The original story by
Wyoming lawmakers spent Wednesday digging into how the state pays to keep its computers and software up to date — and whether it’s time to overhaul that process.
The Legislature’s Joint Appropriations Committee reviewed a proposed $8.29 million budget request for the statewide Technology Replacement Program (TRP), along with a new idea: centralizing how those tech upgrades are planned and debated so lawmakers don’t have to relitigate the same issues hundreds of times.
The TRP, managed by Enterprise Technology Services (ETS), covers the replacement of aging or obsolete hardware and software across state agencies. ETS generally recommends swapping out standard desktops and laptops in their fifth year.
In past years, reviewing tech requests has been a slog. State Budget Department Director Kevin Hibbard reminded lawmakers that two years ago, the committee kept getting bogged down in tiny details on individual TRP requests — and members didn’t always agree on what ETS policy should be.
That led to interim talks in 2024 and a new proposal for this year: roll nearly 700 separate tech replacement requests into one big, centralized “TRP book.”
“This book would give you all the information that you needed to have to make TRP decisions and not get distracted at each agency’s budget hearing,” Hibbard told the committee.
The total ask for TRP this cycle is $8,290,176, with about $6.6 million of that coming from the state’s general fund.
There’s a catch, though. Federal rules say computers have to be budgeted as a direct, one-time expense — not as an overhead or administrative cost that can be recovered through the Statewide Cost Allocation Plan.
Hibbard said if the state tried to move all that money into ETS and handle it centrally, Wyoming would lose out on nearly $3 million in federal and special revenue reimbursements over the biennium.
To bridge that gap between centralized management and one-time budgeting rules, Hibbard urged lawmakers to consider changing state law.
“My recommendation is to consider draft legislation to change the budget department’s statutes to allow TRP to be put into Chapter 17,” he said, arguing it would streamline the process.
His goal, he added, is for the committee to see clearly labeled TRP items in each agency’s budget and simply say:
“Please proceed to the next item, because we’ve had the TRP conversation.”
ETS deputy director Erica Legerski laid out why her agency wants more consistent control over when and how technology gets replaced.
Centralized oversight, she said, would help the state avoid security risks, inefficiencies and mounting maintenance costs that come with aging equipment — problems that only grow as systems expand. She also pointed out that agencies juggling other priorities don’t always follow ETS’ recommended replacement schedules.
ETS typically buys equipment in bulk through National Association of State Procurement Officials agreements, which helps secure competitive pricing. Legerski said ETS could comfortably manage the replacement of 200 to 250 computers every month if the process were coordinated and spread out.
Sen. Mike Gierau, D-Jackson, said that approach makes sense.
“If you buy $1.5 million worth of computers for the Department of Health, you would be able to spread that out … so they don’t have peaks and valleys or have to hire extra people because they’ve got to do this all at once,” he said. “Economies also start to play into that, which would be a big saving.”
Rep. Ken Pendergraft, R-Sheridan, praised the new consolidated TRP documentation.
“We’re looking at $8 million in the grand scheme of things, (so) it’s important for us to work from the top down. And so I find this very useful,” he said.
The committee stopped short of making a final call on changing the law, but members signaled that the centralized TRP book will help them make clearer funding decisions later in the budget process.
The discussion comes on the heels of earlier hearings in which ETS outlined its broader strategy: tightening up software and asset management and strengthening coordination with agencies so technology planning is more strategic and less reactive.
The latest news in your social feeds
Subscribe to our social media platforms to stay tuned