Local Government Funding Act
In one sentence
Plain language
Official record
Bill Summary - 26LSO-0295 Bill No.: HB0107 Effective: 7/1/2026 LSO No.: 26LSO-0295 Enrolled Act No.: HEA No. 0011 Chapter No.: 40 Prime Sponsor: Joint Appropriations Committee Catch Title: Local government distributions. Has Report: No Subject: Local government distributions. Summary/Major Elements: This act creates an annual statutory transfer equal to eight percent (8%) of the previous fiscal year’s sales and use tax collections from the General Fund to the Office of State Lands and Investments for distribution to cities, towns and counties beginning in fiscal year 2027. This act establishes a formula and schedule for making those distributions, specifying that payments to local governments shall occur on October 15 and March 15 each year. This act codifies the local government direct distribution and the formula used in recent years' local government distribution bills, which is based on factors including population, assessed valuation and per capita sales and use tax collections. The act uses the sales and use tax data from the immediately preceding fiscal year instead of the two-year lagging data used in recent years' bills. This act specifies legislative intent for prohibited uses of distributed funds. LSO estimates the 2027–2028 biennial transfer to total one hundred fifty-one million one hundred thousand dollars ($151,100,000.00). The amount distributed to cities, towns and counties in fiscal year 2027 is an estimate and may differ once final sales and use tax figures are available. Comments: Creates a major program. The above summary is not an official publication of the Wyoming Legislature and is not an official statement of legislative intent. While the Legislative Service Office endeavored to provide accurate information in this summary, it should not be relied upon as a comprehensive abstract of the bill.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 7, 1:58 PM
R · H31
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker recommends concurring with the Senate's position to set a higher percentage for direct sales tax distribution because it aligns with budget discussions.
R · H61
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports concurrence because the amendments do not harm the bill and help clean it up to ensure effective enforcement for child protection.
R · H31
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes the distribution was intended only as temporary relief for removing a grocery tax, not as a permanent long-term funding source.
R · H18
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because tying the distribution to sales tax will provide stable revenue for counties and municipalities, reducing their need to lobby annually.
R · H02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because inflation has decreased the buying power of small towns, and they need the distribution restored to previous levels rather than cut back.
R · H35
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because while government operations need funding, families are also facing significant increases in property taxes that must be considered.
R · H27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because her hardship counties and municipalities are in dire straits due to tax cuts, and higher funding is needed to maintain local services.
R · H44
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because inflation has significantly increased food costs since the tax was removed, and local governments need to be made whole for these rising prices.
R · H40
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because increasing the distribution allows communities to provide essential services like ambulances and fire departments that they otherwise could not afford.
R · H54
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker changed his vote to support the amendment because he realized that without it, local governments in his county would face significant revenue losses from property tax and oil production cuts.
R · H26
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because a 7% distribution rate provides necessary cushion and closes the funding gap for communities compared to lower percentages.
R · H19
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because applying a percentage increase benefits wealthier counties more than poorer ones.
R · H50
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment based on the real and urgent financial difficulties facing small towns and hardship counties.
R · H39
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment to prevent communities from shutting down essential services like senior centers and civic facilities due to funding cuts.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it utilizes a formula designed to distribute funds from wealthy areas to assist poorer counties and municipalities.
R · H22
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because increasing the percentage further reduces state revenue available for other funding needs, arguing the current increase is sufficient.
R · H52
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because additional cuts would compromise community safety by reducing law enforcement coverage in large counties.
R · H17
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as a reasonable compromise to ensure local governments can afford emergency services and avoid compounding problems like unaffordable home insurance.
R · H10
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because failing to fund at a higher level constitutes an actual reduction in prior budgets, with savings unlikely to benefit local services.
R · H47
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because rural communities need these funds to maintain essential services like EMS, law enforcement, and infrastructure maintenance.
D · H16
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because cutting revenue threatens the survival of small towns and discourages young people from returning after college.
R · H58
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment to prevent funding what he views as unnecessary expenditures like statues and ski lodges, while noting that special services can be addressed separately.
R · H42
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it replaces previously received funds for communities without increasing taxes, clarifying that statues are not funded by these dollars.
R · H34
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because constituents prefer budget certainty over percentage increases and believe funding decisions should be made during the regular budget session.
R · H38
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because even at a higher percentage, local governments are still receiving less funding than before, which forces them to raise fees on citizens.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
9 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
7 stored
Failed 2nd reading by Representative Larson, JT
Adopted 2nd reading by Representative Lawley
Failed 3rd reading by Representative Brady
Withdrawn 3rd reading by Representative Lucas
Failed 2nd reading by Senator Hicks
Corrected, Ruled Out of Order Committee of the Whole by Senator Steinmetz
Adopted Standing Committee by Senate Appropriations Committee