Sheridan council awards $484,500 in GPET grants after heated public debate over constitutionality

The Sheridan City Council on Monday approved a package of general purpose excise tax (GPET) awards to local nonprofits after lengthy public comment and debate about whether such grants violate the Wyoming Constitution.

Council members voted on individual service-contract-style awards to 18 applicant organizations, adopting funding levels lower than several groups requested and rejecting funding for two others. The council approved awards totaling $484,500; amounts approved ranged from $0 to $80,000.

Supporters of the awards told council members the grants support services the city itself does not provide and leverage private fundraising. “GPET funds do not replace private giving, they multiply its impact,” Carrie McMeans, executive director of the Hub on Smith, told the council during public comment. Opponents cited state constitutional language that restricts public donations to private organizations and urged the council not to “give away” taxpayer money. “Approving taxpayer funds ... to be given away to businesses is a violation of our state constitution,” citizen Harry Pollock told the council.

Council members debated both legal and fiscal arguments. Several speakers referenced state constitutional provisions and statutes during public comment, including Wyoming Constitution Article 16 §6 and Article 3 §36 and state statute authorizing the GPET (cited in the meeting as Wyoming Statute 39-15-203). Some council members said they relied on a city attorney opinion that using GPET for service agreements can be lawful; others said legal opinions can differ and that the council must consider stewardship of scarce municipal funds while the city is undertaking capital borrowing.

Votes at a glance (final approved amount; vote where recorded): - Volunteers of America Northern Rockies — requested $75,000; approved $0 (amended motion to remove funding passed by voice vote) - Advocacy & Resource Center — requested not specified; approved $50,000 (approved; roll call recorded as 6–1) - Black Mountain Nordic — requested $35,000; approved $10,000 (approved after amendment) - CHAPS Equine‑Assisted Services — requested $30,000; approved $25,000 (amendment passed) - Child Development Center — requested $12,500; approved $12,500 - Compass Center for Families — requested $30,000; approved $30,000 - Downtown Sheridan Association — requested $65,000; approved $45,000 (amendment passed) - Habitat for Humanity of the Eastern Bighorns — requested $75,000; approved $40,000 - NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) — requested $10,000; approved $10,000 - Sage Community Arts — requested $15,000; approved $15,000 - Second Chance Cat Rescue — requested $60,000; approved $30,000 (reduced by amendment; council discussion centered on spay/neuter vs. intake/transfer policies) - Hub on Smith (Senior Services) — requested $85,000; approved $80,000 - Sheridan Arts Council — requested $2,000; approved $2,000 - Sheridan Community Land Trust — requested $35,000; approved $25,000 (amendment passed) - Sheridan County Chamber of Commerce — requested $50,000; approved $50,000 - Sheridan County Conservation District — requested $20,000; approved $20,000 - Sheridan County Historical Society (Museum at the Bighorns) — requested $35,000; approved $30,000 - Uprising — requested $10,000; approved $10,000 - Veterans Village — requested $10,000; approved $0 (council voted to deny)

Why it matters: GPET is the city’s 1% optional excise tax on sales; council members and many commenters said stewardship and legal compliance matter because the city is concurrently carrying capital borrowing and operating obligations. Opponents argued that state constitutional language and state statute bar public funds being donated to private organizations; supporters argued the awards are service contracts that leverage private fundraising and provide services the city does not directly deliver.

Council direction and next steps: City staff said the awards will be administered under the service agreements discussed on the agenda; several council members asked for improved transparency and public access to service‑agreement language and applicant financials in future cycles.

Provenance (excerpted from meeting transcript): “That motion passes. We now move on to new business, and new business is consideration of all the general purpose excise tax service agreements.” (start of GPET discussion at s=5148.98). Final motions and votes are recorded through the conclusion of the item (discussion and final motions ended s≈7894.34).