The Jackson Town Council on Oct. 6 directed town staff to present Teton County with a proposed funding approach for the joint Jackson Hole Fire & EMS department that uses four factors equally weighted at 25% each: assessed valuation, population served, staffing and fleet costs. Town Manager Tyler Sinclair and Fire Chief Mike Moyer briefed council members on a consultant's study and recommended options in advance of a Nov. 2 joint meeting with the county.

Sinclair told the council the consultant (presented earlier to the town and county) recommended combining several factors rather than relying on a single measure. He said the town and county had previously discussed multiple alternatives and that staffing and fleet are the most significant cost drivers for the department. Sinclair said his staff recommendation was to include assessed valuation along with incident count, population served, staffing and fleet, and the council was being asked whether it concurred with the factors and their proposed weightings.

The vote followed a lengthy Q&A among council members about whether the exercise would produce material differences in short-term dollars, how the weighting would protect town taxpayers from future county-level increases in staffing and fleet costs, and whether the exercise was largely a prudential review of long-standing joint powers agreements. Sinclair explained the town and county had agreed in a memorandum of understanding last fall to review joint powers agreements and funding splits as part of a broader process tied to facilities planning.

Council members asked for dollar illustrations comparing different weightings. Sinclair and Chief Moyer showed the current department budget the consultant used (about $7.5 million in the presentation) and explained how the recommended weightings would change the town/county split. Using the consultant and county-recommended split of 35/35/15/15 across four factors produced approximate annual shares of about $3.437 million for the town and $4.111 million for the county; shifting to 25% across the four factors reduced the town's share by roughly $129,000 in the first year under the staff's scenario. Sinclair said the model recalculates periodically, so changes in any factor would automatically alter the split under the proposed methodology.

After additional discussion about whether to replace incident count with assessed valuation (a substitution several council members supported because of local conditions), a council member moved a revised motion directing staff to tell the county the town's preferred approach would: use combined factors of assessed valuation, population served, staffing, and fleet costs to determine funding splits; weight those four factors equally at 25% each; and develop consistent methodologies for building maintenance and indirect expense allocation across joint departments. The motion passed by voice vote in council and was recorded as adopted.

Council and staff said the action is the town's starting position for the Nov. 2 joint meeting with county commissioners; any final decision will require agreement between both jurisdictions.

Why it matters: The funding method determines how much of the joint department's operating and capital costs each jurisdiction pays. Councilors framed the vote as due diligence on long-standing agreements and as a way to add rigor and predictability to future budgets rather than an immediate large tax change.

What comes next: Town staff will share the town's preferred approach with county staff and administrators ahead of a Nov. 2 joint meeting. The council asked staff to also develop consistent methods for allocating building maintenance and other indirect expenses for joint departments.