Summit County budget talks center on ESST revenue, proposed 5% grant program for tourism‑impacted services

County staff told the Summit County Council on Nov. 14 that the newly enacted Emergency Services Sales Tax (ESST) is projected to generate about $16.5 million for next year and could be used to mitigate visitor impacts across county services, while the county’s initial analysis identifies approximately $17.6 million in budget items that could qualify for ESST support.

The ESST, authorized by recent state legislation and placed on the ballot as a half‑percent measure, was described by county presenters as a targeted tool to address visitor‑driven costs such as emergency medical services and search‑and‑rescue. "The uses of that sales tax have to be justified by estimated visitor impacts," Matt Levitt, county staff, said during the presentation. Staff framed the tax as a way to reduce pressure on property‑tax increases that would otherwise be used to plug budget gaps created by recent ambulance and EMS contract costs.

Why it matters: Summit County officials said visitors are a substantial driver of county expense and that those impacts are distributed across the county, not confined to Park City. Staff presented a multi‑year visitor dataset showing about 5 million out‑of‑market visitors on average (2019–2025 through September), with an additional roughly 1.5 million in fourth‑quarter traffic that could push annual visitor totals higher. Using incident and dispatch data, staff estimated visitor impacts for specific programs (for example, EMS at about 46% tourist‑related) and highlighted search and rescue as heavily tourism‑driven (staff cited 90 of 109 calls, or about 94%, in one recent year for non‑residents).

The numbers: County staff presented a line‑item analysis that yielded $17.6 million in ESST‑eligible budget items for 2026, compared with an ESST revenue estimate of $16.5 million. That gap prompted the staff recommendation discussion: either use a portion of TRT (transient room tax) to fill the difference, or place the savings back into the general/rainy‑day/municipal services funds. Presenters stressed they were taking a conservative revenue estimate and that balances could be built if actual receipts exceed projections.

Proposed grant program: Staff proposed a discretionary ESST grant program allocating 5% of ESST revenue as one‑time grants to eligible programs and jurisdictions (the example figure cited was about $826,000). "I would propose that we take 5% of that budget and we allocate that, you know, on a one‑time basis and do that as many times as the council would like to do it," the county presenter said. The 5% figure was described as an administrative starting point rather than a statutory formula.

Eligibility and process: Legal counsel clarified that eligibility depends on whether the activity mitigates tourism impacts, not strictly on whether the recipient is a government entity. Staff suggested award processes could be administrative, council‑driven, or managed by a small board; council members urged a transparent structure and suggested a committee model similar to other local grant programs.

Points of debate: Council members questioned the methodology and asked for greater transparency tied to specific projects. Some members pushed for clearer distinctions between "needs" (ongoing core services) and "nice‑to‑haves" (one‑time capital purchases). Council Member Chris Robinson said he would "be opposed to sending funds" directly to outside organizations such as the Utah Avalanche Center until county operations were fully funded, while other members pointed out the Avalanche Center is an allowable use and that prior support had been provided through nonprofit grants.

What’s next: Staff asked for council direction to include the proposed ESST grant allocation as a line item in the 2026 budget and for guidance on whether to use TRT to cover any one‑year shortfall. Council members requested additional detail on the budget line items, clearer definitions of eligible uses, and a framework for grant administration before making final decisions.

Authorities referenced in session included the Community Development Block Grant program (for a separate public hearing), recent state legislation expanding ESST use, and state TRT law governing room‑tax allocations. No formal vote on ESST allocations or the grant program occurred during the Nov. 14 session.