Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the January 26th meeting of Cheyenne's governing body.

Madam Clerk, will you call the roll?

Mr.

White.

Present.

Mr.

Wolf.

Here.

Dr.

Aldrich, present.

Mayor Collins.

Here.

Dr.

Emmons.

Here.

Mr.

Escabel.

Here.

Mr.

Lyborn.

Here.

Mr.

Moody.

Here.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Present.

All members are present.

We do have a quorum.

Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have uh one little item that's not on our agenda, and that is that uh Dr.

Rainey was the president of our city council for the last year.

Uh, I think for a record breaking tenth time.

Um, so I'm not sure where he's gonna find room in his house to put a tenth plaque, but we're not going to not give him one.

Uh, and thank him for his service as the president of our city council.

So if you join me in congratulating him, please.

Next item, please.

Number four, consent agenda.

All agenda items listed with the designation of CA are considered to be routine items by the governing body and will be enacted by one motion.

There'll be no separate discussion on these items unless a member of the governing body so requests and support by two other members is received.

Any item removed from the consent agenda will be considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.

All right, are there any items a member of the governing body would like to remove?

Yes, Dr.

Aldrich.

Number 11, please.

That is a reappropriation of our budget.

Number 11 is removed.

Anyone else?

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.

So moved.

Second.

Move by Dr.

Aldrich, seconded by Mr.

White.

All those in favor of the consent agenda with number 11 removed, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The consent agenda is approved again with number 11 being removed.

It'll be considered in its normal place on the uh agenda.

Number six ordinance, third reading, creating chapter 1.28 administrative inspection warrants, establishing authority for their issuance and amending the municipal code of the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming to authorize certain city officials as specified to apply for administrative inspection warrants.

Two things.

Mr.

Mayor, one more thing, if I could, you guys.

It it's really hard for people online to hear and people back in this part of the audience.

If you don't pull that microphone right up to about two inches from your mouth and talk into it.

If you turn on a look at the crowd, we can't hear you.

So if you do that just for us, we'd really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Sir.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Gary Pugh.

I'm a resident of Cheyenne.

I live in War One.

I'm here today to oppose Chapter 1.28 administrative warrants because administrative warrants raise serious constitutional concerns and directly affect the residents of our city.

This issue is not abstract, it is not partisan.

It goes to the heart of the Fourth Amendment and the relationship between local communities and government authority.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people are secure in their homes and that the government may not search or seize without a warrant issued by an independent impartial judge based on probable cause.

The safeguard exists for one reason to ensure that no government agency can act as judge and enforcer at the same time.

Administrative warrants violate that principle.

Like judicial warrants, administrative warrants are issued internally by government agencies.

Remember, a municipal judge is appointed by the mayor and the council.

Administrative warrants are not reviewed or approved by an independent judge.

When an agency authorizes its enforcement actions, the constitutional check designed to protect the public is removed.

There's exactly a kind of unchecked authority the Fourth Amendment is written to prevent.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that home deserves the highest level of constitutional protection.

Entering a private residence without consent generally requires a judicial warrant.

Administrative warrants simply do not meet that standard.

They bypass judicial oversight and weaken the constitutional barrier that protects residents from unreasonable searches and seizures.

This matter is the local is at a local level because constitution violations do not occur in theory.

They occur on our streets and on our doorsteps.

Enter your private residence without consent generally requires a judicial warrant.

Administrative warrants simply do not meet that standard.

When residents fear that the government agents enter their home without an independent judge's approval, trust erodes.

People become less willing to cooperate with law enforcement, report crimes, or engage with local institutions.

That loss of trust harms public safety for everyone.

Some argue that administrative warrants are necessary for efficiency, but efficiency has never been a constitutional justification.

The constitution was intentionally designed to slow the government down when fundamental rights are at stake.

Convenience cannot override due process.

This is a slippery precedent.

If agencies are permitted to bypass independent judicial warrants in one area of enforcement, that authority can expand.

Rights that depend on a person targeted are not rights at all.

The Fourth Amendment either protects everyone in the city or it protects no one.

City councils are responsible to uphold constitutional values and protect their communities.

Speaking out against the use of administrative warrants is not obstructing the law.

It is about insisting that the law be enforced within constitutional limits.

I urge this council to affirm its commitment to the Fourth Amendment to judicial oversight and to the principle that no government agency should have the power to place itself at the expense of our residents' rights.

Thank you for your time.

You did almost exactly three minutes.

Thank you, Mr.

Pugh.

Representative, welcome to our meeting.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

My name is Ann Lucas, and I do not live in the city of Cheyenne.

I live in the county, but I am the House District Rep.

I am the House rep for District 43, which encompasses a fair little bit of the city of Cheyenne.

And I have heard from many constituents, and some of whom are here this evening.

And it's great to see you folks here.

Um I just have a few comments.

Mr.

Mayor and Council members, I want to be really clear on this.

I fully support the city's ability to act immediately when there is a real emergency.

Fires, gas leaks, structural collapse, or other situations that can put lives at risk.

I also believe that laws should be enacted when they must be enacted and not because we can enact them.

And I don't think that this ordinance is limited to emergent situations.

I looked at the Title 15, and um there are three chapters that don't apply in this ordinance, and they happen to be the historic design guideline, solar access permit system, and house numbers.

And every other bit of the building code applies in this ordinance, including um energy conference conservation code.

This is a bill about code code enforcement.

Um of these really are emergencies or are so seldom emergencies.

If it was, you could still do it because it would be an emergency.

A missing permit, a failed inspection sign-off, an unapproved alteration or a long-standing maintenance issue doesn't suddenly become a life-threatening situation because simply because an inspector can't gain access.

Yet this ordinance allows inner administrative inspection warrants to be used for all of Title 15, with the exception of those three chapters that I mentioned.

This is the problem.

If the issue is truly exigent, a fire hazard, a gas leak, a building is going to fall down and kill somebody.

So this isn't an exigent.

The city should always be able to require a judicial warrant reviewed by a judge with probable cause and the scope clearly defined.

That is not an unreasonable burden.

It is a constitutional baseline.

This ordinance blurs the line between emergency response and ordinary enforcement.

It treats routine compliance matters as if they justify the same intrusion as a life safety emergency.

And they don't.

Private property rights are not an inconvenience to be worked around.

They're a boundary that requires care, restraint, and judicial oversight.

I urge you to amend this ordinance so that immediate access to private property is limited strictly to genuine safety emergencies.

Do you understand your time is up?

Oh, I'm not used to that.

Yeah, you guys do it to me all the time when I come.

They do it all the time to be at the legislature and say, you're dub.

Sit down, Mr.

Mayor.

So well, somebody would say point of order, but I understand and I appreciate your time, folks.

Thank you very much.

Make your point.

I really appreciate your being here this evening.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Mayor and member members of the council, my name is Kathy Sigliano, and I am a resident here in Laramie County.

I'd like to speak in opposition to the proposed ordinance.

Last week, three of you from my committee of four agreed to postpone.

And I have received emails from Councilman Moody, Escabelle, White, as well as councilwoman Emmons and Aldridge saying that they would support support a postponement.

When I asked in an email back if amendments and revisions would be submitted to you all by today's meeting, if you would still vote to postpone, I only received a response of yes from Michelle Aldridge.

The postponement was not conditional.

I am asking that if a revision is given, you still postpone to allow public comment to give feedback and address any concerns they may have.

The British Crown thought the same thing in the 18th century when it issued general warrants, vague permissions that allowed officials to search homes, businesses, and property without specific suspicion, no names, no clear limits, no real accountability, just trust.

Those warrants were widely unpopular, routinely abused, and became one of the very reasons we have the Fourth Amendment.

Our founders didn't add protections against unreasonable searches because they were paranoid or dramatic.

They did it because they had lived under a system where government agents could enter property first, justify it later.

This ordinance walks dangerously close to that same line.

Calling these warrants non-criminal doesn't make them harmless.

A forced entry onto private property is still a search, allowing unelected officials to obtain warrants based on broad standards like inspection or safety concerns without owner consent or clear probable cause is exactly the kind of authority that the Fourth Amendment was designed to restrain.

And what we are seeing here is a blatant disregard to this community by refusing to take into consideration any amendments or suggestions from the community.

We are being asked once again to trust the government.

We always use this power wisely.

History, both British and American suggest otherwise.

Private property rights are not an inconvenience to be managed.

They are a constitutional boundary.

When government starts treating that boundary as optional, it doesn't stop with vacant buildings or unprop unpopular owners.

It expands.

Wyoming has never been a place that governs by trust.

We govern by limits, transparency, and respect for individual individual rights.

I urge the council to remember the oath you took and reject this ordinance.

Thank you.

Welcome back.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Patricia McCoy, and I have been a resident of Cheyenne for 18 years.

I am here today to formally recommend and support this body in postponing the vote for this ordinance for two weeks as recommended by the committee.

This time is necessary for the council to review a corrected version of the draft provided by an attorney and fellow citizen who is willing to help this body pass an ordinance that actually aligns with the Wyoming Constitution and Wyoming Supreme Court precedence and allows the public time to review the amended draft prior to it being voted to pass.

Before I address this ordinance, I must address the culture of this chamber.

Rule four on the general meeting information plaque outside this very room states proper decorum must be observed in courtesy given to members of the governing body, you, city staff, and members of the public.

While I apologize for whispering or speaking too loudly at the last meeting, unaware that that small sign was out there.

My apologies for that.

Certain members of this governing body were allowed to rudely interrupt, cut off, and talk down to the public throughout the meeting without a single reprimand from the chair until the attack became personal against one individual.

Yet you were quick to rec reprimand those of us in the back.

To enforce rules strictly against the public while allowing council members to ignore the courtesy clause of rule four is the definition of hypocrisy.

These behaviors are arbitrary and capricious.

We are not uneducated or misinformed, as some have suggested.

We agree with you.

However, we refuse to accept that the city convenience should come at the expense of our rights.

And it explicitly bans warrants for simple nuisance or zoning violations that are observable from the street.

I urge you to read this corrected version.

We are educated enough to know that when any government official says blindly, trust us, it is a time and cause for concern.

Let's take two weeks to choose an ordinance that solves problems through the law rather than through the sacrifice of our privacy.

Thank you.

There you go.

Hi, this is Peter Seekel.

I live here in uh precinct 2-1.

I'm a precinct committeeman for the GOP.

And very simply, uh, if we already have ordinances to take care of any questions of safety, um, fire hazard or a building falling over or being abandoned, these things are already on the books, and it's just common sense for anybody who knows these two things or on the books to take care of any problems that are existing.

Why have another one?

It just makes everybody very suspicious.

And if you could have simply a comparison of the two and why you need this to clarify any suspicion or to clarify the points of need and to uh just kind of dissuade the doubt and suspicion.

It's it's a suspicious thing to have two sets of rules that do the same thing.

Would this be causing a um kind of a secret or unspoken need to go inspect somebody's home?

Because there are suspicious people in this whole the whole city, and it'll be the county eventually.

So I think if you clarify why clearly, we've already got the rules.

Now we need more for what?

So I don't want this to occur.

And if it can become up clear and needful, people would not be so suspicious.

Everybody I talk to at coffees in the morning and uh anywhere I go and I talk about, you know, you read it and it's duplistic.

So thank you very much.

Appreciate you being here.

Sure.

Anyone else want to speak to us?

Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

I'm uh Abe Mendez, uh resident of Cheyenne or whatnot.

Um, I just want to speak against this.

It seems very uh I came both in prepared people have speeches and stuff.

Um I just found out about not found out about this, but I've been seeing it, and part of what I like about Wyoming, small government, everybody kind of leaves, you know, I guess just spirit of small government, people get left alone.

The way I understood this in my in my brain is you know, you guys want to use it or not necessarily you guys, but government wants to use it to get rid of the buildings, correct that error that are problems.

Yes, no one is denying that.

But what happens in my mind?

We'll get uh buildings taken care of and all that.

Well, um, I've never necessarily seen a law get retracted or a government gets smaller on its own accord, so we'll get rid of the buildings that are problems.

Then what happens next?

Is it like, oh hey, we you know, we gotta do something with this.

Let's start going into uh I'm sorry, I'm kind of nervous here.

Let's start going into people's homes for this is an extreme, of course, but there's not to say that government doesn't go to extremes.

Let's start issuing warrants and this or that.

Maybe hey, that guy's car hasn't moved in three weeks or whatever.

Is this house abandoned?

Is it not?

Let's issue a warrant for him, see what happens, right?

And no, this might be me being paranoid.

Ultimately, I could see it being, you know, just a step that much into where he we have a bigger government, and maybe it could just I could see it being used in a world where it's just uh and I hope I'm wrong.

I really want to be wrong, but it's used as a way to drum up more business or whatever for our government getting you know fate or an inspection doesn't pass, so now I have to bring my electricity up to code or something.

Well, I need my permits, I need this and that and the other, correct, right?

You can't just build willy-nilly as far as I know in Cheyenne.

Everything has to be up to code, and we need a building permit, unless I'm incorrect, right?

You're correct, right?

So that's my big thing.

I just I don't like it because it seems to me to be a step towards bigger government, however big or small it is, but I'd like to keep our government small, and I understand you guys have to get stuff done too, of course.

But uh, I believe everybody else before me just said it already better.

There's already ordinances and things that are in place that can help handle the light and decayed buildings that need to get handled.

That's all I had to say about that.

Thank you guys for uh listening to me.

Appreciate it.

Come back again.

You did well.

Thank you.

Representative, welcome.

Thanks, Mayor and members of council leaf.

Either ward one.

You know what, you know, you mentioned that you know this this body seems like it's gonna postpone this for two weeks.

With a few of you that I have talked to, I want to say thanks because it seemed like this came came about pretty fast.

There's a lot of knee-jerk reactions.

What are we, you know, is the city gonna come into our houses and you know, on unwarrantless and violate our fourth amendment rights and all these different things, but for you guys to actually take the time, take the two weeks, maybe put the sideboards on it that it needs in order to address the concerns of everybody that's shown up in the last couple meetings.

I just want to thank you.

Appreciate you being here.

I know you're gonna be busy a lot of you guys here in the next few weeks.

Um, so it's nice you're here tonight, sir.

Colin Crossman, board one, and uh sorry, sorry, didn't catch your name.

Colin Crossman, ward one, and I'm here in my personal capacity and not with that of my employer.

Um, since you are going to to uh potentially postpone this, I just want to put something for in your heads to think about while you're thinking about it over the next two weeks.

One of the big problems I see with this ordinance is that it's being pitched to the to the people of Cheyenne as we have these abandoned properties when we have uh situations where a house is or a property is burned and the uh the fire department might not be able to get back in.

However, there's this one line in here cause shall be deemed to exist if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting a routine periodic and area inspection are satisfied with respect to the particular premises.

That has nothing to do with abandoned properties, that has nothing to do with burned properties.

That is a systematic routine inspection ordinance that can cover every property in that district.

That is not how this is being sold.

That is in this ordinance right now.

And if that remains there, I think that's part of the problem here, because that is the very definition of a general warrant.

And my fellow member of the bar uh in the council might say, but camera versus uh San Francisco.

Sure.

The Supreme Court has authorized these things.

The Supreme Court of the United States, as we have uh, as we discussed last time, the Wyoming Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection is slightly different, and hence this has not been uh to my knowledge tested under the Wyoming Constitution.

But just because the Supreme Court has issued a ruling in camera doesn't mean it's a good ruling.

Dred Scott, Pussy V.

Ferguson.

Uh Koramatsu.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for being here again this evening.

And thanks for the uh constitutional lesson.

I I read it and I missed one word difference, and you're right.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Online.

Who do you have?

Ms.

Trajio, you can go ahead and unmute yourself.

Mr.

Hill, welcome.

Hello, can you hear me?

We can, Tamara.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, Tamara Truhe, Ward 1.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Counsel.

I'm not going to repeat myself because of course you've heard from us and everybody for the past few weeks.

And you know, starting with tonight's event testimony with Mr.

Gary Pugh, you already know how we feel and how we think.

Um I just want to do a couple of reminders that you know you are voted in by the people for the people, not for the government.

Uh so tonight your vote to postpone is a nice courtesy, but I would really ask for it to be tabled and just redone from the beginning.

Um with that, I just want to say, and well, I want to bring attention and remind the public out there.

There is an article from Wile file May 20th, 2021.

And the title of that is High Court, and this is Wyoming, Wyoming High Court finds cop lied in hemp case and censures the prosecutor.

Let's see, the Laramie County Senior Assistant District Attorney Singleton allowed the DCI special agent Briggs to falsely testify.

Later, they were asked to correct the record for the court, but instead they bolstered the lie.

All this stemmed from a suggested phone call from a firefighter claiming that their hemp farm was a marijuana farm.

I'm gonna leave this as proof as why I want this tabled and redone from the beginning for its intended purposes of abandon properties.

Thank you for your time.

Mr.

Wasserberger, welcome.

Thanks for being here, Representative.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, thank you, city council, for having me tonight.

Jacob Wasserberger Ward One.

I just would like to ask, um, I would just like to say thank you for uh considering doing uh postpone on the scheduling of this uh new ordinance that you brought forth.

Uh some of the things that I think are a little concerning, which I kind of rehashing what a lot of people have said is uh it it very much uh closely gets into the uh concern with our Fourth Amendment rights.

Uh I believe your guys' intention was for it to be good.

You know, we've got some abandoned properties, we need a solution to be able to um resolve some of these issues.

Uh one of the things that I would think about is uh, you know, when we're trying to determine if a building is abandoned or not, is there you know, any other type of uh checks and balances before just seeing that a building is completely empty, you know.

I mean uh is there a check with the board of utilities to see if uh uh bills are still being paid?

Um, is there any checks with the county assessor if property taxes are being paid on it or things like that?

Um, so those are just some of the things that I would like to uh have just put out there in thought um when you're considering maybe what would be considered an abandoned property.

But uh one of the things that I think is real concerning with this uh ordinance is um while it the intention of it is to be good, and it there is that concern that over time you get rid of the solution that you have.

Well, if we keep that ordinance in check, you know what's gonna happen to the homeowner that maybe has a home built in 1995, and so they don't have a building that's up to code, and new ordinance codes requires there to be ice shelter dams on the roof.

You know, is that gonna be, you know, maybe that's not exactly what you guys are gonna, you know, come and uh ask somebody or bug somebody about, but you know what happens when we have a new city council here and they see that that's not up to code, and if they want to require that there needs to be ice shelter dams built on that home.

Well, with the cost of living, I mean it's gotten so high for a lot of people that's you know, trying to get $18,000 out of pocket to uh do some of these new building codes is not going to be a reality for people.

And something like that.

I mean, that's not something you can make a claim on your insurance to have the building codes uh recovered.

Typically that happens when the building comes completely down and you have to uh replace the home and get it up to building code.

So I appreciate that you guys are taking that into consideration to postpone this.

Um, I think there needs to be kind of like what the previous speaker had said.

Um it may it needs to either be completely redone or we need to leave the warranting issuing with the courts and not so much with our city council.

So uh thank you guys for your time.

Um, I know you guys have a tough job, and so I thank you for having me here tonight.

Appreciate you being here.

Anyone else online?

Mr.

Miller, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Mr.

Miller, Mr.

Miller.

Uh yes, hi.

Can you hear me?

We can, sir.

Okay.

Just one moment here.

Um, okay, here we go.

Introduce yourself first, please.

Uh, this is Charles Miller.

Um, I just have a few things to say here.

Can we use this one moment?

I'm sorry.

I got a little bit of issues with my device.

Um mayor counsel.

Um I am submitting an amendment uh to section 1.28020.

The amendment fixes the three fatal flaws in this ordinance.

First, it replaces the unconstitutional area inspection standard with particularized probable cause.

You cannot search a home just because the neighborhood is old.

You need a you need specific evidence of a specific violation.

Second, it moves the authority to a circuit court judge.

The city cannot ask its own municipal court for permission to search its own citizens.

That is a conflict of interest.

Uh, we demand state level oversight.

Third, and most importantly, it incorporates the protections of Wyoming statutes 3571046.

There's this statute explicitly forbids secret searches.

It requires that an officer present their credentials and the warrant to the owner before entering.

My amendment forces this ordinance to comply with state law.

It ensures that no warrant could be issued for a surprise inspection when the owner is not home.

If you vote against this amendment, you're voting for general warrants based on geography, city controlled judges, rubber stamping city requests and secret searches that violate state statute.

Do not put the city in that liability box.

Adopt the instrument.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jacobson, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr.

Jacobson.

City Council, can you hear me?

We can.

And identify yourself, please.

This Stephen G.

Jacobson.

I think you should vote against this.

I sent to Dr.

Emmons after the last city council meeting.

She announced that she was going to be the chairman of the public service committee meeting.

And I sent her an email asking her specifically to have the uh fire chief and the city ordinance inspector provide over the last two years specific examples of situations where this ordinance would be epitable and necessary.

And I went to that meeting, the public service meeting.

None of those were addressed, not a single one.

I've heard a lot of hand wringing from various people about how much this is needed.

But I've never heard one IOTA statement as to why this really needs to be needed.

This ordinance needs to be put into place.

There's a lot of suggestions.

There's some innuendos, but nothing specific.

So if you want to sell this to the public, I would strongly recommend you put together a task force that talks about why this is really needed.

And I also submit to you that what Mr.

Miller just said to you is critical because the ordinance is in violation of state law, which says specifically that it has to be a district court, not a city court.

So I urge you to table this, to not consider this further and start from scratch.

Thank you very much.

Jennifer, do you have more?

Mr.

Bowling, you can go ahead and unmute yourself.

Good evening, Council.

Uh my name is Phil Bowling.

I'm in Ward Two.

Um, I do have a three minute and 10 second speech, so I'm gonna get going because I know it's right there.

So I have taken time to uh think carefully about what to say and about what words might make an actual difference.

I've heard repeatedly that people are afraid and that we should quote trust you, quote, because fear is not your intent.

But intent is something that we saw is not something we guess at.

It is defined by what is written.

And what is written here does not resolve those fears.

Trust is a two-way street, and currently we are struggling with trust in this moment.

Throughout the process, residents have raised serious and thoughtful concerns.

The Fourth Amendment, Wyoming Constitution, Supreme Court, Wyoming statutes, private roper private property rights, and the loss of liberty.

We've also raised concerns about the lack of clarity, undefined terms, potential costs and fines, and the fact that this authority uh would only be used rarely.

What I would have not what I have not heard is a clear learning principle, something that ensures this authority will not be expanded beyond its original intent or become normal over time.

These are not emotional objections, they are legal, constitutional, and practical concerns.

People also have also offered to help.

Attorneys have offered volunteer their time to assist and rewriting this ordinance, and the city of the Cheyenne Board of Rillagers have offered to sit down and discuss it.

Yet historically, the city has often declined that outside expertise.

What is frustrating is that the council's appears willing to listen closely to their employees while being far less receptive to members out outside of the community, many of whom are also trained professionals in law, real estate, construction, and safety.

I also find it our ironic that the council has emphasized the need for other ordinances because quote, people want them, quote.

Well, in this case, you are hearing clearly and repeatedly why many people do not want this one.

What I'm hearing is a fear-based moral argument for why this ordinance should pass.

While the public sphere of government overreach is being dismissed.

If trust were a trust alone were enough, we would not need a constitution.

I want to close by referencing the oath each of you took to honestly and faithfully discharge the duties of your office to the best of your ability.

I am a realtor, but I'm here speaking on my behalf of myself, and I have a similar duty to my clients.

Acting the best of my ability means bringing in independent experts when decisions are complex and consequential.

I do not see this council meaningfully engaging in experts who are not employed by the city to evaluate whether this ordinance is necessary, properly scoped, or constitutionally sound.

So I ask you sincerely, can you say you have honestly and faithfully discharged your duties to the best of your ability by declining that outside expertise?

Property rights do come with responsibility, but my rights should not be dismissed because of someone else's lack of responsibility.

I respect that someone some believe this ordinance will save lives, others have real life experiences that suggest it represents an overreach of government authority.

I am choosing liberty because the greatest threats to liberty really come from irrational panic, they come from calm, reasonable decisions that expand authority just a little too far.

And this I vote against it.

Thank you.

Thank you guys for your time.

Appreciate you.

Any more, Jennifer All right.

Last call for in the house.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the public service committee is to approve on third and final reading, and I would summon second.

Thank you by Mr.

Seagrave.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor, I would move to postpone until February 9th, 2026 meeting of the governing body.

Second.

Second by Mr.

White.

All right.

I tip that go out to the audience, but I think you've already told me you want this postponed on your side, right?

So if it'd be okay with you, we'll just go to the council and we will um we'll talk about the uh postponement and take a vote.

So at this time, we'll ask the governing body any comments on the postponement.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Uh Mayor Collins, through you.

Um, first and foremost, thank you to everybody who's engaged on this topic over the last couple of weeks.

Um I've learned more about administrative warrants than I've ever dreamed there was to learn about them.

Um, but I appreciate that um you've taken your time to come and talk to us or to show up at counsel and coffee or to email or to make phone calls.

Um I am gonna be uh yes vote to postpone this tonight.

Um we have uh two substitutes that have been submitted um for this um ordinance and or during the last week.

Um there's a third one as well, and I just think that we really need more time to have the conversation and to um with all of you and to um have some more input um as we find the best possible uh way forward that we can really put some guardrails on this so that we are addressing um I think all of us would agree that there are properties in our community that um have been neglected and are abandoned or are a health or safety hazard, but we need to make sure that uh this is limited to those types of incidences and not um broadly expanded or used um in air.

So uh for that reason, I'm going to be a yes vote to postponing tonight, and I look forward to working with you over the next two weeks uh so that we can get something that uh might be agreeable and have the protections that you see um as being necessary.

Dr.

Rennie, did you want to speak?

Mr.

Moody.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you wanna echo my colleague from War 3.

Uh, thank you for being involved in your government.

It's like I said, you guys are bosses.

I'll also be a postponement.

And if anybody sent an email asking me a second time for postpone, I do apologize if I did not see that, but my intent was to for postpone it to make sure that these substitutes are available to the people.

So just want to clarify that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Escobel.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you as well.

I will support the postponement.

And uh I think the one general fear I see in this room, but I also see and hear about uh fears in our city, and those are for no knock warrants, and those are for people's civil liberties and human rights, and uh those last five words when we said the Pledge of Allegiance with liberty and justice for all.

That means all did you want to excuse me?

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I also speak in favor of postponement.

I think that obviously uh the city could have better done a better job in preparing this.

It uh definitely surprised folks.

But my question, Mr.

Mayor, is what are we gonna do in the next two weeks besides come back to uh the public service committee that I serve on with um evidently numerous uh substitutes, which may or may not have uh been seen by our city attorney.

I mean, what what are we gonna do to answer all of these questions?

Um in a satisfactory way, and and I speak not as a attorney, certainly, and obviously there are a lot of people that can argue the law.

I speak as a person who has dealt with very difficult situations in abandoned properties.

And when we adopted the international property management code that gives the authority to some individuals here that I work with and respect.

Uh they're trying to help neighbors and help the community and help property values.

If they don't have the tools, um it's really discouraging.

And I I hope you'll all think about that.

Because I'm not sure what we're gonna do.

I've heard so many suggestions here tonight that I'm very curious as to how we're gonna do this, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, evidently we'll go to the public service committee and wrangle it out, maybe, but what do the realtors want?

What are we talking about here?

Because if we're arguing Supreme Court law, I don't think that's going to get us very far.

And I do believe that we've got to have some trust in each other.

Well, it without that, it's kind of uh difficult for the people that have to do the job, and I can assure you those people that are that do do that job are good people, and we can talk about what might happen in the future.

Certainly, uh anything might happen in the future, mightn't it?

But we want to protect our neighborhoods, we want to deal with properties that are abandoned.

You can't even find the owner, you can't even find who has the mortgage, you can't even find what's going on.

You board it up, and you ought to come back again, and there they are squatting.

So I hope we can come up with something that'll satisfy people, but um, I'm not sure how that's going to happen, Mr.

Mayor, and uh all the different concerns I heard tonight, and the three, or at least your year, maybe more, who knows by next week.

Uh I I just really hope we can understand that interpreting and acting on the international property management code is something that communities do for their own protection.

Thank you.

Dr.

Emmett.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I think several of you brought up the fact that right now there is a crisis of trust in the local, in the state, and federal government, and we have to figure out how do we get past that.

And that's a job for many of us that are in this room.

I'm speaking in favor of that of the postponement because part of our job has to be to clearly define why we do need this.

I mean, we absolutely have to be able to explain to you why we need why we need this.

I've asked a couple of times, can we do what we need to do with what we have now on the books?

And the answer has been no.

So we have to figure out how we can clearly articulate what it is we need, and then how we can put together a piece of legislation that accomplishes what is needed, nothing more, nothing less, but what we need to do to keep Cheyenne safe.

And the reality is it may take more than one postponement because two weeks is a fairly arbitrary deadline, in my opinion.

We need to keep working on it till we get it right.

So I think um, in regard to councilman laborne's question of what do we do, we figure out how can we articulate it, what's needed.

I think you all have been pretty clear about what you want and how to build that into this document.

So I'm gonna I'm speaking in favor of the postponement.

Anyone else in the governing body on the postponement, Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Wolf?

Thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Um there's a lot that has happened in the last several weeks.

Uh we should all keep in mind that the city already has the powers that it needs.

This bill is all about process and establishing a process.

I appreciate that all of you have come here to to try and tell us how you think this process work.

I agree with my um fellow councilwoman.

Uh we really only have a week to do this because the public service committee meeting is next week.

Um, and we have already several substitutes.

So those of you who want to be involved in this discussion are gonna need to move pretty quickly to have your specific views heard by people.

Uh and uh we would uh encourage you to do that.

I think this may take could take all of February.

At some point, the committee is either going to be able to adopt a what they view as a compromise piece of legislation, or the committee maybe split and could come to act to this body and say we make no recommendation.

But whatever happens at the committee level, we need to hear from you at the final hour.

Um, and let us know whether the compromise is satisfactory to you, or whether you just would prefer that we not take any action on administrative warrants at all at this time.

Uh and all those outcomes are certainly possible.

And um they you just have to figure out you as the members of the public, we as the body, which one really leads to better government, uh, a better city, uh city that people can be proud of, a city that addresses its problems.

And um, and I appreciate all that you've done.

I'm sorry if you thought my comments uh were uh not uh as cordial as they might have been.

And and Ms.

McCoy, I appreciate your comments and I apologize um uh for uh not uh not being as uh controlled as I usually am.

Um but take your time, come see us, come participate in this process if you want.

If you think we need to take more time, ask us to take more time.

And in the end, come back and tell us whether or not what the work that has been done, which is the hard work of legislation, which representative Lucas and uh Representative Wasserberger and Representative Feyler all know about and I know about from 30 years working with the legislature.

Sometimes you can reach an answer that everybody agrees with, and sometimes you can't.

And uh we then live with whatever result seems the best for the resolution of a complicated and important issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor, I actually I'm a little off topic, so pardon me.

Um not speaking for the postponement, but just as an explanation of our processes.

We do not table items, essentially if you lay something on the table, it goes away and dies.

Um, so we are we routinely will postpone issues.

And we had a city attorney rule several years ago that we can only postpone from this meeting to the next meeting.

So that is why you will only see a two-week postponement.

And sometimes we string several of those together to sort something out.

But I wanted everybody to understand um, at least in this instance, our process has worked.

Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor.

Dr.

Aldridge.

I wanted to respond um to my colleague um from Ward One about what is the next step.

Um, I'm will be meeting on Tuesday night at the public service center, uh public safety center um at 6 p.m.

Uh to work through um this uh ordinance with anyone who would like to show up with some local attorneys.

So if you would like to show up at 6 p.m.

on Tuesday night um at the public safety center February 3rd, um we'll you'll get to see how the sausage is made and have your input.

And no, a week from tomorrow.

We're on the postponement.

Any other comments from the governing body?

Hearing none, all those in favor of postponing until February 9th, please signify by saying aye.

Aye, those opposed.

The uh postponement is unanimously approved.

Next item, please.

Number seven, ordinance, second reading annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, various tracts of land completely surrounded by current city limits that you in eastern Cheyenne, generally located south of Story Boulevard, east of Powder House Road, north of Delrange Boulevard, and west of Ridge Road.

I'm gonna hold off for just a second as people exit.

All right, this is the ninth iteration of our city council goal that we started in 2021 to annex county pockets and we identify a county pocket as an area of the county 100% surrounded by city limits.

We'll go out to the audience to see if anybody wants to speak to this uh postponement or excuse me, this annexation before us.

Anybody?

All right, Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on second reading.

And I would so move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Seagrave.

Comments from members of the governing body on this ordinance to annex.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Mayor Collins, I am just wondering if we've had any additional um public comments made to our um planning department or um any concerns have been brought forward by the residents in this area.

Mr.

White.

Um mayor, members of council Connor White Planning Development Permit.

Uh, not with this annexation.

Uh this is Section 20, and the properties that are east of Converse.

Property owners haven't expressed any concerns.

Um again, they're still in favor of the annexation, then the other two property owners being the city and the school district.

I think we're fine with that as well.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Moody.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you.

And uh just clarify public again.

If a property owner has to be annexed, I will grant them what they uh propose for their property.

Thank you.

Dr.

Rennie, do you have comments, sir?

No, sir.

Any other comments for the governing body on the annexation?

Hearing none, we're on second reading.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The ordinance is approved on second reading.

Number eight ordinance, second reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, establishing the zoning classifications of AG agricultural and MR medium density residential for land located.

I'm sorry, for land annexed to the city of Cheyenne, generally located south of Story Boulevard, east of Powder House Road, north of Delrange Boulevard, and west of Ridge Road.

All right.

When we annex property, one of the rules are we have to give it a city zone so we know what to do with it.

Um so this is the uh the zoning for the last item.

And we make an effort to zone it or establish a zone as close to the uh existing uh zone in the county as we can.

And so we'll ask if anybody in the audience want to speak to the zone that's before us.

Hearing none, Mr.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor, recommendation of the public service committee is to approve on second reading.

And I would so move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Seagrave.

Any comments from the governing body on the establishment of the zones.

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The established zones are approved on second reading.

Number nine ordinance, second reading, amending 5.7.3 accessory dwelling units of the Cheyenne Unified Development Code to remove owner occupancy and adjust parking requirements for accessory dwellings and making conforming amendments to the definitions of necessary dwelling and semi-attached dwelling under 1.4.4 descriptions of uses of land and buildings.

All right.

This has been a recommendation from some of our affordable housing task force and other uh folks talking about uh working on our housing uh crisis.

Uh this one is to relax the accessory dwelling unit requirements, uh, that being the owner-occupied uh requirement.

Is there anybody in the audience wants to speak to that?

Mr.

Dorsch, welcome.

Mayor Collins, members of the city council.

Thank you for having me this evening.

Dan Dorsch, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Larry Mee County.

Just here to say I support this uh amendment to the UDC.

It's a it will be a creative way to you add more housing.

Um we do have a pretty relaxed ADU uh in our city already, but this is another step to add more housing that we uh severely need.

So thank you very much, and I stand for any questions.

Dan, thanks for being here.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience want to speak to this.

And not all of you, you all heard this at the public services committee meeting.

Unfortunately, Seth couldn't be here today, so I'm gonna fill in for him.

And he knows a lot more of the details.

But long story short, with this one, uh, what we're doing is we are proposing to remove the owner occupancy requirement.

So right now, if you have an accessory dwelling unit, you have to have that primary landowner living there, and then they can have a second unit.

And that unit can be occupied by a family member, it can be occupied by a renter, another family, anybody.

Um, when that is developed, um, they are developed in a fashion that allows for a little bit less building code um adherence because you have an owner-occupied structure.

Um what this does is this removes that owner occupied requirement, which means that your new um two unit, your accessory dwelling unit, will be built to a little bit different of a standard.

Uh, for example, the uh two units will have to have the ability to independently turn off the water if there's a water leak, a little valve you would put on there.

Um, or also they would have to be able to control heat, you know, in their units instead of having the upstairs one um control the downstairs one and vice versa.

Um, what this really does for us is it really does eliminate a lot of the issues that we see when these two unit homes get sold, and then the realtor says, hey, this is a two unit, you can rent both of them out.

We typically run into a lot of problems with those.

Also, what this does is it allows for what's commonly referred to as flat over flat housing units.

What does that mean?

That basically means you would have a house on top with a basement apartment.

So that's how it's referenced here in the code.

One other item that is or two other items that are very important with this uh proposed change is it changes the way that parking is uh required to be provided on the site.

It's not waiving the parking requirement.

It's simply as saying that if you have a two, three car driveway, you can utilize that driveway for parking purposes.

The way it is phrased right now is you are required to provide an independent parking space.

So this allows more creativity and flexibility for these housing units um in the community.

Um so with that, I'm hoping for any questions that you may have regarding this proposed ordinance.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Thank you, Mayor Collins.

I have do have uh three questions for you.

Um on the flat over flat, one of my questions at the committee meeting was about um the building code that requ would require um egress windows in the basement.

I know that that's been a common problem, for instance, in communities like Laramie, where around the university they rent out uh basements commonly that do not have e-gress windows, and it becomes a real safety hazard when there's only one egress exit from the basement in case of a fire.

Mr.

Bloom.

Mayor, through to Dr.

Aldrich, they would be required to have a separate egress window in addition.

Well, for in the bedrooms, in addition, they would be required to have a separate entrance and exit to the unit.

Okay.

Uh, my second question is about um parking.

What I'm hearing you say, and I just want to make sure I understand this, is that um the parking would they would still need to provide parking?

Um, they would they be able to rely on uh street parking to count for their parking.

Um, I can see one of my concerns is that if you are renting a basement apartment and you have two adults living there, and you rent the upstairs and you have two adults living there, so now you have four cars, um, and they don't all fit on the driveway.

Is are they and I mean, are we requiring that they have any parking available?

Mr.

Bloom.

Mayor through you to Dr.

Aldrich.

That's a great question.

The way this is worded right now is it lets it default to our unified development code, which means in certain cases, if parking is available on the street, that parking place could be located on the street instead of in a driveway.

And that is reflected at the very end of section three of the ordinance in the new proposed section H.

Last question, Dr.

Aldrich.

As long as they're as long as they're following Mayor Collins through you, the um distance back from the setbacks from the driveway and from the end of a corner.

I mean, following all the traditional uh parking ordinances we currently have.

Thank you.

Yep, Mayor, through you to Dr.

Aldrich.

Yes, that is correct.

Uh, something we do consider when approving on-street parking for required parking is number one is entirely in front of the the building and doesn't interfere with the driveways on the property or next door.

Thank you.

Did you have a third question?

Okay.

Anybody else?

Real quick.

Mr.

Moon?

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Bloom.

And I do appreciate when I brought this to you and uh Mr.

Lloyd.

We worked through this and we worked out everything.

So I really do appreciate working with you and look forward to in the future continually doing more work with the UDC code.

So thank you very much.

I do appreciate.

Anyone else in the audience want to speak to this uh amendment to our unified development code?

All right, hearing none, Dr.

Raining.

Mr.

Mayor, once again, the recommendation of the public service committee is to approve on second reading.

And I would so move.

Second.

Seconded by Dr.

Emmons.

Comments from members of the governing body.

Yes.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Again, thank you everybody for your public comment.

I do appreciate everybody, all the letters have to have humanity, the Southeast Wyoming Builders Association, also the um housing committee as well, affordable housing committee.

I do uh ask my colleagues to vote aye on this.

There's some I looked at.

It's another way to have more affordable housing.

It's a very simple change.

So I just urge everybody to please vote aye.

Thank you.

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, I also want to support this ordinance.

Um, one of the things that that we've really talked about is trying to be more creative with housing options.

And I think this is a great opportunity for us to expand a little bit more and one more option to make sure that we've got housing available in the community.

So I will be a yes on this.

Mr.

Escobel.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Uh, just to show the community.

We're not always growing government.

This is one of those where we're reducing regulations.

So we we do both.

Anyone else in the governing body?

Dr.

Raining.

Mr.

Mayor.

Well, I have supported almost, I think I've supported every thing that's come through in the way of trying to make housing more available and more affordable.

I have a problem with this one.

And my rationale, first of all, I understood when we did ADUs and that the um principal landowner had to be living in the main building.

To me, I thought that was a great way to help maybe younger, younger families get into their own home, and then they could have an ADU and back to help them supplement or pay their mortgage.

And I thought that was a excellent use of ADUs.

However, I I have to go um by personal experience, Mayor.

I had a friend that lived in an older section of Glendale, California, and it was a very nice neighborhood.

But over the years, some of the homes were bought up, torn down, and apartments were put in, and those that weren't didn't have that done, had ADUs put in and they became two rentals.

And I watched that neighborhood deteriorate over the course of the time my friend lived there.

And I do not think again, if we're trying to also protect or preserve our neighborhoods, I do not think converting a lot into two rentals is necessarily in the best interest of the city.

So I'll be voting no.

Other comments.

All right, the motion is to uh modify our unified development code.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And those opposed, no.

No.

Dr.

Rainey, Mr.

Seagraver knows the ordinance is approved on second reading.

Number 10, ordinance first reading, creating chapter 8.72, private displays on public property to prohibit the unauthorized use of public property for specified private displays.

We'll send this item to the public services committee.

Number 11 resolution reappropriating the fiscal year 2026 budget of the city of Cheyenne according to the provisions of Wyoming statutes 16-4-11 and 16-4-11.

All right.

We do this, I think on a quarterly basis.

Um, and it's a requirement to uh acknowledge when we have uh grants or things like that to add to our budget, or if we add something to our budget, uh we have to go through reappropriation to make our our budget balanced.

Uh at this time I'll go out to the audience to see if anybody out there wants to speak to this reappropriation for this quarter.

Anybody none, Mr.

Escobel.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committee is to adopt and I saw a move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

White.

Comments from members of the governing body.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Collins, I asked for this to be removed from the consent agenda.

Um, first and foremost, because I think it's important for the public to understand um how this reappropriation works and that it's a um an effort to continually have a balanced budget, but also that um there are many times where it's not about um taking money from one fund uh to another fund to pay for something.

Sometimes it's receiving money, um, or when our departments do a really good job of being fiscally conservative, that there is money that they have left in their budgets that then can be utilized um in other areas.

And so I think it's important, especially when we're moving money around that we have full transparency and and that we have an opportunity to um celebrate some of the grants that we've received um that are listed on this um document that was taken to the finance committee, as well as um to celebrate uh those that are fiscally conservative.

I did have one question, and that's in the um general fund reserves that we're take using to offer a 3% cost of living increase for our full-time and part-time city of Cheyenne employees.

Um, if that also this amount um of 554, uh 652 from the general fund reserve and 160,777, 770 from all other funds, um, also includes that um cost of living increase that was given to our police department as well, or if that will be a separate action.

Madam Treasure.

Um, Mr.

Mayor, through you, um that includes the police department.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the governing body?

Hearing none, the motion is to uh um adopt the reappropriation.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The reappropriation is adopted.

Number 12 resolution establishing the city of Cheyenne's prioritize list of projects proposed for potential potential inclusion on the 1% specific purpose sales and use tax ballot proposition to be submitted to the qualified electors of Laramie County at the primary election on August 18th, 2026.

You know, there's one thing I hate about this process, and that tells me how fast time is flying, because I remember it wasn't seemed like that long ago.

We just did a six penny sales tax ballot, and here we are working on the next one.

So the last five years have just flown by.

Um, but with that said, we'd like to go out to the audience, see if anybody has any comments on the uh list of six penny sales tax projects that uh we're proposing to put forward to the county voters.

Anyone in the audience?

Okay, hearing none, Mr.

Seagrave.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the committee of the whole is to adopt, and I still move.

Second.

And seconded by Mr.

White.

Comments from members of the governing body.

Mr.

Moody.

Oh, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you, uh, just uh point of information for the public.

Could you just uh tell them how it will be divided in terms of the items just so they're aware of it in terms of what's a single item and the uh public um the uh the first responders one just so that they're aware.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Moody.

Uh the answer to that question is we don't absolutely know that yet.

We had our preliminary meeting last week of the countywide six penny sales tax committee that will actually put together together the ballot.

Um that's members of Alban, Burns, and Pine Bluffs, two from each of those communities, two from Laramie County, and two from the city of Cheyenne.

I do think, though, that we know some of the projects that will be standalone.

The uh Johnson pool will probably be a standalone project.

This building will be a standalone project, and I believe the fire station will be a standalone project.

Uh, Dr.

Rundy, were there any others that you remember were standalone?

For our projects, those are the ones and the rest of those then will be grouped with uh like items from the other communities.

Uh they have three um areas that they they group them together.

Things that are infrastructure will be grouped together, things that are public safety will be grouped together, and then things that are community enhancement will be grouped together so that when you're voting for um you know public safety, everything on that ballot item will be a public safety item.

When you're talking about infrastructure, they'll all be infrastructure-oriented items.

Um, so they'll be like group like.

And uh I believe we're meeting again.

Time I apologize, I don't remember next week or two um to finalize those groupings.

I think Albin is still working on the last item as far as the pricing goes, and then it will have all of the last minute pricing and we'll start to work on that ballot.

And I believe um it'll come back to us as a countywide ballot for our approval um before April.

Mr.

Mayor.

Dr.

Rennie.

Also, it wasn't decided yet.

Our nine million for roads was close to the commission kind of wanted to have each package or bundled be about 10 million dollars.

That's right.

So it wasn't decided whether our nine million dollars for roads would be a standalone or put in with some other smaller item.

Yeah.

So stay by I would think in the next uh let unless the next month or less, we should have a really good idea of what the committee has decided and how things will prepare on the ballot, and we'll report that back.

I answer your question, Mr.

Moody.

Uh yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

White.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh, through you, I just wanted to compliment um my colleagues on the way that we uh I thought thoughtfully debated um the projects that are going to go for our portion of the six penny ballot this year.

This is my third six penny ballot.

Um, being a member of council, it seems like it gets harder each time.

Um, never easier, unfortunately.

Um I certainly didn't get all the projects that I wanted personally on that ballot.

Um, but I do think that we came up with a good ballot nonetheless.

And again, just appreciate the the um thoughtful debate and discussion that we had at the last Cal meeting.

Thank you, Mr.

White.

Anyone else?

Yes, sir.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Mayor Collins, um, I just was wanting to know.

I did receive an email, and I believe all of my colleagues received it as well, um, with concern about um possibly having having some sort of a mechanism that um would give uh in state contractors, engineers, architects, building inspectors, companies that were will be working on these projects that go forward from the six penny ballot, um, some sort of a uh ranking preference um similar to what the state of Wyoming uses on their projects.

Um I don't know if that can be written into the resolution um as is as it's presented to the voters, or if that is something that um is strictly done through the bidding process by each governmental entity.

Um, but I think that that is a concern um by this individual uh that emailed us, and I believe that it's an appropriate concern uh to think about uh that um if at all possible we are using Wyoming uh residents and Wyoming companies to spend Wyoming tax dollars with.

Understood.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Mayor, Dr.

Rennie.

Just one two last things.

The you referred to the next meeting of the joint committee.

That'll be the third week of February.

Okay, I knew it was coming up, I just couldn't remember when.

And I think we do have the ability to use the state's bid preferences if we wish.

Thank you.

Other comments on the six penny sales tax.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

And those opposed.

The uh established list for the six penny sales tax is adopted.

Next item is number 14 on page three.

Resolution certifying compliance with Wyoming Statute 15-1-402 for the city initiate an annexation of various tracts of land completely surrounded by current city limits situated in western and southern Cheyenne, generally located east of I-25, south of the intersection of Westland Road and Missile Drive, north of West and East Allison Road and east of and adjacent to North College Drive.

All right.

I think this is the 10th, maybe the last iteration of our city council goal to uh annex county pockets.

Uh we started in 2021.

We're going to end in 2026.

And so it's been a lot of work on our staff's part, and I really do appreciate that.

At this time, we'll go out to the audience.

Is anybody want to speak to the annexations uh that are contemplated in this resolution?

Okay, hearing none.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor.

The motion to approve died for lack of a second.

Therefore, there is no recommendation.

However, for the sake of discussion, I would move to adopt.

Second.

Seconded by Dr.

Emmons.

Comments from members of the governing body.

Comments.

Yes, yes, sir.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Uh Mayor Collins, through you.

I was just curious about whether we've had any new comments.

Um, I know that um our planning department had shared one um concern from a resident of that area initially with us, and I didn't know if we'd had any additional since that point.

Mr.

White.

Uh Mayor, members, Council Conorway Planning and Development Department.

Uh, Mayor Through you know we have not had any further comments for this um initiation of the annexation.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else?

Yeah.

Mr.

Moody.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Um, again, as I said, public services, there's somebody that's opposed to annexation.

So that's why I'll be in Novo, because again, property rights go both ways.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I want to take the opposing view of my colleague in that I think as a governing body, we have a responsibility for everyone that's impacted by an area, not just one individual.

Um, so um, I feel like the the fair thing to do is to um move forward with this, because obviously no one else has shared any concerns with it.

It's for the welfare of the city, which we are responsible for.

So therefore, I would encourage a yes vote on this.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Mayor Collins through you.

Um, I uh normally when there is um someone who appears before us and is um wanting it talks to us about not wanting to have their land annexed or sends emails or contacts us.

I am more than uh willing to be responsive and to um take that into consideration.

And um many times I've been a no vote based on that information.

However, with this um situation, um, I don't know who the individual is.

I haven't been contacted.

That individual, to my knowledge, hasn't shown up at a council meeting.

Um, and so it's difficult for us to make decisions.

Um if someone uh places a concern, but doesn't um follow up or let us know on the council what those concerns are or um what their um objection is to that annexation.

Um and for that reason, I'm going to vote yes tonight.

Um, but please, please, please.

If if you're in this situation where you're being annexed and you don't want to be, you need to reach out to us and let us know.

We are great at a lot of things, but we are not great mind readers.

So thank you for reaching out and engaging if you're you have a concern.

Comments.

All right, hearing none, we have a resolution before us to certify the compliance for this annexation.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

I those opposed.

No.

Mr.

Moody is a no.

All right, we're on to item number 15.

Resolution authorizing the submission of an application by the city of Cheyenne for state funding for the Office of State Lands and Investments unmet housing grant.

All right, this is a unique opportunity for us to uh get some um a grant that might help facilitate uh some affordable housing uh in our community.

And we'll go out to the audience on that.

Mr.

Dorsch again, welcome.

Thank you, Mayor Collins, members of the city council, Dan Dors, executive director for habitat for humanity of Laramie County.

In early 2024, Magic City approached Habitat uh to see if there is some way we could partner.

And I said, let's talk.

So we sat down and Magic City told us that they were looking at changing the way they were providing their services to their folks.

They were going from a group setting and wanting to go to more independent living for those who are able, providing more dignity for their folks.

And they said, we have land, but we don't know how to build.

Is there some way Habitat and Magic City can work together?

And we said, let's talk.

And over the course of the next year and a half, we decided to try to put together not try, we're putting together a project on the northeast corner of Ridge and Charles, uh, just off uh north of Pershing, just east of Ridge Road.

And Charles, that section of Charles is a dirt road.

And we said, this is let's let's look at this this lot, this section to build on.

And so we're putting our minds together, we came up with Magic Meadows as the name for this project.

And it will provide 12 units, half habitat, half magic city of uh an inclusive community living together in this little neighborhood on the corner of Ridge and Charles.

And it's an amazing opportunity for us uh as partners in the nonprofit world to come together.

We often work together, but not in this capacity.

In doing some research when we were putting this project together, we haven't founded uh another project anywhere in the country that brings this type of nonprofit partnership together to build homes for both Magic City folks and Habitat.

And what's really cool about this is as we are working through this project, it um first of all, I should say I apologize.

Some when I said half Magic City, half habitat, there would be um most of Magic City's folks live in a rental unit, habitat, as some of you are well aware of our homeownership opportunities.

What may happen through this project is that some of Magic Cities may qualify for home ownership.

So not only do they have the dignity of living independently, but be through our program and through our partnership, have the opportunity for home ownership, furthering their dignity.

So this application um is similar for those of you who are on the city council when you approved the one for prong horn crossing, um, which I'm proud to say is almost finished with infrastructure.

Uh this infrastructure is way less intensive than um pronghorn crossing because of a couple things.

One, this is an infill lot that has sat unused for multiple years.

Um we are getting 12 units on just 0.4 acres of land, taking advantage of the cottage lot amendment for the that the city approved several years ago through the UDC.

So we are taking advantage of that infill lot, adding units where there haven't presently been units.

Because it is an infill lot, it is already surrounded by city road and infrastructure.

Instead of having to bring sewer hundreds of feet like we did with Pronghorn Crossing, it is already in Charles in the alley directly behind the property.

So the resolution stated for 500,000 is much less than for Pronghorn Crossing.

It'll be much easier for us as an organization to manage this project with those grant funds.

And we greatly appreciate the city's support support, not only for this project, but for affordable housing, as it is a huge need in this community.

Presently, I believe there are between 800 and 900 folks waiting on the uh uh housing waiting list for affordable housing in Cheyenne alone at the housing authority.

So the more we can do to add those affordable units, the better.

Um, and again, this is an amazing opportunity and a partnership for Magic City and Habitat to build community and hope in our in our city.

Thank you very much.

And I stand for any questions.

Thanks, Dan.

And I remember a year and a half ago or so we were talking about you know, challenging each other to try to build more houses in Cheyenne.

And you went from you know a couple a year to 12 next this coming this year, and then hopefully 12 the next year.

And then we're talking already about a much larger piece of property.

So I really love your vision and what you're trying to accomplish.

So thank you for that.

Questions for the applicant?

Yes, sir.

Dr.

Aldish.

Mayor Collins.

Um, I just as a point of information want to confirm the document I'm looking at uh says it's for uh one million dollar grant for unmet housing grant programs.

Mr.

Dorse, you said 500,000.

We have an amendment coming.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

You back.

Mr.

Moody.

Yep, thanks, Mayor.

For you, uh, thank you, sir.

And just for uh point of information for the public, um, could you just say what Magic City Enterprise Program does?

Because I know that one of my second cousins is in this uh situation.

Mr.

Dors.

Mayor Collins through you, Councilmember Moody.

Uh Magic City's mission is to provide services to developmentally disabled folks.

Um, there are representatives of Magic City who can be more eloquent about their own mission, but um they they do a fine job of providing those services to people in our in our community.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else in the audience?

I guess we asked the question, we're gonna get a the official answer.

Thanks for being here this evening.

Uh good evening.

Bring that right down in front of you.

I'm sure.

There you go.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Shay Sparks.

I'm the chief operating officer for Magic City Enterprises.

So to speak to your question, uh, we support people with developmental and intellectual disabilities primarily through the DD waiver through the state of Wyoming.

We do that in a variety of manners.

We've got several group homes that we offer 247 supports to folks.

Um, we offer a lot of supports to people who live independently with their family members and others.

Um, we provide a lot of employment supports.

Um, and we also have kind of branched out recently on our residential supports.

We're also providing support um through um remote support technology in combination with staffing.

So I hope that answers your question.

Um, but really, we're very excited about this project with Habitat for Humanity.

Um, really, because we have the land, we wanted to build it, we had no idea how.

Um, in addition to that, it offers um housing for our folks, um, not only maybe homeownership, but potentially rentals that will be affordable because unaffordable housing really impacts our clientele as well.

We have a lot of people either waiting for housing vouchers or you know, quite honestly living in very slummy environments because that's all that they can afford.

Um, so we're very excited to present the opportunity for people to have you know good living environment that is also affordable.

Um, that being said, I stand for any questions as well.

Mr.

Seagrav.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you.

Congratulations on the project.

It's sounds wonderful.

Uh, being a Kwanian, I need to ask uh if you could tell us the genesis of your of your organization.

Absolutely.

There you go.

So originally, thank you for being a Kwanian.

Um, Magic City was founded on a grant that was wrote by the Kwantus Club.

Um, the original grant was to do a work program.

So it was for folks that had adult children with disabilities who were had them at home, given them the opportunity to go out and spend the day elsewhere, i.e.

Magic City doing work, doing day program activities.

Um, and that was in 1971.

So we've been around for over 50 years.

Um, obviously, services have changed, but it is all thanks to the Kwantus Club of Cheyenne.

Um, and so thank you.

Cool story.

Yeah.

Cool story.

Anyone else for the applicant?

Thank you for being here.

Good luck at your project.

Anybody else in the audience tonight?

All right, I don't hear any more, so I'll go to uh Mr.

Escabel.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committee is to adopt an ISA move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

White, Mr.

Escobel, Mr.

Mayor.

I move to amend the fifth whereas to replace one million dollars with 500,000.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

White.

Anybody in the audience want to talk about moving from one million to five hundred thousand dollars?

Go ahead.

Mayor Collins, members of the council, Dan Dorse, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Laramie County.

Just a brief explanation of for the need for the amendment.

Because of the tight timeline for the grant, we didn't have a real estimate on the infrastructure costs.

And so we were just ballparking it at a million dollars.

Once we got that estimate uh from a contractor on January 16th, that was the impetus for the for the cost coming down.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience?

How about from the governing body?

No?

Yeah.

Go ahead.

First and foremost, I it really appreciate this is a quite an out-of-the-box, I think, um project that is um gonna be really interesting and exciting to watch.

Are you on the amendment?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I'm curious though as to whether $500,000 um will cover all of the infrastructure within the time frame that this is being applied for and whether there is any match on behalf of the city for the $500,000.

Mr.

Dorse.

How good your crystal ball?

I think it's uh hopefully it's getting better.

Um, Mayor Collins through you, councilman and Dr.

Aldridge.

Um, our goal for this project is to start breaking ground on the infrastructure uh this fall in October, um, with the goal of getting everybody into their homes by Thanksgiving of 2027.

And that's the same timeline we now have with Pronghorn Crossing.

Our infrastructure is almost done.

We're gonna be breaking found uh getting foundations and starting going vertical the spring with everybody in by Thanksgiving.

That is our time frame.

The the grant is for or the ask for the in the res in the application for 500,000.

That does include a 100,000 dollar contingency put in there by the estimator and the the contractor who does this type of work just in case things increase between now and October.

So we feel confident that that 500,000 will be enough to um do all the work.

Also, um in case there's any question from the city council, we did file an amendment with or not an amendment.

I apologize.

We we fought we went into an agreement with uh through an MOU with the city uh for Pronghorn because the application for the infrastructure for Pronghorn Crossing, the estimate in the application was for 1.808818 million dollars.

And the bid when it went out through the process came in at $2.03 million.

And so the city and habitat entered into an MOU stating the city only pay the amount for the grant.

So if that the case and and when the bids should we get the grant or excuse me, should the city be awarded the grant and the estimates come up higher.

I'm certain there would be some type of agreement that we should could enter again.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the governing body?

All right, hearing none, uh, we'll authorize the amendment of $500,000.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The amendment is adopted.

We're back on the main motion.

Is there any other comments?

All right.

Hearing none, all those in favor of the main motion, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The resolution is adopted as amended.

Number 16 resolution authorizing the submission of an application by the city of Cheyenne for state funding through the Office of State Lands and Investments for a rodeo grounds pedestrian transportation infrastructure grant and authorizing the execution and submittal of all necessary documents in support of the application.

All right, we'll go out to the audience and see if anybody wants to speak to that.

Mr.

Hersig, did you want to come and appreciate you sitting through our meeting, sir?

Welcome.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Tom Hersig, CEO Shay in Frontier Days.

Um this project, uh, as as many of you know our park and ride land south of town that we've been utilizing that's part of the military base.

Um, we're not even quite sure we're gonna get to use it this year.

We're really in a dilemma or a long-term parking strategy for Shayne and Frontier Days.

Um the other thing that we're looking at is, you know, the competition from the from south of us now with the ranch building their new arena.

We got the big concert venue at out of Windsor, and now CSU is having rodeo events and concerts in their football stadium.

Um so for us to to make sure that we're providing people with the best customer experience there is.

Um, as much as we all love jumping on a yellow school bus to ride to the frontier days, um, it's probably not a great thing to have to stand in line sometimes hour and a half to get a ride out of there at night.

This this uh what we've been looking at, this is not a new idea by any means.

This actually was in our master land use plan back in the 70s to be able to park over on the base.

Um lots of discussions with the base back then, and and it never came about, but now they're they're willing to let us park on that piece of that land there and build a bridge across I-25, which will provide a great experience for our customer to come in here.

Um it's gonna take a lot of traffic, we believe, out of the avenues.

Um Eighth Avenue can be a little scary at night at Frontier Park.

Um, we're gonna uh it's planned to have 2,400 parking spots over there, which um is about a thousand more than what we have at our parking right now.

So um it would be a great would be a game changer for Cheyenne Frontier Days to have a parking facility like this that um would be a long-term fix for what we need to get done.

Uh it's a great opportunity through the state.

Uh, where hopefully the city and the county can help us a little bit.

Um keep in mind this project is over.

You know, the the eight million dollars is going to be more like an 11 or 12 million dollar uh project to do the parking lot, the infrastructure on the roads.

Um we're not asking for that.

We're asking for some help to get that grant money.

Uh Cheyenne Frontier Days is is willing to pick up the excess of whatever that might be through whatever means we can.

We don't think that if we let this opportunity pass us by right now, it it may never come again.

Um, and I'm not quite sure what we'll do for a parking situation.

So I would stand for any questions, Mayor.

Questions for Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor, I um wanna thank Mr.

Hirsi for being here.

And um, so my understanding is the Cheyenne Frontier Days is expecting if we can pull this off to contribute several million dollars to making this happen.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Um Mr.

Mayor, through you, uh, Dr.

Rennie.

Um, sorry, I'm a little out of practice doing this.

Uh uh, yes.

So if the project's gonna be 11 million, um, you guys put in a million, hopefully the county puts in a million.

We're gonna put in the other two million to fulfill that whole grant.

And then the other probably three, four million dollars for that parking lot.

That's all gonna be on us.

And that's that's gonna be a big lift for us, but we just don't feel like we can pass this by.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, and good luck to you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moody.

I think Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Uh, thank you, sir.

Just a uh quick question.

Do we have in writing from the Air Force base that we're allowed to build this and also utilize that parking lot permanently, or is that a temporary agreement?

You know, I maybe can answer that question.

Um, we made an official request to the Air Force and it's in their chain of command now to uh to do that.

The challenge we have is the money from the state expires, and I think it's June 30th.

And so we have to make the application now.

And if in fact the Air Force does not approve that, we just won't get the grant.

But if they do uh approve it, and we hope that they will, then we'll be in a position to uh have those grant dollars available to be able to do this work.

Thank you.

That answer was uh answers my question.

I've had um several uh emails about this since this was proposed at the finance committee.

One of the questions that has been posed is once this is built, um, provided that the Air Force gives permission and you're able to get all of the funding situated and this grant is successful.

Um, will there be um the availability to use that um by other groups and organizations that parking area?

Um, for instance, uh the farmers market this last year was at um the fairground or the frontier grounds, and um parking was quite a little crazy, especially the same weekend as the Greek um festival.

So is that going to be a parking going to be available for other uses or only during that 10-day period?

Ms.

Hursting.

Um Mr.

Mayor through you, Dr.

Aldridge.

Um, so uh as far as Cheyenne Frontier Days, the only the only period of time that we are going to be allowed to use that without permission from the city and from the military is the duration of our event.

So the rest of the time, it is gonna be used as long as the city and the Air Force Base agree to those terms.

So there's really nothing, it's just gonna sit there and hopefully it'll be able to be used.

And I I think once the infrastructure's in place, I can't imagine that the military wouldn't let the city use it or us use it for maybe in another event at Frontier Park.

And I'm thinking, Dr.

Russell days, um, you know, where they could park there and then the risk of having cars come in their secure um fence line would not happen.

They could park there and they have a gate that they could walk into the base and uh and do that.

They had the state cross-country meet there just recently, and it was a really a kind of a tough situation to try to get the athletes and families onto the base, and so this might give us a secure area where they could be let off and then through a secure gate.

So we we see a lot of other opportunities.

And for me, I think we have 2,990 people living on the base and over 4,000 working there.

Uh, you know, having a pedestrian quarter where maybe a greenway access for people to get back and forth uh and have access to our almost 50 miles of greenway.

So I think there's a lot of opportunities, but the first one is the parking.

The uh second question that I had was um yeah, is the I'm assuming that with this cost estimate of roughly 12 million dollars that the parking area will remain unpaved so that you also aren't having to pay a storm utility fee on it?

Mr.

Ursic.

Mr.

Mayor, through you, Dr.

Aldridge, that is correct.

Thank you.

I just a comment is that when I do the math on that, 2400 parking spots for four million dollars brings it to about sixteen hundred and sixty-six dollars of parking space.

And if it's 12 million, that's significantly more.

I don't know what the going rate is for parking spaces, but um, that's uh quite an investment for parking.

It's the bridge, uh, Dr.

Aldridge, that's so expensive.

Yeah.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Hersick, thank you for being here.

Thank you.

And thank you guys for what you do.

I appreciate you.

Anyone else in the audience want to speak to this uh resolution before us this evening?

Okay, hearing none, Mr.

Escobel.

Mr.

Mayor, this item was reviewed under other items for the agenda on the January 23rd, 21st 2026 finance committee meeting.

Therefore, the provisions of Title II of the City Code have been met.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committee is to adopt, and I so move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

White.

Before I go to the city council um for comments or the governing body, I just want to say thank you to our new grant writer Libby and to um our chief of staff, Hamber.

Um, they this came from the state land and investment uh out of the blue.

We didn't know was coming.

And uh we only had a few days to uh um get this grant application put together, and they moved heaven and earth to get that done.

So just want to say thank you to staff for that, and I'll go to the city council.

Any comments?

Dr.

Aldridge, Mayor Collins for you.

I'm going to be a yes vote on this tonight, but I really want the public to understand that this is um a resolution that allows the city to apply for a grant for the one million dollars, uh, which in I understand from Mr.

Herzig's conversation is would be our share of this.

Um, that this is not coming from any uh my understanding is not coming from any of our general funds or any of our funds, but it is coming from a grant that we're applying for that we hope to be successful in.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moody.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

Through you uh agree with my colleague, I'll be yes vote for other reasons.

Gotta keep frontier days going.

This is a big part during our tour season, bring in more tourists, and also too from my perspective, it'll help down for our children, grandchildren as well too, bringing in more people.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Comments hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

And those opposed, the resolution is adopted.

We're had our fingers crossed, Mr.

Hirsig.

Number 17A, preliminary plot for Dry Creek Vestas, City of Cheyenne, Laramie County, Wyoming, located northeast of the intersection of Frank Court and Rock Springs Street.

All right, we have a preliminary plat.

We don't typically get a lot of preliminary plats, but this one is a little bit more complicated with a vacation of a street.

So we're going to take this in two steps.

And is anybody here today to speak to this preliminary plat before us?

All right, hearing none.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the public service committee is to acknowledge receipt of the report with staff conditions number two and number three.

And I would sum up.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Seagrave.

Comments for members of the governing body.

Mr.

Moody.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you.

Um, does anybody know if any of the neighbors that were impacted by this are here or if they have any uh public comment?

Um, we asked for public comment and I didn't hear anybody, but is anybody here from that neighborhood that would like to speak?

No, Mr.

Moody.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the governing body?

All right, hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The uh preliminary plat is acknowledged with staff recommendations.

Was it one and two, Dr.

Rennie?

Two and three.

Thank you.

Next item is number 22A on page five.

Appointment of Mike Bites to the Laramie County Community Juvenile Services Joint Powers Board and Christina Rufati to the mayor's council for people with disabilities.

All right, the mayor doesn't get to vote on these, but um I will run the the election.

Um we'd entertain a motion.

I would so move.

Second or first by Dr.

Aldridge and second by Mr.

White.

Uh all those in favor of the appointments, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, the appointments are approved.

Voucher report.

All right, is there anybody in the audience or on the governing body that would like to speak to the vouchers?

Hearing the next item.

Revenue report.

Same thing.

Anybody want to speak to the revenue?

Uh either from the audience or from the governing body.

All right, next item.

Announcement of a public hearing to be held February 9th, 2026 at 6 o'clock p.m.

in City Council Chambers 2101 O'Neill Avenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and via electronic conference meeting to determine whether compliance of annexation conditions required by Wyoming Statute 15 1-402 exists for the city.

Initiated annexation of 16 parcels of land totaling roughly 49.4 acres, comprised of various tracts of land situated in western and southern Cheyenne, generally located east of I-25, south of the intersection of Westland Road and Missile Drive, north of West and East Allison Road, and east of and adjacent to North College Drive.

Other business.

All right.

This is an opportunity.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to the governing body under other business?

All right, hearing none.

How about from the governing body?

Dr.

Aldrich.

Mayor Collins, I just wanted to um say uh a huge thank you to um police chief Francisco.

Uh he and I had the opportunity last Tuesday afternoon to visit um with uh a large collection, I don't know, 30, 35 uh senior citizens from across um all the different wards.

And uh he uh was gracious enough to answer questions for over an hour and um made quite an impression on um those uh women who attended.

So he was quite popular.

So appreciated his willingness to do that and to be the first um participant in what's known as civic conversations.

Anyone else on the governing body?

Mr.

White, Mr.

Mayor, we we won't be having a meeting for a couple of weeks, but on February 7th, uh Saturday morning um at 10 in the morning, my colleagues, uh Councilman Wolf, Councilman Layborn, and myself will be holding another Ward 1 council and coffee, and that will be at the meeting facility at Romero Park.

All right, I heard you bring coffee.

Is this a true story?

Yes.

And it's coffee and donuts, so you can't miss that.

Anyone else under other business?

All right, hearing none, we are adjourned.

Thank you very much.