident or effective population would shift more burden to the town because of visitor volumes.
After extended discussion and public comment, the county voted to adopt the staff direction by consensus. The town then considered and approved a matching motion to direct staff to use the 25% weighting; the town vote, however, was not unanimous (recorded as three in support, one opposed and one abstention). Staff said they will return with clarifications about indirect costs (an expected 3% standardized charge for shared administrative support) and with an addendum showing the historical Fund 11 figures.
What’s next: Staff will prepare the revised joint powers agreement language reflecting the agreed weighting, include uniform treatment of indirect costs, and provide an updated financial table showing combined fund figures so both boards can review the exact fiscal implications before implementation.
