Select Committee on Local Government Financing Minutes

Committee Meeting Information

July 7^th and 8^th, 2008

Herschler Building

Room 63

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Committee Members Present

Representative Roy Cohee, Chairman

Senator John Schiffer, Vice Chairman

Senator Ken Decaria

Senator Kit Jennings

Senator Phil Nicholas

Senator Bill Vasey

Representative Rosie Berger

Representative Debbie Hammons

Representative Marty Martin

Representative Mark Semlek

Committee Members Absent

None

Legislative Service Office Staff

Dave Gruver, Steve Sommers, Bill Mai, Dean Temte and Matt Sackett

Others Present at Meeting

Other legislators present – Senator Jayne Mockler, Representative Dan Dockstader, Representative Jeb Steward

Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

The Select Committee on Local Government Financing met for two days in Cheyenne. The Committee received additional information from state agencies, the Wyoming Association of Municipalities (WAM), Wyoming County Commissioner's Association (WCCA) and LSO staff in response to requests made at its October meeting. The Committee also received additional testimony from WAM, WCCA and representatives of municipal governments and special districts regarding the distribution of state revenues to local governments. The Department of Audit presented information on local government expenditure and revenue reporting. The Committee took no action regarding potential legislation or recommendations to the Legislature at this time, but made additional requests of LSO staff, the Department of Audit, WAM and the WCCA to provide additional information. The Committee will meet again in early October.

Call To Order and Opening Remarks

Chairman Cohee called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee meeting agenda. Approval of the minutes from the October 10 and 11 meeting was moved by Senator Jennings, seconded by Representative Martin and passed.

Update on local government funding provided in the 2008 session, including relation to general statewide trends in revenues and expenditures

LSO staff explained distributions to local governments made in the past budget bill. (Appendices 3a and 3b). Staff also reviewed direct distributions and State Loan and Investment Board grant funding from 2001 through 2010 and revenue streams funding cities, towns and counties. (Appendices 3c and 3d).

Update on review of audit forms, information provided to the Department of Audit and ability to retrieve information, suggested statutory changes

Department of Audit Director Mike Geesey and Administrator Pam Robinson addressed the reporting of data to the Department of Audit. Mr. Geesey provided a timeline for local government database development and discussed the activities of the Department since June 2004 in addressing uniform reporting and data retrieval issues. (Appendix 4) While the Department is having difficulty retaining a computer programmer, the anticipated timeline provided indicates that limited access to the local government system should be provided to LSO analyst by the winter of 2008/09.

Mr. Geesey also addressed the cost of auditing of local governments. (Appendix 5). He noted that if a local government has at least one million dollars in revenues (or $500,000 in federal funds) it must have a CPA audit. Mr. Geesey stated that 8 persons were removed from the Department of Audit in 1992 and suggested it would require an additional 3 employees (at a cost of $150,000 in salary plus travel expenses) if the Department were to conduct audits and reviews of local government finances. In response to Committee questions Mr. Geesey stated that such a proposal could be based upon the census data reporting requirements, would be reviewed by the Department but would not be a full blown audit, and could accommodate some of the smaller public entities that are having a difficult time with the current requirements. Mr. Geesey noted that some of the smaller entities are paying for complete audits which might not be required by law, but might be the preference of the local entity. Ms. Robinson explained the differences between the basic financial statement, the federal audit requirements and a full CPA audit. The federal requirements can be met by a CPA audit or an audit conducted by a government arm, but the Department is not able to undertake that activity at this time.

The Committee discussed the difficulty of the Department keeping employees who were doing the programming function for the local government database. Mr. Geesey stated it was a matter of the salary being offered.

In further explaining the proposal to hire additional auditors to conduct local government “audits,” Ms. Robinson explained it would help smaller communities; those that required full CPA audits would not be affected. The Committee discussed the possibility of contracting the work rather than hiring state employees. The Committee also discussed allowing smaller entities to report the information and have it verified by the Department “on line.”

Discussion returned to the issue of uniform data reporting for decision making. Mr. Geesey stated the uniformity of reporting has been resolved in the school financing area, but it will take some training on the local government level and it will not come about immediately. Committee members questioned whether there was or should be a mandatory training requirement. Thus far the Department has provided training on a voluntary basis to some local government entities. Ms. Robinson stated that mandatory training could be tried. Mr. Geesey noted there are requirements for uniform reporting, but the Department does not have the personnel to get into the field and ensure that everyone reads the forms and instructions the same way. Until the reporting is verified by audit, it is unknown whether the training is effective. Ms. Robinson noted that with high turnover multiple training would be required each year. The Department has the authority and ability currently to provide quarterly training, but if the Legislature wants the Department to go into the field to train, additional employees would be required in the Director’s view. Committee members noted the need to resolve the uniform reporting and data retrieval ability in a more expeditious fashion.

Mr. Geesey suggested that every entity should be placed on the same fiscal year, ending June 30 and provided proposed statutory changes to do so. (Appendix 6). He saw no reason for any state agency or local entity to be on any other fiscal year period.

AML funding – current status of funding distributions, authorized uses of AML funding

DEQ director John Corra and Administrator Rick Chancellor addressed the Committee and reviewed amounts to be provided to the State by AML fees. (Appendix 7) They also reviewed allocation of those funds historically and plans for the future. Prior fund balances (or the “new” AML monies) are required by federal law to be used in a manner designated by the Legislature, with priority to addressing impacts of mineral development, and after a $30 million coal set aside requirement. For the ongoing fee assessment funds there is no requirement in the federal regulation, they can be used for any purpose. Mr. Chancellor reviewed the grant funding process and status of grants. The Office of Surface Mining has made the approval process easy thus far, but the money is not provided until expenses have been incurred and the federal government provided invoices. At the time the project is approved by OSM the money is earmarked by the federal government. Mr. Corra noted the decision on how to spend the money and whether it is being appropriately expended is not for the DEQ, they are acting only as a “pass through.” Director Corra stated that DEQ’s recommendation is going to be to use part of these funds for Brownsfields issues.

Mr. Corra stated the DEQ plans on providing a more detailed process for evaluating recommendations for future projects. The current priority process for noncoal items are extreme dangers to the public first, (e.g., pits and highwalls), second is health and safety from adverse effects, third is restoration of land and water resources degraded by prior mining activity.

State Loan and Investment Board (SLIB) grant and loan program

Lynne Boomgaarden, Director, Rob Tompkins, Grant Manager, and Jeanne Norman, Assistant Director of the Office of State Lands and Investments presented an updated report on the SLIB process and the funding under the budget bill. (Appendix 8) Ms. Boomgaarden noted the clean water, joint powers act and transportation enterprise program loans were not included in this review. She addressed the issues of the funding of the programs for mineral royalty grants, including matching requirements for impacted county funds, emergency grant funding and direct appropriations.

Committee members questioned whether the process would work better if the timelines for allocation of money were changed. Ms. Boomgaarden did not believe so. Mr. Tompkins noted the smaller projects could be funded quickly, but the larger projects by their nature will take longer regardless of the start and stop timelines. In regards to communities that did not meet the matching funds requirement Committee members questioned whether it would be better not to have deadlines so funds could remain available to later meet the match. Ms. Boomgaarden suggested it might have helped the two that did not meet the match, but it was not clear they would have in any event. The money that was not matched was disbursed uniformly to the impacted communities in accordance with advice from the Attorney General’s Office.

Committee members expressed concern that small communities need to be able to save money from year to year in order to have enough to undertake a large project. The Office’s interpretation, again based upon advice from the Attorney General, was that the appropriation was only for the biennial period. LSO staff noted that its interpretation of the law was that the language relied upon for the restriction, while applicable to section 2 of the budget bill, is not applicable to section 3 capital construction nor to the section 300 provisions in which these appropriations were made. If the funds are obligated or encumbered in the biennium they would not revert under general provisions of law.

The Committee discussed whether the local government appropriations were being separated on an annual basis for the consensus process. They were not according to Ms. Boomgaarden, rather the SLIB has placed a deadline on the receipt of a consensus list for specific board meetings. LSO staff suggested there was no requirement for those funds to be expended in each year of the biennium. That was required for direct distributions but not for funding under the consensus process. Mr. Boomgaarden noted that her agency has pointed out that the appropriations are intended to be for a biennial period. She acknowledged that entities may request additional funding or the Legislature might appropriate additional funds.

Ms. Boomgaarden reviewed the various appropriations. For the $191 million consensus process for capital projects, she noted that there is no definition of capital project. The rules provide such a definition, i.e., a public service facility owned by the applicant for public use. The definition allows for emergency vehicles, but not rolling stock generally (although that was requested by WAM). Routine maintenance projects do not qualify.

For the $10 million in emergency funding the project is not required to have been part of the consensus process. The consensus process is considered, but more important is whether the project addresses emergency needs. For the $33.4 million appropriation, the law mentions unfunded or under funded large projects and the board has applied the provisions of W.S. 9-4-604 to those funds. Ms. Boomgaarden also noted that the law allows the use of the funds for operating grants; which is undefined by statute. The SLIB has not used that language to authorize general operating functions at this time.

Senator Schiffer questioned whether removing the term “operating grant” would have any effect. As the SLIB is currently interpreting the provision, it would not according to Ms. Boomgaarden. Committee members suggested that water and sewer rates should be considered in determining distributions to fix aging infrastructure, in that entities imposing rates which do not provide sufficient funding for maintaining a system should not receive state funding.

The Committee accepted Ms. Boomgaarden’s offer to provide an updated status of grants awards prior to its next meeting.

Special district participation in SLIB grant and loan program

Dan Perdue, Wyoming Hospital Association, Steve Perry, Wyoming Hospital Association and Trudy Chittick, Hot Springs Memorial Hospital and Representative Dockstader addressed the issue of hospital districts and access to funds appropriated for the consensus process. Mr. Perry addressed capital financing needs for the Star Valley Medical Center. He noted that the hospital was a primary care hospital and needed to recruit specialists if it wished to continue in operation. With new specialists they needed a new hospital, financed in part with $2.5 million general obligation bond and a $4.5 million SLIB grant. Both have allowed expansion of the hospital and care provided at the hospital.

As to the current legislative process, the county allocation consensus process kept the hospital district “out of the loop” in Mr. Perry’s view. He recommended legislation that would return SLIB to its original format, or set aside funds for hospital districts. A third option suggested was to change the terms of the SLIB loan program – to a fixed rate program, dropping the interest rate to 3 percent and eliminating the 1% origination fee. Representative Berger noted that last session the Legislature changed the rate of interest for joint powers loans from a 6-12% amount to a rolling 5 year average based on PWMTF earnings.

Ms. Chittick discussed her hospital’s growth requirements and the need for additional capital facilities. She reviewed the lack of space available, the aged structure of the current hospital and the need to bring the hospital up to current building codes.

Mr. Perdue informed the Committee there were thirteen special district hospitals and eight memorial hospitals. He noted a number of special district hospitals have found it difficult to “get a seat at the table” in the consensus process. Representative Dockstader emphasized that the hospital district is not requesting a grant but a low interest loan.

The Committee discussed general obligation or revenue bonds and other alternatives for financing. Mr. Perry opined that the possibility of imposing a general obligation bond is unlikely in the current political climate. The Committee discussed the possibility of creating an earmarked funding source for special districts or requiring counties to spend a certain percentage of funds received from the State on health care. Mr. Perdue was requested to work with the SLIB staff to provide information as to what was spent under the prior SLIB process for health care spending in comparison to the current process.

Town of Jackson – proposal for real estate transfer tax

Jackson town administrator Bob McLaurin, representing the town of Jackson and the Teton County Commission thanked the Legislature for its fair treatment of local governmental entities in the past. He urged consideration of a real estate transfer tax and provided two charts, showing relative growth using various indicators and real estate sales versus total taxable sales in Teton County since 1993. (Appendices 9 and 10) While Mr. McLaurin acknowledged opposition to a real estate transfer tax he suggested the State could authorize a local option real estate transfer tax. He also provided a letter supporting the view that the local option real estate transfer tax has not had a negative impact in Colorado. (Appendix 11). Mr. McLaurin proposed a local option, countywide tax, with distributions in the same fashion as the current local option sales and use tax. Committee members noted that the town of Jackson currently assesses none of its property tax mills. The Committee discussed the proposal and the potential use of additional tax revenues.

Laurie Urbigkit, Wyoming Association of Realtors, opposed the general proposition of a real estate transfer tax. She suggested that Teton County could raise more funds through a lodging tax. She also suggested a better solution might be to remove limitations on the use of funds from the optional lodging tax.

Mark Harris, representing the Wyoming Association of Municipalities, (WAM) stated that the organization supported the Committee’s consideration of a real estate transfer tax local option voted upon by the people as an additional tool for local governments. Senator Nicholas noted that based upon anecdotal evidence it appears local governments operational budgets are sufficient and he has heard opposition to increased taxes, thus he questioned the support for the local optional real estate transfer tax.

The Committee adjourned for the day at 4:35 p.m.

Cost of government studies

LSO staff addressed issues they were requested to review at the last meeting: 1. “Canned studies” as to what it should cost to provide basic services at the local level; and 2. Consultants that might provide services to study the issue. Staff reported that no such canned studies were found. There are a number of studies addressing the provision of state aid on a more effective or equitable basis, but none were found that suggested “x dollars” is needed to provide “basic” services. In reviewing the literature it appears that, unlike school finance models which can be based upon measurable outcomes, local government service provision is not as easily measured, thus the issue of the “needed” amount is not as ascertainable.

States have undertaken efforts to provide funding to local governments based upon a “need gap” approach, under which a spending level for the provision of local government services is determined by regression analysis and application of variables beyond the control of local officials to find a correlation to a definable spending level. A revenue raising capacity is determined and subtracted from the defined spending level. The difference is the “revenue” gap, to be filled proportionately by available state funding. This approach was suggested for Minnesota and adopted in part for a portion of its local government aid program. Staff emphasized that the study did not purport to identify a “required” level of spending for certain services. Nor did it purport to suggest that the entire “gap” should be filled with state aid. Rather the intent was to provide aid based more upon the “scientifically derived” formula than upon political or other considerations. The Minnesota program was reviewed in more detail as a case study for the Committee to recognize that such an option exists and to identify issues that were presented in Minnesota that likely would occur in Wyoming should the Committee and Legislature ultimately pursue that approach. Those included that the first step is data intensive based upon local government expenditures and without a sound database and means to extract spending data, the process will be built on a shaky foundation. Other considerations include that the approach reallocates existing sums and unless the total sum is increased, there will be “winners” and “losers” in the receipt of state funds; and that it appears political considerations can well enter into the distribution formula, thus undermining any underlying scientific basis for distributions.

Regarding consultants available to undertake a study of the issue, the LSO had been presented with one proposal shared with the Committee. LSO had also contacted the three professors who undertook the study for Minnesota and one of those professors was interested in pursuing the issue with Wyoming, should the Committee choose to do so. Overall the number of entities or persons providing such services seemed much more limited than those providing similar services in the school finance arena.

Mark Harris and George Parks discussed the WAM’s efforts to respond to the Committee’s request regarding “necessary” spending to provide basic services. Mr. Parks contacted the National League of Cities and others for any studies regarding what it “should” cost to provide services at a specified level. The reply was uniformly that the question is very complicated and not susceptible to a simple answer. Mr. Parks noted that the revenue raising side can be calculated, but the expenditure side is susceptible to various reporting and compilation issues.

All municipalities in Wyoming were asked whether they do not have sufficient revenues to provide basic services. No responses were received. Mr. Parks suggested that could be based upon any city functioning being able to provide “basic services.” But the issue of what are basic services, is complicated, e.g., are paved streets needed where there are gravel streets? He also noted that the local situation might affect what are “basic services” for a city.

WAM also conducted a survey of Wyoming municipalities’ spending on non capital items. The results of the survey were provided. (Appendices 12a-d) Mr. Parks discussed the point of uniform reporting made earlier and gave examples of reporting inconsistencies. He agreed additional training could help alleviate the problem. In summarizing the survey results he noted that any single year by itself would not provide good data since data could be placed in one expenditure category one year and another the next depending on a particular project.

In reply to Committee questions, Mr. Parks stated that the data reported might be imprecise but still instructive and useful. He also suggested that it is important to recognize what is actually available to the city when determining revenue raising capacity, i.e., a tax levy might be dependent on things outside of the city’s control. Both Mr. Harris and Mr. Parks believed the revenue raising capacity is the easier portion of the formula. Determining expenditure need is beyond WAM’s ability to study.

In response to earlier discussion regarding enterprise funds and whether they are to be self sustaining, Mr. Harris noted on an academic basis they are. But they are used for other purposes, often set up to be an accounting mechanism to identify cost and revenues of specific programs, knowing they will not be self-sustaining.

Senator Schiffer questioned whether population is an acceptable criterion for determining distributions. WAM officials stated it is, but do not know the appropriate breakdowns. He also questioned whether the five categories of expenditures used in the WAM survey are the ones to use in developing a distribution formula. Mr. Harris could not say. These were based upon the reporting categories in the Department of Audit form 66. The same form was used in order to provide consistency with the county reporting.

In reply to Committee questions, Mr. Harris stated that if the Committee is looking at revenue sharing, WAM reiterates its preference for predictability and stability.

Representative Hammons noted that whether a city considers itself “revenue challenged,” depends upon its approach. After a more considered self-analysis local governmental entities she represented saw where they might be better off taking a long term view as future potential shortfalls can then be identified. The longer term view might lead them to conclude they are in fact revenue challenged.

Senator Nicholas suggested the question is whether the Committee should devote staff time to developing a needs based distribution formula to consider against the current “silo” distributions being used. Mr. Harris noted the consensus process does allow a decision on capital needs to be made at the local level. Mr. Parks stated that over time local officials will address the most pressing capital needs in the localities.

Joe Evans, Wyoming County Commissioner’s Association, provided two written documents. (Appendices 13 a and b). Regarding the county consensus process, he noted 70% of the population must agree for the consensus process to be used; it is not solely a county commissioner decision. Regarding hospital districts, Mr. Evans noted they are formed by petition, not by the county. As for the Lincoln County situation and special hospital districts the County Commissioners believed there were more pressing issues for the counties and cities in the county. There are two hospitals in Lincoln County and one hospital was provided financial help to meet payroll this past year. Mr. Evans cautioned that if the Legislature were to follow-up with the idea of carving out a portion of the consensus money for hospital special districts, many special districts would like the same treatment.

As to county basic services costs, Mr. Evans provided a letter to the Committee explaining his meeting with Niobrara and Albany County officials. He attempted to identify basic services that were not being provided. He attempted to determine a simple formula that would be the basis for allocation of funds and could not find one.

Senator Vasey questioned whether the Committee should be reviewing the issue of county roads and construction. Mr. Evans replied it was removed for discussion purposes since that was the Committee’s directive. In his view, the issue of county road construction has been ignored for some time at a state level, and thus there is a wide disparity from county to county in the needs for road upkeep. WCCA has undertaken two areas of discussion on the issue, one approach would be to “piggyback” on DOT discussions. They have also sought to identify additional funding sources; additional severance taxes earmarked for the roads, and AML funds. According to Mr. Evans, the total annual amount that comes to counties for roads from severance tax, gasoline tax and other sources is $23 million ($8.5 million for the county road program – whose purposes were expanded this year from maintenance only to included also construction.)

As for a funding model, Mr. Evans’ view was that the Committee could only develop a funding formula if it went to the extent it did for schools, which he did not believed the Legislature was interested in doing. The counties are not unhappy with the amount given to local governments the past two biennia, nor with the distribution formula as it is. Other than roads, he has not heard numerous complaints from county commissioners with funding. As to the issue of power equalization, the question has never been discussed at the WCCA level since there will be winners and losers. Mr. Evans would prefer that being done at the legislative level and imposed upon counties. Committee members noted the point of power equalization was to bring the poorest counties to a funding level to provide some basic level of services.

Public comment

Tom Forslund, Casper city manager encouraged the Committee to work to develop a reliable system providing not a specific dollar amount guarantee but a predictable flow of revenues. The county consensus process has been an improvement in his view but other changes including the de-earmarking process have made the situation worse. He thought it would be very difficult to determine a proper level of basic services. Senator Schiffer noted Mr. Forslund’s complaint was basically over the $42 million direct distribution to counties and $87 million to cities, since he supported the $191 million consensus distribution. Senator Nicholas noted he remembered the process before de-earmarking differently than Mr. Forslund; first the pure per capita distribution was not allowing everyone to provide basic services. Second, the tagging to the guaranteed streams of minerals was objected to by local governments when mineral wealth declined; cities and towns wanted the State to cut back on other services. Mr. Forslund stated that the city could adjust its spending based upon the price of minerals and it was comfortable doing that.

Lisa Tarafelli, director of administrative services in Rock Springs noted the numbers WAM provided needed to be reviewed carefully as expenditures were included for some cities and not others based upon local situations, such as HUD grant administration in Rock Springs and not other cities. She also noted that expenditures were based upon 2007 levels and per capita distributions were based upon the 2000 census. She suggested there should be taken into account whether an entity has imposed its full taxing authority. She also noted that the F66 is reported differently by different cities and any analysis based upon the form would have to be carefully scrutinized in order to make sure the expenditures are uniformly reported. There would need to be revision and training if the data reported in the form is to be used and applied in developing a distribution formula. Representative Berger noted that a voluntary meeting of city personnel to come to consensus as to what should be included in each expenditure category would probably be helpful.

Representative Jeb Steward addressed EMS services, which in his view are vastly under provided. The volunteer system is in jeopardy and vulnerable today and a recommendation will be forthcoming for a partially paid and partially volunteer system. The delivery of EMS services should be part of the discussion, as in his opinion part of the state wealth could be directed to the local level to provide these services. In the Carbon County pilot project they are attempting to regionalize EMS provision, crossing political boundaries. At current time, the local entities are providing an EMS service clearly exceeding the revenues being generated by the services and beyond the local entity’s boundaries.

Mayor Bob Sieveke, Pine Haven, addressed the audit issue. The cost of an audit for the city is about $26,000, which is a significant portion of the city’s budget. He suggested that the Department of Audit and locals can meet together more often to bring more uniformity to the reporting. On the census issue he noted they receive funding based upon 2000 census while their population has increased from 200 some to 600.

The Committee then entertained motions. Senator Nicholas moved to request staff to develop the Department of Audit legislation for a uniform fiscal year. Passed.

Senator Nicholas moved the Committee request the Department of Audit to appear before the Committee at the next meeting with recommended processes to implement a cost effective mandatory training program for cities, towns and counties to cause their reporting to be uniform and to provide a recommendation of a low cost auditing system. It was clarified that the intent was to provide a plan to implement a process that would be effective and as low cost as possible. Passed.

Senator Nicholas moved that the Committee recommend to the JAC that it develop a generic 300 section to apply to the major components of the budget bill which would provide that unless otherwise specified, all appropriations are for a two year period. Passed.

Senator Nicholas moved that OSLI and LSO analyze data over the past five to ten years on the SLIB grants and provide on an annual basis a percentage breakdown of what was provided for health care items, sewer and infrastructure, fire protection, roads, law enforcement, and other categories (as limited in definition as possible without requiring the generation of new information) to provide a comparison of funding by category post and pre-consensus process. Passed.

Senator Nicholas moved to initiate a process that would allow the state and LSO to develop a model to be operated by LSO that would determine the fiscal gap of cities, towns and counties based upon their revenue raising capacities. The model would recommend forms for cities, towns and counties to provide uniform data necessary to supply the model using as much as possible existing forms. The model would focus on the operational component of cities’, towns’ and counties’ budgets. The model would recommend community sizes for analyzing and comparing expenditures and revenue raising capacity and as part of the model we would investigate the appropriate population information to implement per capita allowances.

The Committee discussed the last proposal. Senator Schiffer suggested it would be better to use the Management Audit staff to undertake the effort rather than seeking a consultant to do so. The Committee’s consensus was to allow the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to visit with Management Audit staff to develop a scoping paper by September for resources necessary to undertake such a review rather than retaining a consultant to do so. He noted that the Management Audit staff could respond with a suggested timeframe for the process in the scoping paper. The Committee consensus was that the goal would be to make the product available for the next budget session. Senator Nicholas noted his point was to not waste efforts made thus far to determine if a funding model along the lines of the Minnesota or Massachusetts efforts should replace the current “silo” concept reflected in the last budget bill. Senator Nicholas’ motion was passed with the understanding that it would be implemented as suggested by Senator Schiffer.

Senator Vasey raised the issue of county road funding. After discussion of the issue Senator Vasey made no motion.

Future Meetings

Chairman Cohee stated that for planning purposes the Committee would meet in the first fifteen days in October.

Meeting Adjournment

There being no further business, Chairman Cohee adjourned the meeting at 1:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Representative Roy Cohee, Chairman

Appendix	Appendix Topic	Appendix Description	Appendix Provider
1	Committee Sign-In Sheet	Lists meeting attendees	Legislative Service Office
2	Committee Meeting Agenda	Provides an outline of the topics the Committee planned to address at meeting	Legislative Service Office
3a	Update on local government funding provided in the 2008 session	Local government distribution model for 2008 SF 1.	Legislative Service Office
3b	Update on local government funding provided in the 2008 session	Projected distributions to cities and towns under 2008 SF 1.	Legislative Service Office
3c	Update on local government funding provided in the 2008 session	Direct distributions and SLIB grant chart	Legislative Service Office
3d	Update on local government funding provided in the 2008 session	Distribution of major revenues for cities and towns and counties.	Legislative Service Office
4	Update on review of audit forms, etc.	Department of audit timeline of activities for local government database	Department of Audit
5	Update on review of audit forms, etc.	Audit costs for local governments	Department of Audit
6	Update on review of audit forms, etc.	Proposed statutory changes for uniform fiscal year end	Department of Audit
7	AML funding	Overview of information regarding AML funding	Department of Environmental Quality
8	SLIB grant and loan funding	June report of SLIB grant and loan program	Office of state lands and investments
9	Real estate transfer tax	Relative growth of various indicators 1993-2007	Bob McLaurin, Jackson Administrator
10	Real estate transfer tax	Teton county real estate sales versus total taxable sales	Bob McLaurin, Jackson Administrator
11	Real estate transfer tax	Letter from Rodney Slifer regarding Colorado real estate transfer tax	Bob McLaurin, Jackson Administrator
12a	Cost of government models	Cover letter from WAM to LSO	WAM
12b	Cost of government models	Charts on cost of government, by category of expenditure	WAM
12c	Cost of government models	Spreadsheets by city showing expenditure categories	WAM
12d	Cost of government models	Form used for reporting expenditures in WAM survey	WAM
13a	Cost of government models	Letter from Joe Evans regarding County basic services	Wyoming County Commissioner’s Association
13b	Cost of government models	Memo from Goshen County Commissioner Hudelson to Select Committee	Wyoming County Commissioner's Association