►
From YouTube: Senate Revenue Meeting, January 17, 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
D
All
right
welcome
everybody
to
revenue.
I
would
just
ask
that
you
please
make
sure
your
phones
are
on
silent
or
vibrate,
so
you're
not
having
any
interruptions
and
please
no
Senator
Pappas
left
his
upstairs
so
he's
covered,
but
just
followed
it
to
Quorum,
and
things
will
go
smoothly
and
remember
to
address
the
chair
at
all
times,
and
that
goes
for
both
those
of
us
behind
the
dice
and
those
of
you
out
there
testifying
so
that
we'll
start
with
our
first
bill.
Senate
file,
103
sales,
tax
exemption,
state
legislators,
Senator
Steinmetz,.
E
A
So
I
bring
to
you
sales
tax
exemption
for
state
legislators.
This
is
just
merely
a
lodging
tax
exemption
for
state
legislators
and
how
this
bill
came
about
is
I
was
asked
to
serve
on
the
legislative
committee
on
compensation
and
salary,
and
we
were
grappling
with
the
idea
of
raising
our
per
diem
rates
because
of
how
much
hotel
rooms
and
things
are
costing
us
and
meals,
and
all
of
that
so
instead
of
necessarily
raising
that
I
was
looking
for
a
way
to
save
us
some
money.
And
so
that's
what
this
bill
is
designed
to
do.
A
I'll,
take
you
through
the
bill
and
then
I'll.
Take
you
through
the
section
of
law
that
IT
addresses
the
meet
of
the
bills
on
the
second
page,
where
we're
just
adding
a
section
K
to
section
four
under
the
sales
tax
exemptions-
and
it
just
says,
sales
of
lodging
services
to
a
current
member
of
the
Wyoming
legislature,
who
is
purchasing
lodging
services
in
a
member's
official
capacity,
and
so
that
would
just
be
the
exemption.
A
I
would
also
like
to
add,
after
Services,
if,
if
the
committee
would
entertain
it,
if
or
if
they
are
amenable
to
this
bill,
I
think
we
should
add
the
words
while
acting
in
the
members
official
capacity
just
to
make
completely
sure
that
we
know
you
know
if
you're
traveling
with
the
volleyball
team
and
you
happen
to
have
your
legislative
badge-
you're
not
getting
exemption.
But
if
you
are
on
official
business
for
a
committee
meeting
somewhere
or
other
business
of
the
state,
then
then
you
would
be
Exempted
the
fiscal
note.
A
You
can
also
see
that
on
that
fiscal
note,
if
we
were
the
legislative
session
portion
of
that
estimate
would
say
that
if
we
were
in
Cheyenne
for
the
shorter
session,
it's
a
savings
about
of
183
000
in
the
longer
session,
341.,
basically
we're
taking
money
out
of
one
pocket
and
putting
it
into
another.
So
we
could
retain
this
money
in
the
legislative
budget,
known
as
the
feed
Bill.
A
A
A
A
But
you
can
look
up
that
statute
for
yourself,
other
occasional
sales
made
by
religious
or
charitable
organizations
for
fundraising
sales
to
Joint,
Powers
boards,
organized
Under,
The,
Joint,
Powers,
Act
sales
at
the
price
of
admission
and
user
fees
for
County,
Municipal,
owned
recreational
facilities
or
swimming
pools,
labor
or
service
charges,
including
transportation
and
travel
for
the
repair,
alteration
or
Improvement
of
real
property
or
tangible
property
owned
by
the
Incorporated
projects
under
contact
contract
with
the
state
of
Wyoming
sales
to
irrigation
districts,
sales
to
weed
and
Pest
Control
districts
and
Interstate
Transit
of
person
Services
by
a
government,
charitable
or
non-profit
organization.
A
F
Thank
you,
chairman
biteman,
quick
question,
Senator
Steinmetz.
How?
How
does
this
work?
How
does
this
say
you
go
to
an
interim
committee
meeting
and
you
get
a
hotel
room.
F
How
do
you
deal
with
that
with
the
front
desk
clerk?
If,
if
you
say
that
you
know
you're
here
on
legislative
interim
Committee
in
in
legislative
capacity,
how
do
they
deal
with
that
tax?
When
you
check
in
senator's
diamonds,.
A
Thank
you
Mr
chairman
and
Senator
I.
That's
a
great
question
and
one
that
I
contemplated
when
drafting
this
bill.
For
example,
when
we
go
on
official
business
across
the
state
now
when
I
go
to
a
hotel,
I
want
the
Government
rate
anyway,
and
so
many
times
we're
dealing
with
a
block
of
rooms
that
our
staff
has
already
pre-con
contacted
the
hotel.
So
they
know
we're
coming
into
town.
Most
of
our
towns
are
small
enough
other
than
maybe
Casper
or
Cheyenne.
A
They
know
we're
coming
into
town
for
a
meeting,
so
I
always
present
my
legislative
badge
when
I'm
checking
in
to
get
the
Government
rate,
as
of
now
also
being
a
retailer
who
collects
taxes
on
a
routine
basis.
I
have
a
point
of
sale
system
that
just
allows
me
to
go
in
and
click
non-taxable
and
then
I
keep
track
of
that
for
my
sales
tax,
when
I
turn
it
into
the
Department
of
Revenue
at
the
end
of
the
month,
you're
welcome.
D
Any
more
questions,
Senator
I,
have
just
a
a
functional
question
of
how
the
money
sits.
Now,
so
you
mentioned
the
feeder
Bill
I'm,
assuming
this
money
would
stay
within
the
budgeted
amount
for
the
legislative
branch.
Is
that
correct?
Because
you
said
the
reason
why
I
co-sponsored
this
bill
because
it
does
make
sense,
all
we're
doing
is
putting
taking
money
out
of
one
pocket
and
putting
it
in
the
other
makes
no
sense
that
we're
as
being
legislators,
paying
sales
tax
or
lodging
tax?
Can
you
explain
which
accounts
are
affected
and
how.
A
Senator
biteman,
all
of
the
money
that
goes
into
the
feed
Bill
comes
out
of
the
general
fund
of
the
state
of
Wyoming,
so
it
would
be
retained
either
in
the
general
fund
or
in.
If
we
appropriate
it
into
the
feed
bill,
then
it
would
be
there,
but
we,
it
would
just
be
a
savings
to
the
general
fund
as
contemplated
right
now.
A
G
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Brett
Fanning
and
I'm,
the
excise
tax
administrator
here
at
the
Wyoming
Department
of
Revenue,
and
so
just
just
a
couple,
quick
administrative
points
with
this
bill,
because
I
I
do
think.
That
is
an
important
question
about
kind
of
how
this
all
works,
and
so
Mr
chairman.
G
If
I
could
answer
the
Senator's
question
about
how's,
this
work,
so
I
go
to
a
hotel
and
I
check
in
how
what
do
I
do
and
it's
a
very
common
question
that
we
hear
all
the
time
so
here
in
the
state
of
Wyoming.
If
you
want
an
untaxed
hotel
room
or
an
untaxed
fill
in
the
blank
widget,
you
provide
an
exemption
certificate
to
that
receptionist
clerk,
the
lady
at
the
receptionist,
the
the
man
filling
out
your
reservation
and
so
I
did
reach
out
to
the
streamlined
sales
tax
agreement
just
clarifying
with
them.
G
If
someone
wants
an
exemption
here
in
the
state
of
Wyoming,
how
do
you
document
that?
And
they
said
it's
via
streamlined
sales
tax
exemption
certificate?
So
it
is
important
to
know
that
with
this
particular
Bill,
the
legislators
would
need
to
provide
an
exemption
certificate
to
the
hotels
that
protects
the
hotel
in
in
the
in
case
of
an
audit
or
something
just
to
be
able
to
verify
an
untaxed
lodging
cell
here
in
the
state
of
Wyoming
and
so
Mr
chairman.
G
That
brings
me
to
my
second
point
that
goes
along
with
this
bill
is
this:
is
the
feedback
I've
been
getting
from
when
this
bill
became
public
is,
is?
Is
the
legislature
considered
part
of
the
state
of
Wyoming,
or
is
it
a
political
subdivision,
or
is
it
kind
of
a
quasi
type
and
and
I
thought?
That's
a
really
good
question
because
it
comes
into
play
with
the
payment
part
of
it.
So
we
have
our
exemptions
here
in
statutes.
39
15
105.
G
Sales
to
employees
of
exempt
agencies
or
organizations
shall
be
taxable
even
when
the
employee
is
reimbursed
by
an
exempt
employer.
Payment
by
the
employee
shall
establish
that
the
employee
is
acting
on
his
his
or
her
own
behalf,
and
so
the
reason
I
bring
up
this
rule
in
combination
with
the
statute
is
because,
generally
administratively,
the
exempt
entity
has
to
be
the
one
paying
for
the
hotel
room,
and
so
that's
the
way.
G
The
statutes
in
collaboration
with
our
rules,
work
and
so
again,
who's
paying
for
the
hotel
room
and
and
I
would
assume
again
a
lot
of
legislators,
May
pay
with
their
own
personal
credit
card
or
and
then
are
reimbursed,
and
so
this
is
something
to
consider
with
this
bill
now.
I
think
there's,
maybe
something
language-wise
that
could
just
a
few
words
to
the
Statue.
If
that
was
so
the
pleasure
of
the
legislature,
but
as
currently
right
now,
we
could
have
a
someone
traveling
across
the
state
of
Wyoming.
G
On
official
business
working
for
a
state
agency,
depending
on
how
that
agency
reimburses
or
pays
for
those
hotel
rooms,
you
may
have
an
employee
from
one
organization
paying
tax
on
that
room
because
he's
paying
he
or
she
is
paying
with
his
own
hotel
card
and
them
being
reimbursed
as
compared
to
another
agency
who
has
decided
to
reimburse
its
employees
differently.
And
so
those
are
just
two
considerations
that
this
body
may
be
worth
discussion
about.
So
Mr
chairman
with
that
I
will
stand
for
any
questions.
D
F
E
Pappas
yeah
Mr,
chairman
I,
I'm,
I'm,
I
I,
understand
the
the
the
premise
behind
the
bill
and
not
have
a
problem
with
the
with
it.
E
I
do
I
do
have
an
issue,
though,
that
I
think
that,
if
we're
not
being
as
as
the
testimony
about
about
other
employees
of
the
state
and
how
they're
paid
for
I
I
actually
don't
have
a
problem,
if
the
state
of
Wyoming
paid
for
my
room
directly
and
then
it
could
be
tax-free,
but
then,
when
I'm
being
I
put
in
a
a
voucher
and
then
I'm
getting
reimbursed
for
that
I'm
I'm
thinking,
that's
a
whole
different
ball
game.
E
I'm.
Thinking
that
all
the
other
state
agencies
again
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
somebody
could
give
me
some
information
on
that.
But
if
ydot
would
send
somebody
to
a
conference
in
that
lives
in
Cheyenne
to
a
conference
in
Casper,
do
they
pay
for
their
room
directly
or
do
they
reimburse
and
if
they
reimburse
do
those
employees
also
not
have
to
pay
the
tax
I
think
we
ought
to
be
all
treated
the
same
as
employees
of
the
state,
and
so,
if
there's
a
difference
there,
I
I
think
we
need
to
correct
that.
E
If
we're
going
to
go
ahead
with
this
or
if
there's
a
you
know,
if
there's
a
mechanism
for
the
state
just
to
just
to
reimburse
the
the
hotels
directly
from
lso
or
from
whoever
pays
our
bills,
then
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
it.
So
I
would
like
to
hear
more
discussion
about
that
particular
problem.
To
me
it
would
be
much
cleaner
if
we
just
raised
the
per
diem
rate,
just
just
be
done
with
it.
E
E
D
My
thoughts,
okay,
thank
you.
Senator
Pappas,
Senator,
Hyde,.
F
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
maybe
Brett
could
clarify
it
a
little
better
for
me,
I
I,
it
sounded
like
there
was
a
question
of
whether
the
legislators
were
actually
state
employees
or
not,
and
then
there
was
a
little
bit
of
foggy
conversation
there
on
how
to
deal
with
this
as
far
as
being
exempt.
Essentially,
you
sound
to
us
whatever
statutes,
there
are
so
I
I
I'm,
still
a
little
confused
about
the
bill.
Actually,
thank
you.
Senator.
F
Yeah,
that
would
be
great.
Thank
you
great.
D
F
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
yeah.
You
probably
heard
it
sitting
back
there.
You
brought
that
up
on
whether
you
know
legislators
are
actually
exempt
as
state
employees
getting
you
know
the
rebate
on
their
taxes
effectively
when
they
go
to
committee
meetings
or
they're
in
the
legislature
during
the
session.
Thank
you.
G
Mr
chairman
Senator
I:
yes,
thanks
for
bringing
me
back
up,
I
I,
greatly
appreciate
being
able
to
clarify
that,
and
so
here
in
Wyoming,
there's,
basically
two
components
for
you
to
be
able
to
get
this
tax
exemption
when
you're
staying
at
a
hotel,
the
first
one
is
presenting
the
hotel
with
an
exemption
certificate.
So
that's
kind
of
this
first
piece
and
on
that
exemption
certificate
it
says:
hey
I'm,
claiming
an
exemption
here.
G
Here's
my
contact
information,
here's
the
reason
why
the
second
part
of
that
exemption
is
that
the
exempt
entity
must
pay
the
hotel
directly,
and
so
that's
where
this
gets
a
little
more
complicated,
and
so
you
could
have,
depending
on
how
the
state
agency
reimburses
or
pays
directly.
There
are
state
agencies
that
will
use
a
direct
pay
charge
card
to
that
hotel
and
so
they're
paying
directly
the
hotel
guest
comes
into
the
hotel,
prevents
an
exempt,
presents
an
exemptions
certificate
and
we're
all
good
to
go.
G
On
Any
Given
night
here
in
the
state
of
Wyoming
you're,
going
to
have
both
taxable
stays
and
non-taxable
stays
and
for
the
most
part
it
is
based
on
an
entity
exemption.
So
you
have
maybe
a
local
school
district
who's
paying
what
with
their
direct
funds
or
a
local
state
of
Wyoming,
employee
or
or
fill
in
the
blank.
So
the
hotels
they
are
familiar
with
this
concept.
It's
just
kind
of
that
verifying
piece
that
that
raises
the
additional
questions.
D
Thanks
Brett
I
have
a
question
then
so,
typically,
what
we
do
is
we'll
pay
for
our
hotels
on
our
credit
card
and
then,
when
our
per
diem
checks
arrive,
then
we
pay
off
our
hotel
bills.
So
how
does
that
fit?
Within
this
framework
and
and
the
examples
you
gave?
Would
we
use
an
exemption
certificate
and
then
be
exempt
and
the
hotel
gets
reimbursed
directly
from
I'm
guessing
lso
would
or
what
agency
would
walk
me
through
that
I'm
a
little
confused.
G
Mr
chairman,
yes,
thank
you,
and
this
can
be
a
little
confusing
so
say,
for
example,
the
the
bill
as
currently
written
right
now,
state
legislators
per
our
statutes
and
the
rules
combined
would
not
receive
an
exemption
unless
they
are
paid
for
directly
by
a
state
of
Wyoming
account
and
so
right.
G
Now
this
exemption
per
our
rules
there's
a
little
bit
of
conflict
here
and
again,
it's
an
administrative
discussion
and
and
I
understand
that,
right
now,
that
exemption
is
in
conflict
with
our
current
rules
so
going
forward
to
to
get
rid
of
that
con
conflict
or
remove
it.
It
would
somehow
be
maybe
adding
language
to
the
statute
just
to
clarify
it
that
Hey
for
state
legislators.
It's
a
little
different,
however,
that
wording.
G
If
it's
the
pleasure
of
the
committee
or
somehow
giving
rule
making,
Authority
and
saying
hey
the
exempt
entity
has
to
pay
per
your
rules,
except
for
state
legislators.
So
again,
there's
a
couple
different
ways:
administratively,
that
this
can
be
remedied.
But
again
at
the
committee's
pleasure,.
E
Senator
Franks,
my
question
is
you
know
if
we
make
an
exemption
just
for
legislators
and
in
all
the
other
agencies,
or
or
even
frankly,
on
a
lot
of
the
Committees
that
were
appointed,
we
have
public
members
they
get
reimbursed
for
for
per
diem.
Just
like
we
do,
I
mean
they're
non-legislators,
right,
they're,
the
public
or
their
people,
from
from
the
Department,
well,
usually
from
the
Departments
from
the
agencies.
Usually
they
they're
they're,
not
but
they're,
reimbursed
by
their
Agency
for
for
pretty
I.
E
Just
think
that
that
somehow
we
can't
carve
out
just
us
I,
don't
think
it
would
look,
would
read
right,
I,
don't
think
people
would
buy
into
that.
If
it's
just
us,
if
we
do
it,
do
it
for
everybody,
I,
don't
know
what
what
that
would
look
like
or
what
that
would
entail,
or
we
go
back
to
the
like
to
Bill.
B
E
It
is
if
lso
directly
pays
our
bill
that
I'm
okay
with
as
well
but
I
I,
see
the
I,
see
it
problematic
when,
when
we
carve
out
an
exception
that
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
get
an
exemption
just
because
we're
legislators
and
then
Joe
Blow
who's
on
the
on
the
task
force
with
me.
E
D
Thank
you,
Senator
French.
Do
you
have
a
question.
B
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
Brad
I,
think
you
mentioned
it
maybe
reimbursing
the
motel
or
hotel.
Why
would
they
be
reimbursed
that
all
they're
doing
is
collecting
a
sales
tax?
That's
not
a
a
profit
to
them,
that's
something
they
have
to
remit
to
the
state.
G
G
Mr
chairman
Senator
French,
yes,
I,
would
love
the
opportunity
to
clarify
that
and
I
think
there
there's
a
lot
of
ideas
that
we're
kind
of
going
into
your
question
so
right
now,
the
way
it
would
work
in
order
to
get
this
exemption
is
currently
written.
Is
that
hey
the
legislative
service
office
or
the
state
of
Wyoming
or
where
the
funds
come
from,
would
need
to
pay
the
hotel
directly
and
then
in
order
to
validate
that
exemption.
The
hotel
guests,
or
the
legislators
in
this
case
provide
an
exemption
certificate
just
to
note
an
untaxed
sale.
G
So
there's
no
technical
reimbursement,
I
think
the
re
on
the
reimbursement
side
is
on
per
legislator,
and
so,
if
the
lso
office
were
to
pay
directly,
there'd
probably
be
no
reimbursement
for
that
hotel.
It
just
may
be
Beyond
a
per
diem
sense,
but
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
ideas
working
there
just
based
on
who's
paying
for
that
hotel
bill
foreign.
B
Yes,
thank
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I
haven't
heard
time
wrapping
my
head
around
just
pay
him
for
what,
in
the
motel,
for
what
they're
just
collecting
a
sales
tax
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
their
quote
income
for
you,
you
staying
there,
I'm
I'm
missing
something.
G
Mr
chairman
Senator
French
I
it
it's
it's
a
very
complicated
issue,
so
you're
not
missing
something
I'm
just
going
to
try
and
explain
it
a
different
way,
and
so
right
now
so
when
the
state
is
being
reimbursed
for
that
hotel
room,
it's
for
the
entire
stay.
So
it's
there's
no
such
exemption
for
the
sales
tax.
They
just
note
this
room
is
exempt
and
then
the
hotel
goes
about
its
way
with
the
proper
documentation
in
place,
and
so
the
the
hotel
is
not
getting
reimbursed
for
anything.
H
H
H
Can
you
show
me
where
the
two
thousand
dollars
is
and
that's
what
the
Streamline
form
does
really
no
exchange
of
money?
It
doesn't
go
back
and
forth
and
it's
incumbent
upon
the
retailer
to
track
what's
taxable
and
what's
not
taxable
and
I
hope
you
explained
it
well
too.
I
was
just
trying
to
help.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
Senator,
McEwen,
good
explanation,
any
more
questions.
While
we
have
Mr
Fanning
back
up
here
more
questions.
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you
again
for,
for
all
your
help,
you're
welcome.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
and
I.
Think
I
will
invite
Senator
assignments
up
if
she
has
anything
to
add,
since
we've
kind
of
gotten
thoroughly
into
the
Weeds
on
her,
hopefully
was
an
easy
bill,
but
nothing's
easy
in
this
house.
A
Have
thank
you.
I
do
so.
You've
you've
brought
up
a
great
Point,
Senator,
Pappas
and
Mr
chairman
about
the
people
serving
on
boards
and
commissions,
and
things
like
that.
I
know,
for
example,
with
water
development,
though
they
do
pay
for
the
rooms
in
advance
for
the
people,
unlike
the
legislature.
A
So
maybe
not
all
boards
and
commissions
are
like
that,
but
some
of
them
are
I
would
submit
that
this
would
be
a
good
first
step
to
get
a
process
in
place
so
that
we
could
help
those
folks
as
well
and
that's
I
would
love
to
hear
the
wording
from
the
the
department
about
how
we
might
make
this
a
better
piece
of
legislation.
That's
what
we
do
around
here,
and
so,
if
they've
got
some
language
to
help
us
tighten
this
up
a
little
bit.
I
would
welcome
that
Amendment.
A
We
are,
though,
employees
of
the
state
for
tax
purposes
how
we're
paid
withholding
all
of
that,
and
so
I
think
this
is
just
a
little
hurdle
in
the
in
the
system
on
how
we
do
this.
It's
a
fair
policy
decision
to
say
you'd
rather
raise
the
per
diem
rate.
You
know.
That's!
That's
a
policy
question
I
I'm
on
the
other
end
of
that
I
would
rather
not
raise
the
per
diem
weight
rate
and
come
up
with
another
solution,
rather
than
you
know,
raise
more
money
from
the
general
fund.
A
That's
just
my
preference
and
why
I
bought
brought
this
bill
after
serving
on
that
committee,
so
I
would
love
to
to
work
with
the
department
to
get
that
language
exactly
right.
If
we
need
a
streamline
sales
tax
form,
not
not
a
big
deal,
we
fill
those
out
all
the
time
with
our
vendors
and
them
with
us.
A
That's
those
of
us
who
are
in
the
retail
World
understand
that.
Well,
so
so
with
that
Mr
chairman,
unless
the
committee
has
any
further
questions
for
me,
I
would
be.
E
A
E
E
And
the
state
say
for
just
speak
hypothetically,
the
state's
going
to
pay
all
our
bills
directly
right,
not
reimbursed.
So
if
I
have
a
room
for
65
dollars,
do
they
then
pay
me
per
diem,
the
balance
of
that
right
to
the
109.
or
what?
If
I
get
a
room?
That's
a
hundred
and
twenty
dollars?
E
Are
they
only
going
to
pay
the
109.
if
the
state
pays
directly?
Those
are
a
couple
of
questions.
I
have
now
on
the
flip
side
of
that.
If,
if
we
do
get
reimbursed
the
per
diem
like
we
are
right
now
and
I
do
go
ask
for
that
exemption
or
you
know,
give
them
the
certificate
and
get
that
exemption.
E
Then
am
I.
Well,
first
of
all,
we'd
have
to
change
the
bill
somehow
to
allow
that
the
way
I
see
it
or
in
rules
and
regulations.
Maybe
that's
the
way
that
you
can
do
it,
but
I
I
would
be
uncomfortable
if
we
don't
do
it
for
everyone,
not
only
the
other
people
that
on
our
boards
of
commissions,
but
all
for
other
for
all
employees
of
the
state
of
Wyoming
who
are
reimbursed
and
not
paid
by
the
agencies.
I'm
and
I
don't
know
if
many
are
I,
don't
know
that
data.
E
Maybe
somebody
has
that
data
which
agencies
actually
Pay
Direct,
which
agencies
will
reverse
employees
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
that
would
might
be
a
good
thing
to
try
to
find
out,
but
those
two
things
are
just
just
big
questions
on
it.
I
again,
the
premise
of
the
bill
I
have
no
problems
with
it.
It's
just
the
mechanics
and
the
making
it
fair
to
all
folks.
This
we
are
state
employees,
I
mean
we.
E
We
don't
necessarily
have
all
the
benefits
of
state
employees,
but
we
are
state
employees,
I
get
his
paycheck
from
the
state
anyhow,
but
I
think
we
need
to.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
it
hap
happens
for
everyone.
So
it's
consistent
across
all
people
that
are
getting
reimbursed,
or
we
end
up
figuring
out
a
system
that
the
state
pays
for
our
rooms
directly.
One.
D
A
Yeah
Mr
Mr
chairman
this
bill
doesn't
contemplate
our
per
diem
rate
and
it
doesn't
contemplate
changing
the
entire
system
of
how
we're
reimbursed
I.
We
would
just
get
our
per
diem
rate,
but
the
proposed
Bill
coming
I
believe
from
the
other
side
is
raising
our
per
diem
rate
to
155
dollars
per
per
day.
A
Their
conflict
is
in
regulation
and
I
believe
that
they
had
some
language
that
would
we
could
solve
that
problem
with
how
how
we
do
that
we
make
I,
don't
want
to
see
special
rules
but
rules
for
the
legislature
all
the
time,
because
we
are
a
little
different
animal
than
other
things
now
contemplating
the
boards
and
all
of
that
I'm
perfectly
open
to
that.
The
title
of
this
bill
will
not
allow
us
to
do
that
with
this
bill.
In
fact,
I'm
open
to
the
good
Senator
French
had
a
bill.
A
You
know,
and
so
that
that's
another
discussion
we
could
have,
but
today,
Senator
Pappas
and
Mr
chairman
were
talking
about
a
very
specific
set
of
circumstances
and
a
very
specific
problem,
we're
trying
to
address
which
is
raising
our
per
diem
rate,
because
we
have
seen
since
we
enacted
the
lodging
tax
a
few
years
ago,
and
some
of
us
voted
against
that
our
our
hotel
rates
have
seen
the
impact
of
that
and
it's
very
difficult
to
travel
across
the
state
and
get
a
hotel
room
that
is
affordable
and
that
we
can
stay
within
our
per
diem
to
eat
our
meals
and
many
times
we
really
are
paying
for
it
out
of
our
pockets
and
that's
fine.
E
E
We
actually
get
reimbursed
for
the
money
for
the
lodging
I'm
going
to
go
in
pay.
My
lodging
and
I'm
not
going
to
be
charged
that
tax,
so
the
state
is
not
going
to
be
saving
any
money
because
I'm
still
going
to
get
my
109
dollars
per
diem.
E
How's
that
saving
this
state
money,
saving
me
money
right,
so
I,
so
I
got
a
room
for
lodging
rate
of
96.
That
seems
to
be
a
pretty
good
number
these
days
and
and
it's
it's
tax-free,
but
I'm
going
to
get
109
dollars,
how's
the
state
getting
any
money
back
and
my
message:
I
must
be
missing
something
Senator.
A
Simon
Mr
chairman
well,
there's
two
ways
one.
Hopefully
this
would
prevent
us
raising
our
per
diem
rates,
so
that
is
the
savings
to
the
state.
But
secondly,
there
are
several
legislators
that
turn
in
their
actual
expenses
and
so,
for
example,
if
you
were
staying
in
Jackson
and
you
had
to
pay
350
dollars
for
a
room,
you
turned
in
that
actual
expense
plus
tax.
That
does
cost
the
state
money
and
there
have
been
TRW
meetings
and
other
meetings
in
Jackson,
and
so
there
are
I
haven't
been
turning
in
my
actual
expenses.
A
It's
it's
a
lot
of
money,
and
so
so
those
are
the
contemplated
Savings
in
this
bill
and
and
just
also
the
the
transfer
of
money
from
the
general
fund
to
into
the
lodging
tax
fund.
But
so
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
this
bill.
I
hope
you
can
make
it
a
little
clearer
better
if
it's
unclear
at
this
point,
Thank.
A
A
Yes,
thank
you
Mr
chairman
and
yes,
Senator
I,
that's
what
they
provided
to
me.
I,
don't
do
the
fiscal
notes
myself,
but
that
is
what
they've
provided
to
me.
So
thank
you.
D
Okay,
thank
you.
Senator
we're
we're
the
Motions
still
open
on
the
bill.
Any
amendments
you
may
want
to
take
a
stab
at
the
amendment,
Senator
Pappas.
D
I'll;
second,
that
any
discussion
he's
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
all.
H
D
Was
opposed
that
amendment
has
been
adopted,
I
will
offer
up
an
amendment
if
you
guys
don't
mind
to
just
insert
a
new
section
that
says
the
department
shall
promulgate
rules
necessary
to
implement
this
act.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
section
three
or
or
what
number
that
would
have
to
be
technically
but
I'm
sure
lso
knows
exactly
what
we're
talking
about.
E
Mr
chairman
did
we
ask
the
department
whether
they
already
have
rule
making
Authority
Under
This
section.
D
H
I
Senator
Pappas
chairman
Bateman.
E
I
Mr
chairman
Senate
file,
103,
has
four
eyes
and
one
null.
D
Thank
you,
Judy
Senator
Simons.
Do
you
want
to
carry
that
on
the
floor?
Okay
and
then
you're
back
up
again
for
next
Mr
chairman
may
I.
E
D
E
Again,
I
I
I,
like
the
premise
of
this
bill,
I
think
it
needs
a
lot
of
work.
I,
don't
know
whether
I'll
be
an
eye
on
the
floor
or
not
but
I.
Hopefully
we
can
tear
up
some
of
those
questions.
If
you
could
help
me
through
it
when
we
get
it
to
the
floor,
I
still
got
some
concerns
about
equality
amongst
state
employees
and.
D
Okay,
Senator
French.
That's
that
thought
on
her.
B
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I
voted
I
on
this.
It's
to
me
it's
a
start,
but
I
agree
with
Senator
Pappas.
We
need
to
continue
to
work
on
this
to
even
this
out,
for
so
any
state
employee
acting
on
behalf
of
the
state.
The
people
of
the
state
of
Wyoming
are
eventually
worked
into
this.
D
Thank
you,
I
would
just
add
that
the
the
deadline
for
filing
bills
hasn't
passed
yet,
and
that
is
sounds
like
a
great
build
draft
opportunity
for
somebody
hint
hint
to
get
that
in
there
and
I'm
sure
we'll
hear
it
in
this
very
committee.
So
with
that
being
said,
Senate
file,
104
Senators,
timeouts.
A
D
You
Senator
committee,
without
any
objection.
I
will
lay
this
bill
back
to
another
meeting
and
we'll
proceed
to
the
next
Bill.
D
Thank
you
last
fill
up
today
is
Senate
file.
39
Board
of
Equalization
questions
before
the
board
come
on
up.
J
Good
afternoon
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Marty
hartsog
I'm,
Vice,
chairman
of
the
Board
of
Equalization
and
I've,
been
in
front
of
the
legislature,
for
it
seems
like
a
long
time.
I
used
to
work
in
the
Attorney
General's
office
and
so
I
was
appointed
to
lead
the
charge
on
this
particular
tax
matter
with
me,
of
course,
I
don't
need
to
identify
her
I'm
sure.
J
You
all
know:
Senator
mockler,
chairman
of
our
board,
before
I,
get
started,
I'm
going
to
give
you
a
little
white
paper
and
I
gave
the
chairman
this.
J
So
the
best
the
best
place
to
start
is
writing
the
Bill
and
I.
Think
if
you
go
to
the
top
of
subsection
four,
you
see
the
language
that
the
Board
of
Equalization
has
the
authority
to
decide
all
questions
that
may
arise
with
reference
to
the
construction
of
any
statute.
That's
pretty
basic.
We
wear
two
hats
and
one
of
those
is
the
tax
court
for
the
state.
J
We
hear
all
tax
appeals,
whether
they're
State
assessed
or
locally
assessed,
and
so
what
happened
in
a
recent
case,
we
had
a
fairly
involved
mineral
tax
case
and
it
was
between
the
taxpayer
and
the
Department
of
Revenue
and,
in
this
case,
we're
fairly
familiar
with
the
valuation
statutes,
but
the
parties
were
talking
about
a
a
deduction
with
respect
to
soda
ash
or
Trona,
and
when
we
looked
at
the
statute,
the
parties
had
missed
part
of
the
of
the
statutory
language
weren't.
J
Looking
at
the
entire
statute
had
kind
of
focused
on
on
this
notion
of
a
deduction,
and
we
believe
that
the
entire
statute
was
at
play
and
that
the
parties
had
not
addressed
it.
So
we
ask
the
parties
to
go
back
with
a
legal
question
and
brief
it,
because
we
believed
it
was
relevant
to
the
case
which
they
did
and
we
ended
up
resolving
the
case
based
on
that
concern,
the
concern
that
they
didn't
raise,
but
that
we
felt
was
pertinent
and
was
right
in
the
statute.
J
It
wasn't
in
a
different
statute
or
or
a
separate
provision.
The
taxpayer
didn't
like
that
and
complained
before
the
Wyoming
Supreme
Court
that
we
should
not
have
done
that
and-
and
that
was
the
basis
of
what
the
court
did
to
reverse.
Our
ruling
said
that
we
weren't
permitted
to
raise
a
question
with
respect
to
the
dispute
that
the
parties
had
not
identified
so
this
language
here.
That
requires
that
we
can
that
we
can
interpret
and
construct
a
statute.
J
The
court
said
that
if
that
was
limited
to
our
regulatory
function,
which
is
is
kind
of
unusual,
because
that's
that's
our
Equalization
function,
but
not
our
function
as
the
state's
Court.
Basically,
and
so
what
we
wanted
to
do
was
close,
that
close
that
loophole
and
it
never
had
existed
before
this
had
never
come
up
before.
So
we
are
asking
that
there
be
a
clarification
that
our
authority
to
resolve
and
adjudicated
dispute
allows
us
to
raise
a
question
if
the
parties
haven't
identified
it.
J
In
other
words,
we
don't
have
to
accept
the
party's
interpretation
of
the
statute
and
pick
between
one
and
in
this
case
had
we
done
that
it
would
have
been
incorrect
because,
in
fact,
the
very
next
year,
the
same
case
came
back
before
us,
as
actually
happens
all
the
time
in
Mineral
cases.
It's
a
cycle.
J
The
Wyoming
Supreme
Court
had
accepted
and
adopted
our
interpretation,
and
when
it
came
up
this
time,
we
again
issued
the
same
interpretive
conclusion
to
the
dispute
and
all
the
way
up
to
the
Wyoming
Supreme
Court
and
the
court
agreed
with
us.
And
so
in
fact,
what
would
have
happened
is
that
if
we
did
not
have
this
ability
to
make
sure
the
parties
were
looking
at
the
entire
statute?
Looking
at
all
of
the
considerations,
what
happens
is
that
you
get
a
ruling
that
is
inconclusive
or
incomplete
and
it
becomes
the
law.
J
It
then
there's
a
possibility
that
it
can
confuse
and
create
misapplications
of
the
law
as
the
law,
and
so
what
we're
simply
asking
for
is
the
statute.
The
language
which
says
that
this
ability
to
interpret
the
statute
and
to
raise
questions
concerning
the
party's
dispute
applies
whether
we
are
sitting
in
our
regulatory
capacity
or
our
court
as
our
adjudicative
capacity.
J
If
that
makes
sense,
I
hope,
I
I
mean
it's
really
a
fairly
straightforward
proposition
and
really
courts
inherently
can
raise
questions
that
the
parties
don't
consider
to
make
sure
they
get
the
the
dispute
right
and
make
sure
that
the
court
completely
and
properly
resolves
a
dispute.
So
that
there's
not
missing
parts
and
in
fact,
with
this
one,
there
was
a
large
missing
part
that
the
parties,
the
the
taxpayer
and
the
department
had
not
considered.
J
So
it's
it's
pretty
straightforward
and
it's
in
line
with
what
courts
have
the
authority
to
do
anyway,
but
for
whatever
reason,
the
ruling
from
the
and
I
should
say
the
majority
ruling.
It
was
a
3-2
decision
that
the
minority
of
the
Court
to
to
court
minority
laid
out
exactly
why
it
believed
the
majority
was
incorrect
and-
and
that's
exactly
the
reason
that
we
are
bringing
this
this
clarification
in
the
statutes
and
I
hope
hope.
That's
understandable,.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
Hartzog,
any
questions.
Yes,
Senator
French.
B
Thank
you
Mr
chairman.
Please
help
me
out
here,
okay,
so
you
had
to
ability
to
in
the
in
the
law.
You
have
the
ability
to
ask
him,
you
just
didn't,
and
the
party
didn't.
So
why
do?
Why?
Do
we
even
need
this?
B
J
Me
out
here,
Mr
heart
song,
Mr,
chairman
Senator,
French,
no
you're
really
not
missing
anything.
This
is
something
we've
always
had
the
ability
to
do
and
what
happened
here
is
it's
very
unusual.
The
parties
came
before
us
and
they
were
saying.
Here's
a
deduction
and
the
department
said:
here's
what
we
think
the
deduction
is
the
taxpayer
says.
J
No,
we
think
it's
based
on
this,
but
when
you
looked
at
the
entire
statute,
the
valuation
of
soda
ash
or
Trona,
which
is,
is
kind
of
complex
and
I've
had
20
years
of
experience
with
it
I
said:
here's
the
problem.
The
provision
itself
doesn't
allow
you
to
have
an
additional
deduction,
an
additional
deduction.
J
That
way,
even
though
we
had
a
ruling
actually
in
previous
cases
that
kind
of
said
that,
so
when
we
brought
that
to
the
taxpayer's
attention,
well,
we
eventually
ruled
on
that
basis
and
said:
there's
no
deduction
at
all.
The
valuation
does
not
include
additional
deductions
beyond
what
the
factor
provides,
which
is
76,
something
like
that,
and
it
went
all
the
way
up
again
to
the
Wyoming
Supreme
Court
and
the
court
says
we.
J
We
should
not
have
raised
that
question
so,
in
effect
the
court
was
saying
we
needed
to
accept
what
the
parties
brought
to
us
and
we
did
not
have
the
ability
to
say
hold
on
here.
Let's
look
at
the
whole
statute
and
make
sure
we
got
it
right.
That's
it
it
in
a
nutshell.
The
court
had
never
said
that
to
any
lower
court
before
and
we're
not
a
legis
or
we're
not
a
Judicial
Court
we're
an
administrative
court,
but
that's
not
consistent
with
how
the
judicial
system
works.
J
Courts
are
permitted
to
try
to
get
it
right
and
make
sure
they
ask
all
relevant
questions.
In
this
instance,
the
court
and
again
3-2
split
said
that
we
had
to
basically
accept
the
parties
presentation
of
the
case
without
us
asking
any
additional
questions
about
other
parts
of
the
statute.
So
I
know
it's
confusing
and
you're
you're,
rightfully
saying.
Why
are
we
having
to
put
this
clarification
in
there?
Well
right
now
we
drop
a
footnote
every
now
and
then
and
say
Here's,
a
problem
with
this
case
you
presented,
but
because
you
haven't
identified
and
important
part.
J
We
can't
do
it
because
of
this
case
that
the
Wyoming
Supreme
Court
has
issued
we're
Bound
by
that
ruling.
Right
now,
even
though
I
mean
it's
a
3-2
decision,
and
so
we're
kind
of
stuck
with
it
and
when
we
see
problems
with
cases
and
how
they're
presented
we're
Limited
in
whether
we
can
try
to
get
that
case
right
and
make
sure
we
address
it
comprehensively.
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
Senator
French,
I
know
it's
it's
a
it's
a
clarification
really.
J
All
it
does
is
is
say,
look
everything
that
the
board
can
do
with
respect
to
the
interpretation
of
a
statute.
It
can
do
with
respect
to
all
of
its
Authority
and
not
just
on
the
regulatory
side,
which
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
because
really
our
interpretive
Authority.
It
comes
into
full
swing
when
we're
sitting
as
a
court
when
we're
hearing
appeals
between
the
taxpayer
and
the
and
the
department
or
between
taxpayer
and
the
assessor
at
the
local
level.
E
Senator
Pappas,
yeah
and
and
when
we
heard
this
in
in
the
interim,
it
made
complete
sense
to
me.
Typically,
they
thought
all
along.
They
had
the
ability
to
do
this,
I
mean,
and
they
have
been
doing
it
right
for
many
years
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
we
have
a
court
saying.
A
E
Say
you
have
that
ability,
and
so
all
we're
doing
really
is
giving
them
a
the
tool
another
tool
in
their
toolkit
that
that
any
issues
not
raised
by
the
party
the
board
can
can
raise
I
mean
they
should
have
that
ability.
They
thought
they
had
all
that
ability,
but
the
court
somehow
cited.
No,
so
we're
just
correcting
that
we're
giving
them
clear
written
ability
to
to
to
bring
those
facts
up
in
these
cases.
So
I
it's,
it
seems
like
a
a
good
move
and
it'll.
J
Chairman
biteman,
thank
you,
Senator
Pappas,
that's
exactly
right
and
in
fact
it's
not
even
giving
us
a
tool,
it's
really
clarifying,
because
if
you
look
at
that
first
line,
it
says
we
have
the
authority
to
interpret
and
construct
statutes,
which
is
basically
what
we
do.
99
of
what
we
do
is
look
at
the
rules
and
statutes
in
the
case
line
State.
Here's
how
it
applies,
but
what
what
this
Edition
is
going
to
say
is
that
we
have
that
Authority.
J
J
That's
that
statutory
completely
and
that's
where
we
sit
and
that's
probably
80
percent
of
our
work
is
all
the
appeals
we
hear
you
know
the
big
stuff,
the
the
multi-million
dollar
stuff
at
the
mid
General
level,
some
of
the
and
and
the
most
basic
valuation
stuff
out
of
the
local
County
Board.
That's
the
bulk
of
our
job
right
there.
J
So
this
function
right
here
is
critical
to
that,
because
sometimes
the
parties
come
before
us
and
we're
like,
and
we've
been
doing
this
forever
and
they're
new
to
the
to
the
show
and
we're
like
well
there's
a
provision
over
here
that
you
haven't
looked
at
technically
speaking
with
this
case
that
the
Wyoming
Supreme
Court
issued.
We
can't
do
that.
We
have
to
look
at
just
what
the
parties
prevent
present
to
us,
which
doesn't
always
give
us
the
ability
to
answer
the
question
correctly.
C
C
C
So
you
know
I
think
if
you
guys
stick
around
long
enough
you're
going
to
find
that
we
do
make
mistakes
in
the
legislature
and
occasionally
we
have
to
clean
them
up
and
usually
aren't
we're
not
around
have
to
see
our
mistakes,
but
in
this
case
I
was,
and
the
other
thing
I
would
just
like
to
point
out.
This
costs
that
taxpayer
quite
a
bit
of
money,
because
the
next
year
and
the
next
audit,
the
department
knew
that
they
needed
to
bring
all
of
this
in
they
brought
it
all
in.
C
They
went
all
the
way
through
the
district
court
all
the
way
through
the
whole
process
again
and
had
had
we
had
this
in
place.
It
would
have
stopped
at
our
level
and
not
required
that
they
reappeal
relitigate
that
entire
issue
so
I
think
it's
it's
almost
as
much
as
anything.
It
was
an
oversight,
and
now
it's
a
cleanup.
D
Testimony
thank
you
very
much.
Anybody
from
the
Department
of
Revenue
anybody
agencies
want
to
come
on
down.
Yes,
sir.
Please
come
on.
K
It's
been
a
while
Pat
Meyer
Park,
County
Assessor,
the
assessors
Association
doesn't
really
have
stand
on
this
bill,
but
I
would
like
you
know,
and
I
can
see
their
point
on
these
big
complicated
cases
such
as
a
mineral
case,
a
state
assessment
and
so
forth,
where
they
are
complicated
and
you
go
to
the
statutes
but
I'm,
not
so
sure,
at
locally
assessed
when
a
taxpayer
could
have
won
the
appeal,
but
all
of
a
sudden
they
find
something
and
then
turn
it
around
for
the
assessor
or
it
could
go
both
ways.
K
Normally,
what
I
was
always
thought
is
when
it
go
when
it
gets
appealed
to
the
state
board
from
the
County
Board.
They
only
get
to
read
that
record
and
they
look
at
that
to
see
if
the.
If,
if
this
was
if
it
was
met,
everybody
met
their
their
things
and
a
lot
of
times.
Of
course,
taxpayer
doesn't
use
a
lawyer
a
lot
of
times.
The
assessor
won't
use
a
lawyer
on
residential
cases.