Latest news with #LegislativeStabilizationReserveAccount
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Generational investment fund bill fails in Wyoming House of Representatives
CHEYENNE — A bill to create an investment fund that advocates have said could offset lost mineral revenue to the state has failed in the Wyoming House of Representatives. Senate File 197, 'Wyoming generational investment account-2,' was not debated on the House floor by a Friday deadline for bills on general file, but an amendment to another bill to create the fund was debated on second reading Monday afternoon. SF 197 would have created a perpetual trust fund with a $100 million transfer from the Legislative Stabilization Reserve Account (the state's 'rainy-day fund' — if available and based on a sliding scale dependent on funding in the LSRA — to the proposed Wyoming Generational Investment Account. Bill sponsor Sen. Ogden Driskill, R-Devils Tower, said the program would have been rolled out in two phases: First, it would have created the structure needed to create the fund, and then it would have rolled out a constitutional amendment so that investment earnings would be distributed 30 years after the initial contribution. 'You have to create the fund, and then go to the people and make it an inviolate trust,' Driskill said. Driskill said that while he was 'very disappointed' the bill did not hit the House floor by Friday night, he believed the idea would come back in a future session. 'It will come back, and I really believe it will come to fruition,' Driskill said. Calculations based on historical earnings indicate the fund would be worth around $30 billion in 30 years, according to Wyoming State Treasurer Curt Meier's office. But Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, recommended the idea become an interim topic for study by the Joint Appropriations Committee. Meier said he believes there is support in the House for a constitutional amendment to create an inviolate trust, but an understanding of the bill and the program it would create 'was not there.' After the session, he said, he plans to conduct outreach to lawmakers and Wyoming residents about a generational investment account. 'We are going to go into areas where we didn't have a lot of support,' Meier said. 'We want to tell people the benefits of this idea.' Waiting a year or two to create the program doesn't mean that any long-term investment like that proposed in SF 197 cannot be realized, he continued. 'It could still pay off, but it would just be a year or two later,' Meier said. 'But if you have that steady stream of income, it opens up a whole bunch of opportunities that we don't have today.' Driskill said that SF 197 did include an effective date of three years out, so that leaders could agree on the framework of the program, but nonetheless, the measure did not make it past the House. 'We did that to have a chance to say, did we create the right framework? The right vehicle? And if we didn't, let's fix it,' he said. 'In the meantime, that would give us time to get ready to run a constitutional amendment.' Even without the creation of a new inviolate trust for the state of Wyoming this session, Driskill said he believes such a trust is crucial because when funding is short, those investment accounts are limited in use. In discussions this session about a Wyoming generational investment account, lawmakers have brought up the state's Permanent Mineral Trust Fund multiple times. According to the Wyoming Taxpayers Association, the PMTF was created in 1975 by a constitutional amendment that passed on the November 1974 ballot. The history of the fund dates back to 1968, when the balance in Wyoming's bank account had dwindled to only $80. Then-Gov. Stan Hathaway drafted a bill to institute a severance tax on minerals in the state. Legislators were reluctant to bring forward his proposal, however. The bill passed by a narrow margin, creating the first severance tax on minerals in Wyoming. Today, 30% of the state's general fund comes from interest on the PMTF, which has equated to a lower tax burden on residents. 'If we could have (spent) the Mineral Trust Fund, it probably would have been drawn down several times. I really feel strongly (a generational investment account) needs to be an inviolate trust,' Driskill said. House debates the idea anyway Monday afternoon, the House did have a chance to discuss the idea of a generational investment fund, although in a roundabout way. Rep. Steve Harshman, R-Casper, brought a second-reading amendment to Senate File 70, 'Investment modernization-state nonpermanent funds,' to create what he said was something similar to the fund under SF 197, but what he called an 'income tax prevention account.' Harshman also sponsored House Bill 107, 'Wyoming generational investment account,' a mirror bill to SF 197. That bill was not heard in committee of the whole in the House by a Feb. 10 deadline. 'Really, this is a simple way for us to get our existing money working harder,' Harshman said about his amendment Monday. Rep. Bob Nicholas, R-Cheyenne, said that in his eight years chairing the Appropriations Committee, he often faced discussion about impending budget shortfalls due to falling revenue from the coal, oil and gas industries. With that experience in mind, he said he would support Harshman's amendment. 'Our fundamental responsibility is to prepare for the future, for our kids and for their kids,' Nicholas said. But Bear said on the floor that the idea was vetted in the House Appropriations Committee, and that a second-reading amendment on a different bill was not the right way to resurrect the idea. SF 70, he said, restricts spending from the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Fund, and the Wyoming Cultural Trust Fund. 'Now, what we are talking about is actually bringing a bill in for a whole different purpose, that died earlier in this particular session,' Bear said. Rep. Ann Lucas, R-Cheyenne, said she would oppose the amendment, because in addition to saving, the state must cut its spending. 'I've coached people on how to save money, and how to spend wisely,' Lucas said. 'I didn't hear anybody here say, 'Maybe we should cut spending some places.' I feel that no savings plan works without a controlled, reasonable spending plan.' Harshman's amendment failed on a 35-22 vote Monday afternoon.
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Restored property tax cut bill passes Wyoming Senate, heads to House
CHEYENNE — A bill to offer all homeowners in Wyoming a two-year, 50% reduction in property taxes has passed the state Senate. Senate File 69, 'Homeowner property tax exemption,' passed in a 23-8 vote on third reading Tuesday. Last week, the Senate voted to decrease the percentage of property tax relief to 25% of assessed property value up to $1 million. This week, the Senate restored the bill to its original form, approving an amendment brought forward by Sen. Tara Nethercott, R-Cheyenne, in a 19-12 vote. That amendment brought tax relief back to 50% for all homeowners, with no state backfill and a two-year sunset date. Senate President Bo Biteman, R-Ranchester, said on the floor that the version passed Tuesday was the bill Wyomingites deserve. Sen. Bo Biteman, R-Ranchester (2025) Sen. Bo Biteman, R-Ranchester 'The people of Wyoming are tired of excuses. They want action, and they want us to deliver for them, finally,' Biteman said, adding that the Senate has been debating property tax relief for years. 'I have said repeatedly, the most difficult thing to do in the Wyoming Legislature is to cut taxes,' he said. 'Hundreds of millions of dollars flies out of here every time we do the budget.' Senate Vice President Tim Salazar, R-Riverton, said this was the Senate fulfilling its promise to provide much-needed relief to its constituents. 'We just passed historic property tax relief. We didn't do it with trumpets. We didn't do it with fanfare, but we passed it,' Salazar said. Sen. Tim Salazar, SD26 Sen. Tim Salazar, SD26 Other senators worried that the tax cut could affect smaller, more rural communities — many of which have not experienced soaring property tax increases — in ways that it may not affect counties where property values have increased by double digits in recent years. Sen. Stacy Jones, R-Rock Springs, proposed an unsuccessful amendment to use state savings to backfill, or pay back, local governments for 12.5% of the lost revenue under the cut. In Rock Springs, property taxes have only increased 19.5% from 2019 to 2023. Jones said a 50% cut there would devastate the local civic center, rec center, senior center and services like snow removal. 'What you do today affects all of the communities across Wyoming,' Jones said. However, Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, who voted against the bill, also voted against Jones' amendment. Rothfuss said the Legislative Stabilization Reserve Account, or the state's savings, was not designed to pay back tax cuts for citizens. Others said that they did not support a backfill, but for another reason: To show citizens that the taxes they pay do indeed go toward local services, and when they are cut, so are those services. Sen. Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, said he could not vote for SF 69 because it created a 'one size fits all' solution for all of Wyoming. Instead, he said the Senate could have chosen to reduce only the assessed state mill levies, without cutting into those assessed by specific counties. 'We could have gone in … to the property taxes that this legislative body is responsible for, and stayed in our lane,' Hicks said. 'But we couldn't stay in our lane. We said, 'We are going to usurp all those local governments. We are going to have a paternalistic point of view, and we are going to provide property tax relief. Damn with the local governments'.' Sen. Eric Barlow, R-Gillette, brought forward an amendment that would allow taxpayers to pay the full amount of property taxes due, without the exemption, if they choose to do so. 'I hear from folks who say, I need the services in my community. I want to have a way to pay if there is an exemption, a reduction,' Barlow said. 'This says that if you get the tax bill, and say it is a 50% exemption, that I can pay the full amount without the exemption.' That amendment passed in a voice vote. No state 'backfill' Senate leaders told the media shortly after the vote they did not remove the state backfill 'to make a point.' On the floor, some senators pointed out that removing this backfill would hurt city budgets and reduce local services. 'Our purpose wasn't to inflict pain or to make a point. We don't make a point in tax policy,' Biteman said. 'It affects people's lives, it affects the pocketbook. Good tax policy stands on its own. … If you're going to cut taxes, cut taxes. You don't take money out of one pocket, put it in the other, and call it a tax cut. And that's the bottom line with the backfill.' Nethercott added that it's 'not sustainable from a state fiscal perspective' to backfill lost revenue from the state. Local governments need to be self-sustainable on their own revenues, through their own financial planning, she said. Biteman said there are still some House members who are 'hung up' on including a state backfill. However, the Senate president said those members are 'coming off of that.' 'I don't want to speak for them, but it sounds like things are moving,' Biteman said. Nethercott said on the floor that a vote for the bill would not be a cut in education funding. One of the funding sources for the School Foundation Program is mill levies, which are paid for through property taxes. Sen. Tara Nethercott, R-Cheyenne (2025) Sen. Tara Nethercott, R-Cheyenne Rothfuss agreed the loss in property tax revenue doesn't cut education funding, but it would force the state to dip into its savings. Currently, the incoming revenue from property taxes matches the expenditure of education funds, he said. 'That's a good situation to be in, when your revenue and your expenses are about the same,' Rothfuss said. 'If we pass this legislation, then we are no longer receiving enough revenue to pay the full cost of the School Foundation Program.' This would force the state to pull out of its savings account, Rothfuss said, instead of relying on existing revenue. 'That's unsustainable,' Rothfuss said. Before becoming law, SF 69 must pass the House and obtain Gov. Mark Gordon's signature. If SF 69 passes those hurdles, the exemption would first apply to the tax year that began Jan. 1.
