Victor's Share of Operational Costs

DRIGGS — The Driggs City Council tabled a plan to bill Victor for a share of its own operational costs on July 21, after Victor's mayor objected that the change would skip a consultation the two cities' shared-plant agreement requires.

The costs include a slice of the city council's pay, part of what Driggs pays the county sheriff, and its sewer-outreach budget, six items that would add about $24,000 a year to Victor's bill.

Neither Driggs nor Victor runs its own police department; both contract with the Teton County Sheriff. Victor budgeted $67,400 for law enforcement in fiscal 2026; Driggs pays the county $45,000 a year under its enhanced law-enforcement agreement, so Victor already pays the same sheriff more than Driggs does. The proposal would have Victor also cover a share of Driggs' sheriff bill, through the plant.

Victor Mayor Sue Muncaster objected in a letter to the Driggs council the evening of July 20, the day before the vote. The 2011 agreement, she wrote, provides that Driggs "will consult with Victor before incurring a material increase in operating and maintenance costs," and adding these charges without that consultation "would send a message that one city is setting the terms rather than the two cities working through issues as partners." She did not argue Victor owes nothing. She asked that the costs be reviewed jointly, with full information in front of both councils.

Public Works Director Jay Mazalewski told the council the agreement obliges Driggs to notify Victor of a change in what it bills but stops short of requiring its approval; Muncaster had read the agreement to require consultation first.

Folding the six items into the operational costs the two cities share would have Victor reimburse about 45 percent, its share of the plant's flow, and lower Driggs' own share by the same amount. Staff told the council that method "is not what is contemplated in the current Inter-City Agreement," which calls for a set per-gallon rate equal to what Driggs residents pay.

Council member Sarah Johnston defended the charges as real costs of running a plant. If an independent sewer district owned it, she said, the district's own salaries, benefits, policing, and outreach would pass through to the cities it served. But Driggs owns the plant, and Driggs residents elect its council to run the city. Council President Allison Michalski insisted the police charge stay in and would drop the council salaries and benefits, leaving training, travel, and outreach for the joint talks. The council voted unanimously to table the whole question for a joint meeting with Victor, the discussion Muncaster had asked for.

The two cities' 15-year-old agreement no longer settles how they split a shared plant. The cities have yet to set the capacity limits the agreement requires them to put in writing. Victor and Driggs dropped a lawsuit over the plant this month and reopened talks toward a new agreement, after an audit found Driggs had overcharged Victor under the old one. The cost question is a preview of what a new agreement will have to resolve.

The agreement also requires the express written consent of both cities for any large new connection to the shared system, Muncaster wrote, and she attached a spreadsheet of about 19 developments for which Victor says it is still awaiting Driggs' written consent. That question, over the growth loading the plant, is a separate matter.

What to watch: Driggs and Victor are set to carry the cost question to a joint meeting of the two councils. Whether Victor agrees that its neighbor's council pay, sheriff bill, and outreach belong in a shared sewer bill will shape the new agreement the two cities are negotiating.

Driggs Wanted Victor to Help Pay Its Council and Police Costs. Victor Objected.

Sources