Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies Clause Samples
A Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies) clause defines how costs will be divided among parties involved in a project or collaboration. It typically outlines the specific methods or formulas used to allocate expenses, such as splitting costs equally, proportionally based on usage, or according to each party’s contribution. This clause ensures transparency and fairness in financial responsibilities, preventing disputes by clearly establishing how shared costs are calculated and paid.
Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies. 1. The type of cost share methodology utilized will vary according to a great variety of environmental, resource, tactical, political, and other considerations. The following factors should be discussed in order to clarify how such factors will influence the ultimate selection of a cost share methodology for any given wildland fire.
2. The cost sharing methodologies that will be utilized should wildfire spread to a neighboring jurisdiction in a location where fire is not wanted.
3. The cost share methodologies that will be used should a jurisdiction accept or receive a wildland fire and manage it for multiple objectives.
4. Any distinctions in what cost share methodology will be used if the reason the fire spreads to another jurisdiction is attributed to a strategic decision, versus environmental conditions (weather, fuels, and fire behavior) or tactical considerations (firefighter safety, resource availability) that preclude stopping the fire at jurisdictional boundaries. Examples of cost sharing methodologies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs.
b. In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost share methodologies may include, but are not limited to:
1) Each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – fire suppression efforts are primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands.
2) Each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands.
3) Cost share by percentage of ownership.
4) Cost is apportioned by geographic division or percent of effort. Examples of geographic divisions are: Divisions A and B (using a map as an attachment); privately owned property with structures; or specific locations such as campground.
5) Reconciliation of daily costs (for larger, multi-day incidents). This method relies upon daily agreed to costs, using Incident Action Plans or other means to determine multi-Agency contributions.
Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies. When a wildland fire that is being managed for multiple objectives spreads to a neighboring jurisdiction because of strategic decisions, and in a location where fire is not wanted, the managing jurisdiction may be responsible for wildfire suppression costs. In those situations where weather, fuels or fire behavior of the wildland fire precludes stopping at jurisdiction boundaries, cost share methodologies may include, but are not limited to:
A. Each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – fire suppression efforts are primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands.
B. Each jurisdiction pays for its own resources – services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands.
C. Cost share by percentage of ownership.
D. Cost is apportioned by geographic division or percent of effort. Examples of geographic divisions are: Divisions A and B (using a map as an attachment); privately owned property with structures; or specific locations such as campground.
E. Reconciliation of daily costs (for larger, multi-day incidents). This method relies upon daily agreed to costs, using Incident Action Plans or other means to determine multi-Agency contributions.
Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies a. The following cost sharing methodologies may be utilized: (listed in no particular order)
i. Percent of Effort- Costs for resources will be shared by percent of effort by jurisdiction. Agency Administrators, or designee, will agree upon each operational period the percent of effort, note the percentage on the front of the IAP for each operational period and all administrators will sign, as verification, of the percent split.
ii. Acres Burned- Costs for resources will be shared based on the daily or final percentage of acres burned by jurisdiction, (or) by fire line perimeter acres, per jurisdiction.
iii. Boots on the Ground- Costs for resources will be shared by boots- on-the-ground for jurisdictional responsibility. Agency Administrators, or designee, will agree upon each resource’s jurisdictional workload. This will be noted on the ICS 204 in the IAP, next to each resource, per division, per shift. Each Agency Administrator, or designee, will sign the front of the IAP as verification of boots-on-the-ground.
iv. You Order/You Pay- Costs for resources will be based on the ‘you order/you pay’ model. The jurisdiction the ground resource is working on does not matter. Resource orders will indicate which agency requested the ground resource. The ordering agency will be noted on the ICS 204 in the IAP, next to each resource, per division, per shift.
v. Other-
1. Costs for resources will be shared based on specific divisions. Division cost responsibility will be noted on the ICS 204 in the IAP, per division, per shift. Each Agency Administrator will agree upon each resource’s working Division for each shift and sign the IAP.
2. Other methodologies determined by the agency administrator (validate with incident business that it is implementable)
Cost Share Agreement (Cost Share Methodologies. Cost share agreements shall be prepared when an incident ▇▇▇▇▇ across or threatens jurisdictional boundaries. The intent is to distribute the financial burden based on a method agreed upon by a representative from each affected jurisdiction. A cost share agreement should be negotiated as soon as practical. For wildland urban interface (W/UI) fires involving structures, the distribution of costs should be commensurate with the values protected.