Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Penny Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission votes down proposal to place 1% "5th penny" excise tax on May ballot after public hearing
Summary
After hours of presentation and public comment, the Sublette County commission voted 3–2 against placing a 1% general-purpose excise tax (the "5th penny") on the May ballot; town leaders and business groups urged the vote, while some residents and two commissioners said a citizen petition would be the better route.
The Sublette County Board of County Commissioners voted 3–2 not to place a proposed 1% general-purpose excise tax — commonly called the "5th penny" — on the May ballot after an extended presentation and a multi-hour public comment period.
County staff explained the proposal and described how state industrial-siting rules link eligibility for impact funding to imposition of a 1% excise tax. Presenters said the Blue Spruce industrial project under review would be a large regional development and that Sublette County and its municipalities were preliminarily estimated to receive about $7.3 million of a roughly $14 million impact fund pool allocated among affected counties and towns.
Pinedale Mayor Murdoch urged the commission to place the question before voters, saying the town’s sales-tax base has declined and the penny would help restore local buying power. "Since I was elected mayor in 2014, we have seen a significant decrease in the town of Pinedale's buying power," Murdoch said during public comment, arguing the extra penny would help municipal services and grant competitiveness.
Business and municipal representatives including Sage Price of the county chamber also urged a vote, saying public education and voter approval were the appropriate next steps. "Let the public have a voice and also educate the citizens," Price told the board.
Opponents and several commissioners countered that the board should require proponents to gather signatures for a citizen ballot petition rather than placing the item on a special May ballot. Commissioner White (speaker 5) said he preferred that citizens "champion this cause" through the petition process; Commissioner Vickrey (speaker 4) said he was not willing to unilaterally place a tax increase on the ballot without broader citizen-led sign-up. "I'll do everything I can to support that endeavor. But I'm not gonna sit here as one individual and say, yeah, we're gonna put it on the ballot," Vickrey said.
Commissioner Bradley moved to place the question on the ballot; the motion was seconded and put to a recorded voice vote. The motion failed, 3–2. The chair encouraged proponents to gather the roughly 248 signatures required to place the measure on the ballot by petition.
The presentation and the public comments made clear the financial trade-offs: proponents emphasized projected local revenues and improved municipal capacity; opponents noted the tax’s regressive elements for some households and urged more public debate before a county-level decision. The board did not adopt alternative language or a different ballot timing during the meeting; commissioners discussed the possibility of a later (August or November) ballot at the request of some speakers but took no final action on timing.
