House defeats $2.5 million amendment to restore arboretum greenhouse
February 07, 2025 | House of Representative, Committees, Legislative, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Wyoming House rejected a third‑reading amendment to the supplemental budget that would have redirected $2.5 million from the tourism projects account to repair the greenhouse and restart tree‑seedling production at an historic arboretum near Cheyenne.
Representative Nicholas, who brought the amendment, said the funding would restore a greenhouse and related infrastructure so the site could again produce 40,000–50,000 seedlings a year for replanting after wildfire and to support statewide tree‑rearing needs. “If we can take these funds and get to the greenhouse and put it back in shape…we’ll be able to create between 40 to 50,000 seedlings every year,” he told colleagues, describing the site’s history and the community contributions already pledged.
Supporters framed the amendment as a heritage‑and‑tourism investment that could produce seedlings for restoration and create local jobs. Representative Steidhar and others described the site’s value to veterans’ services and tourism; Representative Johnson called it “the Fort Laramie of horticulture in Wyoming.”
Opponents raised budget and return‑on‑investment concerns. Representative Harshman said the parks department’s site assessment rated the project only “medium” and questioned whether the project would draw enough visitors to justify state capital spending. Representative Bair argued the land is city‑owned and urged deference to local ownership. Several members warned the greenhouse appropriation would be the first step in a much larger state commitment if construction and subsequent maintenance costs expanded.
The House voted on third‑reading Amendment 10 to House Bill 1 by roll call. The tally was 22 ayes, 38 nays, 2 excused; the amendment failed.
Members who spoke on the amendment included Representative Nicholas (mover), Representative Harshman (opponent), Representative Steidhar, Representative Johnson and Representative Bair. The debate focused on project history, visitor projections, the greenhouse’s role in producing seedlings for post‑fire reforestation and whether the state or local government should carry long‑term operating costs. The amendment did not include a binding maintenance or operating plan.
If enacted, the amendment would have required the tourism projects account to release one‑time funds to the city/county partners to repair greenhouse glass, restore irrigation and stabilize buildings; the amendment as debated did not create a new ongoing appropriation for long‑term staffing or operations.
Votes at a glance: Third‑reading Amendment 10 to House Bill 1 — failed, 22 ayes, 38 nays, 2 excused.
Representative Nicholas, who brought the amendment, said the funding would restore a greenhouse and related infrastructure so the site could again produce 40,000–50,000 seedlings a year for replanting after wildfire and to support statewide tree‑rearing needs. “If we can take these funds and get to the greenhouse and put it back in shape…we’ll be able to create between 40 to 50,000 seedlings every year,” he told colleagues, describing the site’s history and the community contributions already pledged.
Supporters framed the amendment as a heritage‑and‑tourism investment that could produce seedlings for restoration and create local jobs. Representative Steidhar and others described the site’s value to veterans’ services and tourism; Representative Johnson called it “the Fort Laramie of horticulture in Wyoming.”
Opponents raised budget and return‑on‑investment concerns. Representative Harshman said the parks department’s site assessment rated the project only “medium” and questioned whether the project would draw enough visitors to justify state capital spending. Representative Bair argued the land is city‑owned and urged deference to local ownership. Several members warned the greenhouse appropriation would be the first step in a much larger state commitment if construction and subsequent maintenance costs expanded.
The House voted on third‑reading Amendment 10 to House Bill 1 by roll call. The tally was 22 ayes, 38 nays, 2 excused; the amendment failed.
Members who spoke on the amendment included Representative Nicholas (mover), Representative Harshman (opponent), Representative Steidhar, Representative Johnson and Representative Bair. The debate focused on project history, visitor projections, the greenhouse’s role in producing seedlings for post‑fire reforestation and whether the state or local government should carry long‑term operating costs. The amendment did not include a binding maintenance or operating plan.
If enacted, the amendment would have required the tourism projects account to release one‑time funds to the city/county partners to repair greenhouse glass, restore irrigation and stabilize buildings; the amendment as debated did not create a new ongoing appropriation for long‑term staffing or operations.
Votes at a glance: Third‑reading Amendment 10 to House Bill 1 — failed, 22 ayes, 38 nays, 2 excused.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting