General government appropriations.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: HB0001 Drafter: DKG LSO No.: 10LSO-0348 Effective Date: July 1, 2010 and immediate. LINE ITEM VETOED Enrolled Act No.: HEA0046 Chapter No.: Prime Sponsor: Joint Appropriations Interim Committee Catch Title: General government appropriations. Subject: Bud get bill. This bill contains the following appropriations M=millions, B=billions and K=thousands of dollars) for these major programs: o K-12 Foundation program o $1.6B in school funds for K-12 programs o School Capital Construction o $82M in school capcon funds for major maintenance o $151.2M in school capcon funds for K-12 projects o Locals - All appropriations to cities, towns and counties o Total GF appropriation of $87.5M plus $33.4M in mineral royalty funds o Dept. of Transportation including WYOLINK and airport improvements o $50M GF for road construction o $2.5M GF for WYOLINK o $13.5M GF for airport improvements o Business Ready Community Program - o $50M GF o Community Facility Program o $8.5M GF o Wildlife Trust - Total appropriation - $9M GF o $6M GF for projects o $2.5M GF for trust fund o $548K GF for administration o Extended the life of the challenge account until June 30, 2012 o Dept. of Health - Total appropriation - $836.1M GF o Added $6.1M for DD programs and waiting lists o Added $400K for senior center direct care staff salaries o Added $850K for crisis stabilization program in Worland o Added $400K TT for crisis stabilization program in Cheyenne o Added $60K for foster grandparent program o Set aside $25M for Medicaid emergencies and caseload increases o UW (including medical ed) - Total appropriation $390.2M GF, plus $78M AML, and $27M ARRA o Approved changes to prior appropriations for capital projects o Approved bridge loan for athletic facilities match program o Approved carryover of $2M and $1M new funding for NCAR MOU o $17.4M in AML funding for school of energy research o $45M AML funding for carbon sequestration research o $14M AML funding for clean coal research o $666K AML funding for reclamation center o $985K AML funding for NMR spectrometer o $27M ARRA funding for major maintenance o $39M FMR based Revenue Bonds for new capital projects o Comm Colleges-Total appropriation $232.6M GF plus $17.1M ARRA o $1.44M for Evenstart program o $17.1M ARRA funding for major maintenance o Approved new capital projects totaling $117.9M (college funds) o Dept. of Corrections - Total appropriation - $274.5M GF o Capital construction (including major maint.) - Total appropriation of $45.6M GF o $14.6M for Tourism Board welcome center o $8.2M for Military Dept land acquisition o $12.9M for liquor warehouse acquisition o $890K for various Game & Fish projects o $2.6M for various Military Dept projects o $3.1M for state building commission contingency o $3.2M for A&I flex contingency o Approved various smaller capital projects o $26.4M GF for major maintenance state buildings o $27M ARRA stimulus funding for UW major maintenance o $17.1M ARRA stimulus funding for CC major maintenance o Approved $39M FMR based Revenue Bonds for new capital projects o Approved $117.9M in college funds for dorms at various colleges o Transfers to LSRA (savings) - $10M Budget reserve account o AML - Total appropriation of $116M in new money plus $4.5M of current program money o $45M for CO2 sequestration study o $33.4M for on-going AML reclamation projects o $17.4M for UW school of energy resources o $14M for coal task force research matching funds o $2.2M for DEQ orphan sites program o $1.4M for DEQ ambient air monitors o $985K for UW NMR spectrometer o $666K for UW reclamation center o $399K for DEQ energy impacts assessments o Employee compensation o $6.5M for retiree insurance o Approved 1% of payroll for future retiree insurance o State Parks o $1.9M for Cultural Trust Fund o Game & Fish o Approved $10.9M for various programs o Totals General Fund Appropriations - $2.85 Billion Federal Fund Appropriations - $1.4 Billion Other State Fund Appropriations - $3.4 Billion Total appropriations in budget bill - $7.6 Billion Comments: The following reports are required under the budget bill: A&I report to JAC on the feasibility of adding new, and retrofitting existing vehicles fueled with natural gas to the states vehicle fleet by November 1, 2010. Employment report to JAC and Labor and Health Committee on the outcome to date of trials associated with workers comp back and spinal injury treatment pilot program before 2012 legislative session. DOT report to the Transportation Committee the detailed FY 2011 budgeted income and expenditures from the highway fund, as approved by the transportation commission by October 1, 2010. DOH report from State Hospital to JAC annually on the use of self-generated fees renewal of current report requirement, by November 1. DFS report to JAC and Judiciary Committee on historical utilization of residential treatment facilities certified as child caring facilities by July 1, 2011. UW report to JAC and Labor and Health Committee on the feasibility and costs of establishing a physicians assistant education program by November 1, 2010. Retirement System JAC to review retirement system cost of living increases and sponsor legislation in the 2011 legislative session to appropriately address the issue. DOC & Community College Commission report to JAC and Education Committee the findings of an assessment of the feasibility of providing coursework at all state correctional facilities by December 1, 2010. DOC report to JAC on assessments of medical care costs at correctional institutions by December 1, 2010. DOC report to JAC and Judiciary Committee on the reestablishment of the sex offender treatment program by December 1, 2010. UW Medical Education - report to JAC and Labor and Health Committee on the feasibility and cost of increasing the number of WWAMI seats for Wyoming students to 20 by July 1, 2010. Education report to JAC and Education Committee the findings of a study evaluating costs and effectiveness of the national certification incentive program for teachers by October 1, 2010. Governor ongoing report via B-11 process any reductions to agency budgets under the budget reduction authority due to revenue shortfalls. Supreme Court budget requests submitted to JAC by November 1, 2010 for 2011-2012 supplemental requests, and by November 1, 2011 for 2013-2014 biennial budget requests. A&I CIO division report to Governor and JAC on recommendations for consolidation of state information technology functions by October 1, 2010. School of Energy Resources report to JAC and Minerals Committee regarding the carbon sequestration research and demonstration project by November 1, 2010. UW/distance education task force report to Governor and JAC by the distance education task force on progress and expenditures of the distance education center located at UW by November 1, 2010 and November 1, 2011. UW/video conferencing task force report to Governor and JAC by the statewide video conferencing task force on progress of establishing video conferencing capabilities which minimize duplication of efforts before 2011 legislative session, and subsequent report to the Governor and Legislature by September 1, 2011. ARRA reporting report to the governor and JAC all funds received by a city, town, or county under federal stimulus programs by December 1, 2010. Joint minerals, business and economic development interim committee directed to develop legislation for introduction in 2011 legislative session to make the pipeline authority a state agency. Joint minerals, business and economic development interim committee directed to develop legislation for introduction in 2011 legislative session to make the infrastructure authority a state agency. School Facilities Commission report monthly to the select school facilities committee in a matrix format all capital construction projects and component level projects for which funds have been encumbered. School Facilities Commission must hold a public hearing in Big Horn, Wyoming before May 1, 2010 to address maintenance and construction options for Sheridan County school district no. 1 elementary school facility at Big Horn Wyoming. Select committee on school finance recalibration must report recommendations for legislation regarding recalibration in time for consideration in the 2011 legislative session. Select committee on developmental disabilities report to Legislature and Governor on the evaluation of costs, methods, and levels of services provided in developmental disabilities programs by October 1, 2010 Audit report to select committee on school facilities on school facilities commission post audit results by September 1, 2010. Select school facilities committee report to JAC, made available to the public, with at least one public hearing on a proposed plan to reorganize the school facilities commission by September 1, 2010. THE BUDGET BILL WAS VETOED IN PART. Under the Governor's special contingent fund the footnote limited use to "natural" disasters. The Governor vetoed the word "natural." In the school capcon section 333, he vetoed words which unnecessarily limited reporting requirements in his view. Sections 338 and 339, which limited expenditures of state agency funds for out of state travel, publications and contractual services, were vetoed entirely. The Governor stated the imposition of added reporting requirements would be less than a productive exercise and that he will direct the department of administration and information to work with the LSO to address the issues included in the stricken language.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 7, 10:54 PM
Why they voted this way
The speaker opposes the amendment because he believes shallow directives from the legislature are unwelcome and do not serve the university well, based on his experience as a Board of Trustee member.
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports the amendment because it costs nothing and simply directs the university to study future possibilities regarding nuclear energy, allowing for a revisit later with data.
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports the amendment as a co-sponsor because it seeks to optimize Wyoming's uranium resources by exploring nuclear engineering expansion beyond just production and shipping.
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports the amendment because affected school districts prefer paying a fair interest rate to the state rather than incurring high fees and costs associated with securing outside loans.
H52
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it is a small cost for providing foundational documents to school children and new citizens. She views it as a good cause.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges the body to resist the amendment because higher deductibles are a reality in both private and individual insurance markets. He argues that $500 is not egregious compared to other options.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment requiring a full budget presentation from the Department of Transportation to increase government transparency and ensure legislators have complete information.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports moving the budget review to another committee because reviewing over $550 million in federal funds would be overwhelming for the current appropriations committee without expanded time.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because gaining more knowledge about departmental projects is beneficial for citizen legislators.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as a good start toward establishing oversight for major departments, similar to models used in other states.
H35
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment to ensure the budget presented is a final, approved document rather than an interim estimate.
H44
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an appropriation because he believes the Epilepsy Association is a necessary organization that provides essential education and stretches every dollar effectively.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the appropriation because the association has done an excellent job educating families and providers about epilepsy, a little-understood disease.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because waiting for a study will delay necessary funding, potentially causing group home closures and leaving vulnerable people without care.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because bypassing the established priority list for school construction leads to political fighting over which schools get built, rather than following a fair system.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports an amendment because she believes the study is important to find answers and potentially save money by looking at how other states handle similar budget crises.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because the Bighorn school district was a victim of a commission rule change that left them with an incomplete project and no funds to finish it.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because allowing exceptions for schools already under construction would encourage everyone to bypass the established priority list, leading to unfair political battles.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it violates established rules that were previously agreed upon with the director of JAC to follow.
H01
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment to provide a financial safety net for local governments facing declining revenues, allowing them to complete capital construction projects that might otherwise be halted.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because diverting funds from the reserve account undermines a long-term policy of building a permanent fund for future generations, comparing it to failing to maintain an asset like a road.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment to finish a job that was started, arguing it is unfair for the commission to change plans after contractors and communities have already committed resources based on expectations.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment based on a philosophical belief in maintaining savings levels for future needs rather than tapping into reserves now, with plans to address local government funding later when surplus dollars are available.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment due to concerns about replacing large upcoming costs like Medicaid and school foundation supplements, arguing that saving money now allows it to grow for future economic needs.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because spending money now reduces funds available later if economic conditions do not improve, preferring to wait and reappropriate in a future session.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment due to uncertainty about future economic conditions, believing it is a mistake to use reserve accounts for temporary patches when problems could worsen.
H15
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment by arguing that existing funds in the mineral royalty grants are sufficient and flexible enough to be spent, making additional funding unnecessary.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it provides immediate funding for local government projects addressing health and safety needs that cannot wait six months, noting that the grant board has a history of rejecting unnecessary grants.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because other sectors received funding for mandates while local governments were left without similar support, making it fair to provide these funds.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes spending the funds because he views unappropriated money as savings that may be needed in the future and believes the small per-capita amount is not significant enough to justify immediate expenditure.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment to restore funding percentages for cities and towns to match levels from the previous biennium.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes cities are facing an additional cut compared to their previous funding levels and needs correction.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes a proposed 47% cut to his area is unfair and that cities represent the majority of the state's population.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker asks members to resist the amendment without providing a specific personal reason tied to her own vote in this excerpt, but later states she wants them to resist it.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because reducing the hardship percentage undermines the ability of communities with poor tax bases to provide basic services, a need confirmed by county commissioners.
H01
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes supporting the amendment because it escalates division between wealthy and poor counties, ignoring the reality of struggling infrastructure in revenue-challenged communities.
H02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges defeating the measure because he believes it sets a poor example for state unity by pitting communities against one another.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because his analysis shows it brings equity to local government funding by aligning hardship calculations with those used for below-the-cap dollars.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports helping poor counties because he believes they need assistance and finds it difficult to justify voting against them when facing arguments that pit rich against poor.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that the proposal is fair because it avoids shifting funds from some areas to others and represents a smaller reduction than previous cuts.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it allows more counties to participate in hardship funding, a decision unanimously agreed upon by county commissioners.
H05
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment again, pleading for mercy to avoid sacrificing one county's funding in favor of others.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the technical correction to allow work for the Select Committee on Developmental Disabilities to begin immediately in April rather than waiting until July.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges defeating the amendment to preserve the independence and ability of the School Facilities Commission to handle project priorities without losing autonomy.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker recommends a no vote because he believes there is insufficient money remaining in the general fund to support the appropriation requested.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker withdraws her amendment following discussions about mineral severance tax and savings strategies presented by the chairman of labor.
H15
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment to defer retirement contributions for one year because correctional officers in his district recently faced insurance increases and work in a difficult environment with high turnover, making immediate additional costs burdensome.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because delaying contributions further supplements retirement savings at a time when people across the state are already bearing significant financial burdens from layoffs and benefit increases.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes employees should participate in funding their retirement plan to foster a sense of ownership and recognize its value, especially given recent salary progress for educators.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it represents the most costly option, requiring approximately $88 million that is not currently set aside in the budget.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he cannot in good conscience vote on a provision that references Senate File 72, which has not yet been enacted into law.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker expresses uncertainty about voting for the amendment because he does not know what other projects or uses must be sacrificed to fund this specific initiative within the existing budget.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he views redirecting existing funds as an earmark, which he believes is something legislators should not do.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because she believes it is a worthwhile project for transparency and notes that the department has sufficient budget flexibility to fund this specific expenditure.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as a method for the legislature to direct agencies, reallocate resources, and assess priorities within their budget.
H35
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes that states with transparency measures like this one tend to have better budget conditions than those without them.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes legislators are elected to direct state government, and he argues this is not a federal-style earmark but rather a necessary direction for transparency that the department already wants.
H54
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes if the department truly wanted to do this, they would have requested it in their original budget submission, and legislators are now redirecting funds without knowing what was originally planned.
Wyoming roll calls
16 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
87 stored
Adopted 2nd reading by WALLIS
Adopted 2nd reading by HARVEY
Failed 2nd reading by MADDEN
Adopted 2nd reading by HARVEY
Failed 2nd reading by SHEPPERSON
Adopted 2nd reading by ESQUIBEL,K
Adopted 2nd reading by ROSCOE
Adopted 2nd reading by STEWARD
Adopted, Corrected 2nd reading by HARSHMAN
Adopted 2nd reading by ILLOWAY
Adopted 2nd reading by BONNER
Adopted 2nd reading by BERGER
Failed 2nd reading by BARBUTO
Failed 2nd reading by LANDON
Failed 2nd reading by QUARBERG
Failed 2nd reading by BROWN
Adopted 2nd reading by QUARBERG
Adopted 2nd reading by ILLOWAY
Failed 2nd reading by CRAFT
Adopted 2nd reading by HARSHMAN
Adopted 2nd reading by HARSHMAN
Failed 2nd reading by HARSHMAN
Adopted 2nd reading by GINGERY
Adopted 2nd reading by GINGERY
Failed 2nd reading by LANDON
Failed 2nd reading by TEETERS
Withdrawn 2nd reading by TEETERS
Failed 2nd reading by HARSHMAN
Failed, Corrected 2nd reading by THRONE
Failed 2nd reading by CRAFT
Withdrawn 2nd reading by SIMPSON
Withdrawn 2nd reading by CRAFT
Failed 2nd reading by LUBNAU
Adopted 2nd reading by BERGER
Adopted 2nd reading by HARSHMAN
Failed 2nd reading by HARSHMAN
Failed 2nd reading by JAGGI
Failed 2nd reading by BUCHANAN
Failed 2nd reading by CRAFT
Withdrawn 2nd reading by HARSHMAN
Filed 2nd reading by BERGER
Adopted, Corrected 2nd reading by BERGER
Failed, Corrected 2nd reading by BERGER
Adopted 2nd reading by BERGER
Withdrawn 2nd reading by COHEE
Failed, Corrected 2nd reading by GOGGLES
Failed 2nd reading by BLAKE
Failed 2nd reading by QUARBERG
Adopted 2nd reading by BERGER
Adopted 2nd reading by CRAFT
Withdrawn 2nd reading by HAMMONS
Adopted, Corrected 2nd reading by SIMPSON
Failed 3rd reading by SIMPSON
Adopted 3rd reading by BYRD
Withdrawn 3rd reading by BLAKE
Adopted 3rd reading by DIERCKS
Adopted 3rd reading by HAMMONS
Adopted, Corrected 3rd reading by LUBNAU
Failed, Corrected 3rd reading by HAMMONS
Adopted 3rd reading by MCOMIE
Failed, Corrected 3rd reading by LANDON
Adopted 3rd reading by BROWN
Withdrawn 3rd reading by LANDON
Adopted 3rd reading by QUARBERG
Adopted 3rd reading by THRONE
Failed 3rd reading by LANDON
Failed 3rd reading by HARSHMAN
Adopted 3rd reading by HARVEY
Adopted, Corrected 3rd reading by BERGER
Adopted 3rd reading by SEMLEK
Adopted 3rd reading by BYRD
Adopted 3rd reading by BERGER
Failed 3rd reading by THRONE
Adopted 3rd reading by CRAFT
Failed 3rd reading by WALLIS
Adopted 3rd reading by COHEE
Failed 3rd reading by HARSHMAN
Withdrawn 3rd reading by THRONE
Failed 3rd reading by BARBUTO
Adopted 3rd reading by BERGER
Adopted, Corrected 3rd reading by BERGER
Adopted 3rd reading by HAMMONS
Failed 3rd reading by CARSON
Adopted, Corrected 3rd reading by SIMPSON
Adopted 3rd reading by LANDON
Adopted 3rd reading by SEMLEK
Adopted 3rd reading by BERGER