Fremont County commissioners press citizens’ group for alternatives as 3/4% sales-tax proposal surfaces to fund ambulance and transport services

A citizens’ political-action group told the Fremont County Commission it opposes a proposed 3/4% sales-tax ballot measure intended to fund ambulance, commercial air and ground transportation services, and urged the board to pursue alternative funding paths for emergency medical services.

“We’re opposing this ballot initiative … that money [is] better spent left in their pockets,” a representative of the citizens’ group told the commissioners during public comment. The group said the sales-tax package bundles multiple projects that ought to be separable so voters can decide on ambulance funding independently.

Commissioners and staff gave a detailed response, tracing the limits of available federal funding and how proposed state and federal rural-health transformation dollars would be allocated. Vice Chairman Jones and other commissioners said the county’s lack of critical-access hospitals and the state’s emphasis on regionalization constrain how much of the federal rural-health money would reach Fremont County for ambulance services.

County staff explained that federal/rural-health funding often hinges on regional structures and ownership criteria (including whether local ambulances are county-owned or part of a regional system), and that tribal participation would likely be necessary to qualify for certain regional funding streams. The board said assembling a regional approach that includes tribal partners would be a heavy lift and likely a year‑long process.

Commissioners discussed alternative revenue tools — including forming an EMS district or a targeted countywide tax for ambulance services, partnering ambulances with fire districts, and soliciting grants — and flagged political and equity trade-offs. Several commissioners and members of the public noted resistance to property-tax levies in some parts of the county and argued that separating ballot questions (ambulance versus airport versus ground transit) might give voters clearer choices.

County staff also said the proposals could be placed on either the primary or general ballot but noted differences in turnout: fewer voters participated in primary elections, and the county would need to weigh whether primary timing or a petition process would be appropriate. The board asked the citizens’ group to present a written proposal and scheduled a public-slot conversation for the March 24 meeting to allow municipalities and advocacy groups to offer concrete alternatives.

The commission did not take a final vote on the tax question; instead, commissioners tasked staff and interested members of the public to develop specific proposals and data to present at a future meeting. The board emphasized its priority to find stable funding for ambulance services over funding for commercial air or ground‑transport projects.

What happens next: The commission invited the citizens’ group and municipal leaders to the March 24 meeting to present formal proposals and discuss possible ballot language and timing. Commissioners also asked staff to continue reviewing federal grant eligibility and to provide clearer cost estimates and scenarios for district-based and countywide funding options.