Gordon signs supplemental budget

This year’s supplemental budget places more than $1 billion into savings – a move that Governor Mark Gordon said would allow the state to keep taxes low and generate higher investment returns. For every dollar of state revenue spent in the bill, he said, $3.50 is saved.

The budget also makes “strategic investments” in Wyoming, Gordon said, including more funding for the Property Tax Refund Program, support for the state’s energy industries and a market adjustment for state employees and teachers to offset the impacts of inflation. 

“I congratulate the Legislature for its work on my budget recommendations,” Gordon said in a press release.

“It is gratifying that the budget submitted to me is closely aligned with my original recommendations. Where we disagreed, or where they overstepped the separation of powers embedded in our Constitution, I exercised my veto authority. The fiscal condition of the State remains strong.”

Gordon’s original recommendations focused on setting aside funds for leaner times and addressing the pressures of inflation facing the citizens of Wyoming. In a letter addressing the line-item vetoes he made on the budget bill, he thanked the Legislature for passing a budget that reflects this shared approach.

“You have done a great deal for the citizens of Wyoming, from offering property tax relief, to investing in Wyoming’s energy industry, to setting aside funds to diversify the economy,” he wrote.

While the Governor did compliment both chambers on passing the budget in record time with increased transparency, he did note in his letter that the process “is not yet as transparent as it needs to be”. He committed to working with the Legislature towards that goal.

“I remain frustrated that, while we are taking significant steps to modernize the way our state funds can be invested to bring them more in line with an ‘endowment’ model, we have not simultaneously established the independent, non-political controls true endowments must have to avoid profligate spending,” he continued, stating that this is another of his goals in the coming years in order to avoid establishing “opaque slush funds”.

In his letter, Gordon also expressed appreciation for the Legislature’s continued support for market adjustments in salaries for state employees and teachers. Noting the high vacancy and turnover rates that have challenged the abilities of state agencies and educational establishments to perform essential functions, he suggested that the Legislature’s work will help improve recruitment and retention.

Gordon exercised his line-item veto power 21 times on the budget, stating that this included items that are “overly prescriptive and those that present separation of powers concerns”.

For example, he vetoed one footnote regarding the Department of Environmental Quality that directs hiring and resource allocations, stating that the budget “is not intended to direct day-to-day control of an agency”, and another that provides added funding to the department but also directs the agency as to how it should accomplish the goal of that funding.

Gordon vetoed a footnote that provided “a woefully insufficient amount of funding” for a survey of state employees and a feasibility study of providing childcare services to state employees, suggesting that such a provision be placed in a standalone bill.

He vetoed a section of the Supreme Court’s budget that capped the annual salary of an employee of the judicial branch, saying it encroaches on the branch’s “inherent prerogative”, and a footnote that provides additional resources to the State Engineer’s Office but “raises separation of powers issues” by directing how the agency makes staffing and resource allocation decisions.

Gordon also exercised his veto power on a footnote that provides another $5 million in property tax relief for citizens, but refers to a bill still making its way through the legislature. “The language referring to the other remaining bill is unnecessary and it will survive or fail on its own merits,” he wrote.

Gordon’s vetoes must now be reviewed by both chambers, which will then decide whether or not to override them with a two-thirds vote and agreement in both Houses.