House backs reducing permanent mineral trust fund spending rate amid sharp debate over school, hospital funding

The Wyoming House Committee of the Whole recommended passage of House Bill 270 and House Bill 271 on Jan. 30, 2025, proposing to lower the spending policy used to draw from the Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund (PWMTF) and the Common School Account from 5% to 4.5%. The committee vote recorded for HB 270 was 30‑23 and for HB 271 was 30‑28.

Proponents said the change deliberately reduces the amount flowing into the general fund today in order to speed growth of reserve accounts that would later be invested more aggressively to generate larger returns. “This is an opportunity for us to change the direction of our state in the way that we invest our funds,” Representative Brad Baer said as he explained the measure’s intent to increase future investment income.

The bill’s supporters and several investment experts who advised the Legislature argued that lowering the spending draw now will grow a reserve account to the 5x threshold more quickly; once large enough, the reserve can be invested in equities and other higher‑return assets. Representative Baer and other supporters said modeling shows the short‑term reduction — estimated in the fiscal note at roughly $28 million on the general fund side for HB 270 and about $24 million on the school side for HB 271 — would be offset within a few years by higher returns.

Opponents urged caution and pointed to near‑term spending obligations. Representative Dan Brown, who said he had experience with a prior similar reduction, warned lawmakers that cutting the spending policy “is taking a half a percent away of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars available for you to spend today” and recalled an episode in which an earlier cut had to be reversed within a year. Several members pressed whether the state could afford the reduction while funding current programs, hospitals and schools and while other bills under consideration would reduce revenue to the general fund.

Speakers from both sides raised the same recurring trade‑off: save more now for larger future investment income, or preserve current spending on roads, hospitals and education. Supporters described the change as a temporary belt‑tightening that would enable the state to reach a reserve size (described in testimony as a “5x” threshold) that allows a long‑term total‑return investment strategy; opponents said the timing was wrong given present budget pressures and the risk that mineral revenues can crash sharply.

Both HB 270 and HB 271 were reported out of the Committee of the Whole with recommendations to pass and the committee’s recorded tallies were entered into the record. Lawmakers who supported the bills said they expected the reduction to produce larger endowments for future legislatures; critics said the Legislature should instead find other ways to build reserves without cutting current available spending.

Votes at committee of the whole: HB 270 recommended do pass, 30‑23; HB 271 recommended do pass, 30‑28.

The bills will go back to the House for further consideration on second and third reading. Supporters asked members to review the data book pages and the treasurer’s reports cited during debate to understand projected flows and the mechanics of the 5‑year rolling average used to compute the spending policy.