Gov Mead vetoes three parts of budget bill, adds $25M in fire funds

Gov. Mead crossed out and initialed a section of the budget bill relating to fire funding. His action provides a total of $60 million in emergency fire funding for this summer. (Courtesy office of Gov. Mead.)
By striking this line of the budget bill, Gov. Mead boosted the amount of money that can be transferred from landfills to fires from $5 million to $30 million. With the stroke of a pen he made available $60 million in emergency fire funding for this summer. (Courtesy office of Gov. Mead.)
By Gregory Nickerson
February 21, 2013

Today Gov. Matt Mead vetoed three sections of the supplemental budget bill passed by the House and the Senate, while criticizing several other parts that he let stand.

Most notably, Gov. Mead vetoed the legislature’s funding proposal for fighting fires.

The budget bill provided $30 million in General Fund dollars for fires, and added another $5 million that could be taken out of the landfill remediation account. That language ignored the proposal Gov. Mead made in November to set aside $60 million for fires.

Mead’s action keeps the $30 million in General Fund dollars for fires, but allows the state access to another $30 million from the landfill remediation account if the money is needed. The landfill remediation account would be replenished in the 2015-2016 budget bill.

In a letter to House and Senate leadership, Gov. Mead said he hopes that the state doesn’t have to spend the full $60 million he made available for fires, but that it’s important to plan for emergencies.

Gov. Mead also vetoed a section of the budget bill that would sweep excess revenues at the end of fiscal year 2013 into the “rainy day” fund.

Mead’s action would hold the sweep of funds until the end of fiscal year 2014, which would allow any surplus this year to help cover shortfalls next year.

The remaining veto struck a section that would require agencies to submit 4 percent, 6 percent, and 8 percent budget reductions for 2015-2016.

“Rather than increasing government efficiency, this makes for considerable work and eats into time and resources which could be put to other use. In addition, this ties me to specific reduction figures, when a greater reduction may be needed or it may be best to hold spending flat,” Governor Mead said.

Gov. Mead also objected to language that could reduce General Fund spending on one-time projects, rather than just cutting from standard operating budgets.

Several other sections of the budget concerned Gov. Mead, but not enough to warrant a veto. He objected to language requiring the University of Wyoming to report its policies on selecting deans and artwork because such matters do not pertain to the budget.

Mead worried about a provision to lock the school foundation money into permanent savings, making it unavailable to cover short-term deficits in the school budget. He said he would ask the legislature to reconsider this policy in 2014.

The governor also objected to the state taking on maintenance costs for community college buildings constructed with local money. Lastly, he objected to the legislature’s one-time bonus for state employees because he prefers raising salaries according to studies that identify fair market pay.

A press release of Gov. Mead’s vetoes is available here. For a more detailed letter detailing Mead’s positions to House and Senate leaders, click here.

— Gregory Nickerson is the government and policy reporter for WyoFile. He writes the Capitol Beat blog. Contact him at greg@wyofile.com.

REPUBLISH THIS STORY: For details on how you can republish this story or other WyoFile content for free, click here.

Gregory Nickerson worked as government and policy reporter for WyoFile from 2012-2015. He studied history at the University of Wyoming. Follow Greg on Twitter at @GregNickersonWY and on www.facebook.com/GregoryNickersonWriter/

Leave a comment

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *