The committee received a multi‑part briefing on the Wyoming Innovation Partnership (WIP) phase‑2 projects, a return‑on‑investment (ROI) analysis by the University of Wyoming Center for Business and Economic Analysis, and program updates from participating institutions.

Return on investment: Dave Odland and Anders Van Sant of the University of Wyoming described methodology and conservative assumptions behind a WIP ROI estimate. The team reviewed about $44 million in phase‑1 and phase‑2 WIP funds as the program cost base and used standard economic impact modeling (IMPLAN) to estimate “value added” or contribution to Wyoming’s gross state product over multi‑year horizons. Using a five‑year horizon and conservative assumptions (excluding qualitative benefits and avoiding double counting), the team reported an estimated cumulative return on investment of roughly 690 percent over five years (annualized to about a 60 percent return in a single year equivalent); the analysts characterized the estimate as conservative and comparable to multipliers used in other public investments.

What they measured: The analysts said they included direct benefits (jobs and wages created by program activities and purchases), indirect supplier effects and induced household spending, and counted only in‑state economic activity to avoid leakage. They emphasized they did not attempt to value many qualitative benefits (for example, long‑term industry attraction, complementary effects among programs or longer‑term industry development) and noted that some program benefits will take longer than five years to mature.

Program highlights and challenges: UW and partner college presenters summarized tangible outcomes in nine program areas. The analysis and program reports highlighted large value‑added returns in energy and workforce development (including commercial driver’s license training), positive returns for tourism programs that leveraged in‑state purchases, and mixed short‑term returns for advanced manufacturing and agriculture research (areas that may generate larger future benefits but have limited in‑state industrial scale today). Control environment agriculture (CEA) pilots at UW and Central Wyoming College, virtual reality workforce safety pilots, and an addiction‑studies expansion at Casper College were presented as successful, early‑stage projects that provided credentials, internships or industry partnerships.

Examples: Central Wyoming College described a container‑based hydroponic “freight farm” and greenhouse work that will be used for training and local food production; Casper College described an addiction‑studies pathway that includes associate‑level credentials and a supervised clinical pipeline to increase licensed addiction practitioners in the state and noted early scholarship and internship placements; Casper College’s manufacturing program said additional advanced machinery and industry partnerships increased student performance and led to employer hires.

Why it matters: The ROI and program briefs show WIP funds have seeded projects that state officials said are beginning to create jobs, strengthen industry ties and provide student credentials for in‑state employment. The analysts urged caution: some program areas produce benefits only over a longer horizon and will require continued tracking. Committee members and presenters agreed the WIP projects should continue to be monitored with standard metrics and regular reporting.

Next steps: WIP phase‑3 priorities were described as sustainability and scaling; the committee heard that some phase‑2 projects have been designed so that, once students and tuition revenue are in place, program operations should be sustainable without recurring WIP appropriations. Presenters said WIP phase‑3 will add a nuclear workforce training pilot and continue investments across the nine program areas.