Local officials and legislators debate how to revive county consensus funding and how much to allocate

A legislative subcommittee on Tuesday considered working draft 0.5 (27 LSO 0041) to codify a county consensus funding program that would create a county consensus account administered by the Office of State Lands and Investments and disburse grants for capital projects and major maintenance.

The staff-presented draft includes a distribution formula (75% based on per-capita population and 25% by inverse assessed valuation), a consensus requirement in which the board of county commissioners and governing bodies of at least 50% of incorporated cities and towns must certify agreement, reporting requirements to the legislature, and a framework for reversion if projects are not encumbered within a statutory period. The draft leaves the appropriation amount blank; an alternate Joint Minerals Committee draft proposed a "jump-start" $200 million appropriation ($100 million per year for two years, then $50 million thereafter).

Don Richards, Legislative Service Office administrator, told the committee staff compared two approaches and that both the minerals committee and the working group independently landed on a 75/25 allocation to balance larger and smaller communities. He noted differences on population calculation (three-year rolling average vs. decennial census) and reversion timing.

Mr. Valley, who walked the committee through the bill language, said that eligible uses would explicitly include capital construction and "major maintenance and repair of existing public facilities and infrastructure," and that OSLI would manage distribution after the legislature appropriated funds. The draft would codify program rules and require OSLI to promulgate implementing rules.

Local government representatives and associations strongly supported a permanent, predictable program. Ashley Harpstreith of the Wyoming Association of Municipalities and WEDA told the committee that housing and water infrastructure are the top priorities and offered preliminary survey estimates: "26.5 billion dollars" of known in-ground water infrastructure and about "$1.7 billion in immediate needs" from a partial membership response.

Jeremiah Vryman, director of the Wyoming County Commissioners Association, recommended an annual appropriation of $75 million as a realistic, recurring funding level; he suggested funding options (legislative reserve, trust fund, sales-and-use tax) and urged a longer obligation window — four years rather than the draft’s two — to allow projects time to obligate and coordinate federal matches. He also urged clear definitions of eligible uses and recommended countywide planning to avoid ad-hoc spending.

Members pressed staff on governance details: whether the county commission would effectively have veto power if it withheld agreement; whether funds would wait in a subaccount for counties that cannot reach consensus in a single year; and how the statute should define capital projects versus equipment or vehicles. Staff said the current draft models a county-plus-50% municipal threshold and that prior practice sometimes allowed funds to remain available while counties worked toward agreement.

Beth Blackwell, a grants and loan specialist (former OSLI staff), testified that county consensus funds historically served as ready match money for other grants, sometimes funded entire projects, and that housing and infrastructure costs have risen sharply — for example, a foot of waterline now costs roughly $600 — which has eroded the purchasing power of prior appropriations.

The committee did not vote on the draft and asked for additional work to define key terms (infrastructure, major maintenance), consider the consensus threshold mechanics, and produce allocation scenarios for several appropriation levels. Lawmakers directed staff to prepare amendment options for the next meeting.