Good evening, everyone.

I'd like to call the February 23rd meeting of the governing body to order.

Madam Clerk, would you take the role, please?

Mayor Collins.

Present.

Dr.

Emmons.

Present.

Mr.

Escobel.

Here.

Mr.

Layborn.

Here.

Mr.

Mooney.

Dr.

Rennie.

Present.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Mr.

White.

Present.

Mr.

Wolf.

Here.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Present.

All members are present.

We do have a quorum.

Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance, except if you have a crutch.

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 will 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 from the consent agenda?

Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Escobel.

19B.

That's the utility easement with Microsoft.

We have a substitute for that.

Concur.

Second concurrence.

All right.

19B is removed.

Second one.

Mr.

Escobel.

19A.

And that is the professional services agreement with TDSI.

We also have a substitute for that.

Concur.

All right.

19A is removed.

And could we ask for item number?

Yes, sir.

Uh 14.

Thank you.

Item 14 is a final plat, and we won't finish the zoning until our next meeting.

So it would be out of order.

So I'd ask that that be removed.

Concur.

Concur.

Thank you.

So we have 19AB and item 14.

Is there anybody else?

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.

So move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

White.

Motion by Dr.

Aldrich.

All those in favor of the consent agenda, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The consent agenda is removed or approved with 19A, 19B, and 14 removed.

Number six A, public hearing for renewal applications for existing city liquor licenses, retail, restaurant, limited retail, resort, barn girl licenses, microbrewery, satellite distillery, special malt beverage, and winery permits filed with the city clerk's office.

All right.

Annually, state law says we have to renew all of our liquor licenses.

And this is the first step of that, which is the uh public hearing.

Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak to the renewal of any of the liquor licenses in our community?

Would you like to come forward?

Please, we'd love to have you.

If you do me a favor, just push the button and pull that microphone so it's like a minute uh inch or so from your mouth.

That way everybody can hear you.

Perfect.

Can you hear us?

I can introduce yourself, please.

Uh my name is AK Wallace.

I'm the district manager for Chiba Hut.

And I am Cam or Cameron Brown, the general manager of Chiba Hut here in China.

Welcome.

Um we just came up to say that we're stoked to be a part of Cheyenne.

We uh are glad that uh we're being considered for renewal and uh so far I've had great success in the community and just appreciate everybody's support and um happy to be here.

That's great.

We were so excited to hear that you were taking a building that was becoming empty and making sure that it was continuing to be used.

So thank you for that.

Thanks for being here.

Anyone else?

How about online, Jennifer?

All right, anybody on the governing body?

I guess we must have all been good behavior this year because there's not a lot of comments.

Uh the purpose of the public hearing has been met.

We'll assign this item to the finance committee, which will meet next Tuesday.

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

All right.

Is there anybody in the audience here today to speak to this ordinance that uh would limit um memorials on private or on uh public property or rights of way?

Good evening, ma'am.

Welcome.

And if you could just roll that down so it points right at you.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Now do I need to introduce myself?

We want to know who you are.

My name is Cheryl Gerish.

And I live on the east side of town.

And on Nationway, there is an ongoing display.

It has been there for years now, uh, with flowers and pictures and lighted up lights at night of a memorial of uh someone who has passed away.

And I feel that it is inappropriate for this to be on public property for long term.

Rest of us have our memorials at cemeteries, and they even clean them off every six months.

And this has been here for years, and I think it it is not appropriate for one person to have in one in the summer when people are when they're mowing and everything else, they have to mow around it and make a special excuse for getting around it.

And and that's becomes a time when that is just not reasonable.

There should be an end date if someone wants to put a brief memorial up on public land.

Thank you for being here this evening.

Anyone else?

Welcome, sir.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and members of the council.

Uh, my name is Stephen Love.

I live in Ward One.

I do not support this ordinance.

It is serious appears to be unnecessary government intervention.

At the committee meeting, the justification for this ordinance was the inconvenience for city workers who must mow around the memorial memorials placed around town.

This doesn't seem like a justification to me and more of an excuse.

These memorials are frequently small and do not impact the citizens of Cheyenne, other than to allow residents to mourn their loved ones.

Furthermore, the fees to impose seem unnecessary.

Why should a grieving family forced to be paid forced to pay a fine in addition to the removal of the memorial of their loved ones?

It is my recommendation to the council that at a minimum an amendment be made in 87.72.0 or 20 C to strike 750 and so it instead reads any person violating the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a fine not to exceed any in cost any costs incurred by the city for removal of this display and add a cap for said fees.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here this evening.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Hearing nobody else in the audience will go in a motion, and I gotta make sure I get this right.

Dr.

Rennie.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

The public service committee met on this and recommended that we approve on second reading.

So I would so move.

Second.

Seconded by Dr.

Aldridge.

And I would move to him in by substitution that's dated um February 13th.

Second.

Doctor, you want to explain the um yes.

The substitution, what it does is that it um removes the term advertising because that is already covered under city code um in a different part of our um municipal code.

And it also um changes it to include public right-of-way, uh, which the one uh we have some in our community that um are on public right of way currently.

The one that uh Mrs.

Gerish spoke about is currently on a public right of way.

All right, we'll go out to the audience and see if there's any comments on the substitute before us.

Um, how about from the governing body?

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I was wondering if we could get a question answered first of all.

Please ask it, I'll get an answer for you.

Um, have we had complaints from the city staff about mowing around this memorial and in this area?

I don't know that would that be uh Craig and uh or Jason?

Um Craig.

Mr.

Levoy, any concerns from staff?

Uh Craig of Public Works.

Uh none of them have really expressed anything other than it does take a little bit longer, and we don't weed eat, so we have to go long.

We have to go around it wide.

Thank you.

Follow up.

Yes, please.

So I go by that memorial every day.

I go buy it on my way to work.

I go buy it on my way home from work.

I went by it the day the accident happened, right after it happened, actually.

Um, and I remember all the cars that were stopped to try to help the uh young woman, Miss Ms.

Martinez, who was hit.

This is this memorial hugs the tree.

It is right up against that tree.

There is a good two feet all the way around between the edge of the memorial and the edge of the dirt before it hits the grass.

So unless we're mowing dirt, which I don't think we are, we're not even coming close to what is in that memorial.

It's very well taken care of.

Um, it's never spread out, it's never a skew.

It's obviously very well taken care of.

When I talked to Ms.

Martinez's sister just a short time ago, she said that there's a gentleman who comes every day and makes sure that that's picked up, it's cleaned up, it's maintained, and it doesn't produce any kind of uh obstruction for people who are mowing or any kind of a hazard for people who are driving by there.

So um I think that this is we've got no complaints from the city.

We've got a family who takes care of it.

We have one individual who doesn't like it, and I'm I'm sorry that that's bothersome from you for you, but I see absolutely no reason that this has to be moved.

It's not in anybody's way, it's not causing a problem.

Like I said last time we talked about this.

This is a memorial for that family who this is their way of keeping that young woman alive spiritually, mentally, emotionally.

And I just see absolutely no reason to go forward with this.

So I would ask that people vote no on this ordinance.

Is it this is a point of order?

We're on the amendment, correct?

Understood.

She's talking about the right-of-though, so I thought it was Jermaine.

Thank you.

Dr.

Rennie, Mr.

Mayor, I think we should support the ordinance if it cleans it up a little bit, or not the ordinance, we should support the amendment.

If it cleans a little bit up, cleans it up a little if it gets rid of a redundancy between two different ordinances.

Um and clarifies a little bit, I would support the amendment.

Anyone else in the governing body?

The amendment is a substitute data 213.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

I those opposed.

No.

Uh Dr.

Emmons is a no.

The substitute is adopted, and we're back on the main motion.

Uh comments from members of the governing body.

Mr.

Moody.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Meritri.

I just had a point of information.

Um, probably some of my colleagues know.

What's the program that YDOT does to memorialize with this with a sign?

They uh I'm not sure if anybody here can talk to that.

Yeah.

I think I I know if uh what I know about it, Mr.

Moody is that if somebody dies on a state highway, um, their family can purchase a uh memorial sign and and place it in the right-of-way.

I'm not sure for how long, but uh, they have the ability to do that.

I saw it.

Um Dr.

Aldridge, Mayor Collins, through you.

Uh, first and foremost, I think that uh this is a really sensitive subject.

And I um I would say that while we've talked a lot about um Andrea Martinez's memorial, there actually is a second memorial on Nation Way further down.

Um so it's not just one memorial.

And if and I think there are definitely lots of ways that families can memorialize their loved ones.

Um one is through the traffic sign program that the Wyoming Department of Transportation offers.

And actually, that's at no cost to the family.

I did receive the information on that from um the police department when I contacted them who referred me to the sheriff's office and got information from the sheriff's office.

Um there is no cost, it they allow those signs to be up for 10 years, and then if they'd like to have them replaced, it's 50.

But it has to be written by a family member in order to initiate that.

Many accidents, unfortunately, many tragic accidents.

Some are memorial, some are memorials that are on college drive.

You've probably seen those.

Those are on a state highway.

So those are not under our purview.

We have a one that is by a shopping center on a shopping center's uh turn-in by the old sherry's.

Um and that's on private property.

We've had uh two motorcyclists killed at Nationway and Lincoln Way, and that was on private property where those memorials were for a variety of seven to ten days.

Um, and then we had a young man that his car flipped and landed in the McDonald's parking lot and was killed.

And that memorial was there for five to seven days.

So this is looking to put some consistency on these types of memorials.

There are a lot of memorials that can be done through our parks department.

I know families have worked with our parks department to put benches um on public property or in the parks, um, plant trees.

There's a variety of ways that families can memorialize, and I think we definitely offer those opportunities.

Um, but I do have some concerns when we talk about, and I have had city staff talk about that they want to be cautious about mowing around them and not do any damage.

Um, the one that um my colleague referred to is really well maintained and kept.

Um, it is a little troublesome to think that somebody's crossing nationway every day to go out and maintain it because that's it not necessarily uh an area with a crossing area that uh people recognize or would be cognizant that somebody might be crossing there.

I believe the um traffic speed limit there is is it 45 or 50 miles an hour?

So probably not some place where we want people out in the middle of the the roadway working.

Um but I would appreciate um had just having some guidelines and um in our ordinance that um give families um some I an idea of how to memorialize their loved one loved ones um in an appropriate method.

Mr.

Escobel.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you, the point that uh Dr.

Aldrich just made about that uh memorial, you have to cross two lanes of traffic that is going at least 40 miles an hour through there.

Uh I think it's a dangerous place to uh either stop your vehicle along that right away and then get out and try and uh do something in the middle of it.

Uh I don't want to see another accident happen just because someone is uh trying to go and add something to a memorial.

It's basically a four-lane highway if you look at it that way.

Other comments from the governing body.

Mr.

Wolf.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you very much.

Um I I've kind of struggled with this.

Um and uh understand uh councilwoman Emmons uh strong and significant comments.

Um I guess we're not first of all, this is an ordinance of general application, so we're not enacting an ordinance for one memorial.

Um I appreciate councilwoman uh Aldridge uh uh bringing this a substitute is uh I thought uh uh much improved over the original version.

So as we vote on this, we should decide whether or not this is good policy for the city to adopt.

Um and um I guess I kind of come down that it probably is good policy.

Um so I'll vote uh I'll vote on this.

I do, however, think that Mr.

Love's comments about the fine are well taken.

Um, and I would ask the city attorney whether or the sponsor whether there's any uh reason we have to have a fine in here.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Well, I believe that the uh reason that the fine is here.

We should note that it says that a fine not to exceed $750, which I believe is um gives the if there were to be a fine issued, it would give a lot of leniency to whoever was issuing the fine.

But my understanding is that that is that the misdemeanor amount.

Mr.

Brody for consistency, uh Mr.

Mayor, John Brody City Attorney.

Yeah, I mean, state statute affords municipalities um enforcement authority for ordinances, and that is a up to six months in jail, up to a $750 fine or both.

So it's uh would be up to the prosecutor to make a recommendation if this were to go in front of a court.

And then ultimately it'd be up to the municipal judge to issue a punishment.

Um in the the years I've been with the city, I've never seen a fine at $750.

So um that doesn't mean it's not possible, obviously, if it's in the ordinance, but um, I think our court is pretty cognizant of the specifics of each situation that comes before it.

Doesn't the judge typically create a bond schedule for different offenses that the officers would write?

Yes, for the citation purposes, you're you're correct, Mayor.

Uh Mr.

Wolf.

Thank you, Mr.

Birdie.

Um mayor, through you.

Um just uh actually a question for the sponsor.

Um what would what would you think of an amendment that actually removed the line, but said that um they'd be subject to payment of any cost incurred by the city for removal of display not to exceed $300.

Well, uh I'm a menable to that, Mayor Collins for you.

Um there are three sponsors on this um piece of legislation.

Um, so I would check with my co-sponsors as well.

My one concern would be the um difficulty.

Uh one, we struggle sometimes to collect um fines at all, but it how we would then the burden of figuring out how much money it costs to remove that and then sending out a um uh setting a fine for that.

I just wonder about the the actual uh logistics of carrying that out.

So I would defer to the city attorney and to the police department to um about their thoughts on how that would look as far as a fine goes.

I think that there's might be that might be a challenge to calculate.

So mr.

Mr.

Mayor, if if I may, um I I think part of the the procedural mechanism and um the enforcement authority we have through the municipal court, it would be helpful to have some type of fine, just an up to amount, because then we can get them um into the court.

And if there is what is effectively restitution, right?

The cost for removing that memorial, um, the court would then be able to order that restitution and there would be a mechanism for the city to um collect that that money if it were needed.

Mr.

Wolf, we're on second reading.

We have uh a week before committee and then and another week before the third and final reading might give you and sponsor some time to work through that issue and maybe make a recommendation at the next uh committee meeting that we could look at on third reading.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, that's an excellent suggestion.

And and I and I'm not wedded to this and and I'm not gonna bring the amendment now.

So thank you, uh uh, Mr.

Brody for your comments and thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Any of the comments?

Yes, Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I also do want to just be on the record that we do have an individual that this ordinance.

So uh the family when I talk to the family tonight, they are against this.

So I just want to be on the record with that.

Thank you.

Mayor Collins through you.

Dr.

Aldrich.

I'd like to be on the record for saying that I talked to that same family member initially before we ever brought this forward.

And the family and uh two family members, the one that now is against it and um another family member were in favor of it.

So um, I think as this progresses, that it sometimes um support changes depending upon how it rolls.

But um we will definitely look at this uh this amendment an amendment that was suggested by Mr.

Love, and we'll um have that ready for committee on Tuesday if they should pass.

Thank you on Monday.

Anyone else?

All right, we're on the main motion as uh amended.

Um all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

No, no, Dr.

Rainey and Dr.

Emmons are no.

The ordinance is approved on second reading as amended.

Next item is number eight ordinance, second reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for certain land located north of Prairie Avenue, east of Powder House Road, west of Routeur, and south of Story Boulevard from AG Agricultural to NR3 neighborhood residential high density.

All right, we have an ordinance before us tonight that will allow a 54-unit senior housing development to move forward, and we'll go out to the audience if anybody's here to talk about this zone change.

Anybody good evening.

And with that, I'll just if there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

You know, a question was asked uh during our last meeting about when the plans were to break ground and um and you know, maybe a little bit about the the length of time to uh do the development.

Yes, I'd be happy to share that.

Uh right now our our schedule is to try to get all of the uh entitlement approvals uh in the next um few weeks, and we will be finalizing architectural and engineering plans for the project this spring and getting them out for for bid, and we work through a process for project financing, and we would hope to have that all completed and break around on the project this fall.

Very good.

And I did I hear something like 16, 18 months to build it?

Is that yeah, we you know it really depends what time of year we break ground on it and how how the weather goes, but uh on average it takes somewhere between 16 to maybe 19 months at the longest uh to construct a community like this.

Very good.

Thank you for being here.

Any questions for the developer?

Andrew, thanks, appreciate it very much.

Anyone else that want to speak?

All right.

Um Dr.

Rainey.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of public service committee is to approve on second reading, and I would so move.

Seconded by Mr.

Escabel.

Comments on the zone change for members of the governing body.

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

Aye.

Those opposed.

The ordinance is approved on second reading, and good luck, Andrew.

Number nine ordinance, second reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for land located southeast of the intersection of South Korea Highway and East Dacia Lane from AG Agricultural to BP Business Park.

All right.

We have uh an expanding bison business park.

This is 78 acres to uh be zoned uh business park from agricultural.

Is there anybody here that would like to speak to the zone change?

All right, and this would be Dr.

Emmons or Dr.

Rennie again.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the public service committee is to approve on second reading, and I would so move.

Seconded by Mr.

Moody.

Do we have any comments from members of the governing body on this zone change?

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

Aye.

Those opposed.

All right.

The zone change is approved on second reading.

Number 10 ordinance, second reading annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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, and north of West and East Allison Road and east of and adjacent to North College Drive.

All right.

Before us now we have an ordinance to annex the last group of county pockets, which identifies 100% surrounded by the city, and we'll open it up to the public and see if anybody wants to comment on this item.

Anybody in the public.

And um I thought about that.

And uh I agree with that.

Um love believes all things, hopes all things.

And so I'm hopeful.

Um I'm hopeful because as a follower of Jesus, I know that he majors in taking lemons that have been thrown on the floor and stomped on and making lemonade.

And so I still believe that we can make lemonade as councilwoman Emmons asked us to.

Um, and I hope we're in the process of doing that.

But it's been a lot of stomping and a lot of lemon on the floor.

And um, it's been a lot of stress.

Um but we can be kind and we can be respectful, and we can be hopeful um that good things can happen.

And so I'm here tonight um saying that.

Um we're still hopeful that um should the council go forward and force us to be in a relationship that we're not ready for.

We still believe that it could develop into a great relationship, but I don't recommend the process of doing that without kindness and disrespectfully.

Um it's hard to trust in that situation, but we'll trust uh Jesus um to make lemonade out of the lemons, even if the stomping continues.

And thank you.

Thank you for being here again this evening.

Sir, please come forward.

It's nice to see you again.

Um, Donald Career, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, council.

This has been a little bit kind of back and forth with me.

There was one part of me where I wanted to come up and really be frustrated with it, and I'm trying to pull it back in.

So I'm just gonna just read this.

Obviously, we're gathered here again tonight.

I'm in support of the why fresh farm.

We've heard such an overwhelming come together of the community.

And I want to emphasize that uh, as our you guys as our elected representatives, you guys are accountable to us, the constituents.

This farm stand has been an issue for a few weeks now, and the community's watching, the people are watching.

Um we have seen such a constant expressing and support of this family in the the farm stand that it's it's both heartwarming and it's also sad.

Um the city is pushing for this annexation, it is perceived negatively by the public.

So far, I haven't heard one person stand up here and speak um against the farmfish family or against the family.

Um, you know, no one's full has voiced opposition.

Um, and it does underscore um uh a unity that everybody that is come together.

You guys are constituents, doesn't feel like you guys are listening to the voices of the people.

Says if I believe if you claim that you serve the people interest, how do you rationalize pursuing a court or a course that directly contradicts the community's desires?

Mayor Collins, your vision for annexing properties has been well documented.

However, I would say that the approach seems to disregard the value of community input.

It is essential for our governing body to prioritize the welfare of local families and businesses.

We need collaborative solutions, not divisive ones.

The people gathered here tonight are witness to the support that this community is has embraced.

I would just respectfully ask and request that you halt the annexation proceedings and work towards a more inclusive solution.

And in closing, I think that it's to me, it's crazy.

You know, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors with any of you guys.

I don't do you guys a job, but when I hear a grown man stand up here professing his faith, which is a bold act anymore these days, and and beg that you guys work with them, and I'm not saying that you guys haven't worked with them, so please do not misunderstand that.

But the bottom line is to the public into the eye of everybody else, you guys work for us.

Don't forget that.

And if people are upset at any of these people up here, remember when it comes to voting time, don't vote for these same people because the voices have spoke.

I mean, we the people have said why you guys might have all the authority, you guys might have all the things to do it, that doesn't make it right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Donald.

Mr.

Love, welcome back.

Mr.

Mayor, uh members of the council, I'm here to support the nicely's um and the owners of the southernmost pocket or property of pocket seven.

I attended the public services committee meeting in verse my concerns about this annexation.

I think this annexation needs to be uh amended to remove the property in pocket four and the southernmost property of pocket seven until an urban farm zoning definition can be codified and reflected in zoning regulations with such protections as the ability to increase the quantity of livestock, add new species of livestock, clearly stated allocations for the construction of fences and agriculture-related structures without the need to file permitting with the city, among other protections for the continuation of agricultural use on these properties.

The current AG designation does not provide adequate protection for these properties and is vague.

The planning department has made promises about the ability of the nicely to draw simple diagrams, and the city will approve them.

I do not trust the government to follow through on promises or informal formal memorializations of definitions.

One reason given for the necessity of annexation is fire police and emergency services.

However, as Sheriff Kozak stated, the county has an agreement with the city to provide these services.

So to me, there does not seem to be any reason to annex until an urban farm and the necessary protections can be enacted in the zoning regulation.

Furthermore, if the city insists on annexation of the property in pocket for the city could easily, as part of the upcoming roundabout construction, install a deceleration lane and tie-ins to city infrastructure up to the easement of the property.

This would be a sign of good faith to the Nicely's that there may be that they may be able to run their farm and business well into their future and their children's future without undue financial strain.

I understand Mr.

Moody is proposing an amendment to remove these properties tonight.

Seeing as seeing as no one has come out in favor of this annexation, I would encourage you to hear the voices of so many Cheyenne residents and vote yes on that amendment.

Thank you.

Anyone else this evening?

How are you guys doing today?

Good, sir.

Yeah, my name is uh Brian Pixley.

I'm uh Wyoming native.

I've been here for over 50 years, and uh I totally uh do not support this uh annexations for one.

Uh uh my my mom and dad, a long time ago got annexations in the city, and they had to pay for their own water mines, all the sewer and everything else.

So and and and where where was you where was you guys when you guys needed when we needed us, you know, for product the mines tour and all that, you know.

We're we're on well water, that's why a lot of the people in Cheyenne had the well water signs on their houses, you know, because they didn't want to be annexed in the city, you know.

So basically, I I so hardly support these uh uh fine people that you know trying to save their farm and all that stuff, you know, trying to make a living for themselves, you know.

So I fully support them.

So thank you and have a nice night.

Thanks for being here.

Hello, welcome back.

Hi, my name is Richard Nicely.

I am the son of uh David and Tommy Nicely.

And I would like to just say, and I write for my classical teacher, so but I would like to say a few things throughout the millennia that we have walked the globe as a species, we have always treated each other or one another with a certain level of respect.

This respect I feel like we have been wanting from the city and not been receiving it.

Throughout the discourse of these discussions and debates, our one major question has or ask is can we please get a postponement?

We are not we are perfectly willing to change Caesars.

We are perfectly willing to change our loyalty from the county to the city.

If the city is able to is able and willing to meet our needs as a family and as a farm.

I own three sheep.

I was like eight when I got my first sheep.

I have been wanting to expand my flock of sheep for a while now.

With this going with this pressing annexation, it looks like I will not be able to do so, as it will require increased infrastructure, a stronger fence, which we have not been provided.

Uh, past administrations have even knocked it down.

Uh that is not a stain on the current city administration, but on past.

But we have not been provided with a fence, and it has been taken away from us.

I want a little flock.

If I am to expand my flock of sheep, uh that would require a larger barn than I currently have, which under current city code then requires my parents to then get building permits, and as far I'm not an expert, but my mom would probably like to build more greenhouses.

And as far I am not an expert.

My mom would probably like to build more greenhouses.

That falls under the same problem as the barn.

And I pray to current council to put off this annexation till a later date.

As all great things take time.

The cathedrals of Europe, for example, took half a millennium to build the pyramid to build.

The pyramids took 20 years of struggle.

This farm has already toiled for 20.

For many councilmen present, their current situation in government is that of one based off of 20 years or more of hard labor in and out of office.

We are not asking for much.

We simply ask why we can't we cannot put this annexation off.

And so in conclusion, I pray, I beg to have this annexation put off till a later date to lay the keystone for a better Cheyenne.

And so that a Cheyenne and so that Cheyenne may shine as a light in the darkness, a tyranny and of death and of the desolate situation of man.

That is all.

Thank you, Richard.

Appreciate you being here again.

Your mom's very proud.

I can see in her face.

All right.

Anybody else?

Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

Bring the microphone up a little bit, widget.

Very good.

Good evening, Mayor.

Uh, city council.

Uh, my name is Micah Sutton, Cheyenne resident speaking in favor of postpone of the annexation of YFresh.

I've been a customer there for some time now.

They have great products.

They are very healthy and have helped me in my food journey, as I have several health issues related to diet.

And they have been great for my lifestyle.

You'll notice I'm wearing a green safety vest tonight.

Uh, this is related to the misinformation spread in regards to unsafe firearm practices that endanger the public, according to the Wyoming Tribune Eagle.

This has been refuted by the sheriffs and county police departments, as well as the city.

The process that if they are annexed, is quoted in city ordinance 15-1-421, municipal de-annexation.

I will just read a small portion of that here.

The owners of all the land to be de-annexed, either sign the petition for de-annexation or consent to the de-annexation within 120 days after the final passage of the DNA annexation ordinance and before its effective date.

The passage of the ordinance shall serve as the consent of the city or town for any land owned by the city or town within the area to be de-annexed.

That is a lot of land that is in this parcel that would require more than just the nicely's that would require more uh ability than is obviously present here tonight to present.

This will indefinitely ensure that this land may or may not be annexed back out into the county without the state taking back control, which was also mentioned in the previous city council meeting.

Please consider the vast outpouring of public opinion on this matter, and thank you for your time.

Thanks, sir.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Um hi, my name is Shelsey McCourt.

Um, I'm an uh ward one.

Um, quick one second point of order before I begin is if I say we, I'm uh speaking on behalf of YFresh.

I've been working with this in the so um I know a lot about the background behind it.

Um thank you guys for allowing us to express our opinion and thank you to all the hard city workers and other departments' heads that have worked with us so far.

It's been a lot of work, I know it, but we truly appreciate that.

Umresh is very important and valuable to the community.

If you have any questions, just look in the room, see all the green shirts, remember all the comments that have spoken the last couple of meetings.

Um I don't think I really need to reiterate that.

Um, the the simplest hope that YFresh is is uh hoping for is firstly to separate themselves.

Uh so that's parcel four, and also to separate the other urban agricultural parcel parcel seven from the current annexation so that we're not holding up any other proceedings.

The ones that don't have a problem, let's get them annexed if they are fine with that.

Um, and then the secondary step would be to postpone the annexation until some problems have been resolved.

Um, in the public service committee meeting, uh, Councilman Labourne wanted us to demonstrate need of why we need a postponement.

And I hope that I am able to demonstrate that with the remaining time.

Uh firstly, I think it's important to note that we're not asking for an indefinite postponement.

This is not us trying to play a game where we're waiting for years to finally get annexed.

This is something that we just simply need more time to do.

Um, you know, I I can't imagine truly that it would take more than three months to be able to get everything done.

And that's that's on a high end estimate, is our hope.

Um I think that a few reasons why there's a need for annexation.

Um we wifresh, myself cannot work at the same pace as city workers as city department heads.

We're three people with multiple jobs with children, homeschooling, doing all these things.

Um, and that the emotional, physical and uh mental health of us is suffering.

Um, I've had multiple conversations with Tommy um expressing concern about is this even worth fighting for?

Is it this is her dream?

This has always been her dream.

And to hear her say that has been so incredibly discouraging.

Um, one other thing that I think is really important to note is that um there's a discussion about the fence that has been damaged, and we appreciate the city for jumping on that and being able to to work on repairing it.

It's important that it be repaired before annexation because we need to be able to protect our predators.

And upon annexation, we're restricted in what we can and can't use to remove predators.

Um, so going along with that, uh Doug Clong uh sent an email to the city.

Um, and I would like to read two quick paragraphs from that.

It says, quote, I hope I have some clarity detailing the next two weeks.

However, that will largely depend on the weather and contractors' availability.

And then he goes on to also express that um the engineer for the drainage will also take time.

Uh literally two weeks takes us to the March 9th deadline.

And that's just getting the stuff figured out that isn't the actual work.

So that's clear proof that two weeks is not sufficient to be able to pass it and still allow whitefresh to operate fully.

Thank you.

All right, anybody else?

Jennifer, anybody online?

Nope.

There are no hands raised.

All right.

Anyone else?

Last call for anybody in the audience.

Okay.

We'll uh close the public comment then and we'll uh ask Dr.

Rainey for a motion.

Mr.

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

And I would so move.

Mr.

Mayor, I would move to postpone.

I need to get a second, please.

Second.

Awesome.

Dr.

Aldrich.

I would move to postpone.

Second.

We have a motion to postpone.

Um, we'll go back out to the audience.

When we postpone in the governing body, that means it'd just be postponed for two weeks.

Um, I think I know the all everybody in the green shirt what your answer would be, but you're welcome to come up and speak if you'd like.

Okay, how about from the governing body?

Collins.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Um, I would encourage my colleagues to vote for this postponement.

Um, there was a list of questions that had been alluded to during the public services um committee meeting.

Um, that pub that list of questions was received by, I believe, our director of planning um this week, and it had, and I'm trying to remember exactly, but over I think around 140 questions, 143 questions on it.

Um, and some of them were um quite lengthy, and some of them were easily answered, but some of them were going to take some time, in addition to the engineering and the fence issues as well.

Um, I know that a two-week postponement um may not be sufficient, um, but there is no limitation to the number of times this can be postponed um until we can get, I just feel like we need to be able to get the answers um from our city staff um and give our city staff time to get those questions answered um before we proceed with this um annexation.

So I would ask my colleagues to consider postponing this um for two weeks uh to at least hopefully give staff enough time to be able to get the questions answered.

Dr.

Ronnie, did you have a comment?

Well, Mr.

Mayor, since it's on second reading, we do have the our staff does have two more weeks to answer questions.

So it seems to me if we do have to postpone it, it makes more sense to do it at third reading.

Anyone else?

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I I just need some clarification.

So we got 80 questions in Wednesday, I believe.

Yes, ma'am.

And then we got 140 questions in Friday afternoon at almost three o'clock.

Is that correct?

Dr.

Hems, I think that included the first 80 questions.

So I think it's a total of 143.

So we got 80 in on Wednesday, and then we get an additional 60 on Friday.

Yes.

So um Mr.

Mayor.

So I guess my confusion is around what it is that you're needing.

Is it the answers to the questions that is why we need to postpone?

Or is there you keep talking uh I'm sorry, Mr.

Mayor?

Um, I hear people talking about getting ready, but I don't understand the what we're getting ready for.

Is it just for the answers to the questions?

Or did you meet the motion?

I believe that uh the two-week postponement would allow our staff to be able to get the answers to the 143 questions.

That's why I'm asking for a postponement.

Uh, recognizing that yes, there is another two-week period before reading the third reading, but I believe that it is going to um be more involved to get the answers than possibly two weeks.

I can share with you guys that staff has been working on these pretty hard, and um, I think a first draft of most of those answers is done, and uh, and we are working on uh the ones that came in at the last minute, but uh we will have those questions answered in and to everybody, I think by the time the committee meeting starts, or before the committee meeting.

That's our that's our goal.

Anybody else?

Mr.

Labor.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh yeah.

Speak in favor of the uh adoption of this uh ordinance on second reading.

And I want to point out that there's been a lot of point of order.

We're on the postponement for two weeks or uh we read.

That's right, ma'am.

I apologize then.

Thank you.

And uh I believe that one of the reasons I've just heard in this discussion was the answering of those 143 questions.

And I don't believe we ought to be postponing this for that reason.

Uh when I read those questions, one of them was are we going to require barn cats to be leashed on this property?

Um, I can answer you that that is not gonna happen.

And I think a number of those questions were pretty similar.

Um there are specific issues here.

I look forward to discussing these issues, but a postponement for this purpose, uh, in my opinion, uh, adds nothing.

We can work through these issues.

I've I'm a member of the uh public service committee.

We'll be looking at it, but a number of these questions and the whole discussion that has gone on here, we're not answering these questions.

We're not answering these questions.

Well, some of those questions just are not really specific to the issues that we're talking about.

So I speak uh against uh postponement for the reason that uh we go through this and we have gone through this with a number of other annexations and work through those issues, and I think that if they were serious questions, um I certainly welcome that opportunity to learn more about them, but whether we're going to be requiring barn caps to be leashed is uh one of those questions.

And I don't think that that's appropriate.

Thank you, Mr.

Escabel.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, through you, uh rather than postponement, I would prefer that we just remove parcel four and seven from this annexation.

Anyone else on the postponement?

Mr.

Wolf.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Um, we're faced with here is is a question as old as government itself, which is what what obligations does a government owe to individuals that are the governed?

Uh this council collectively represents 65,000 people.

And we've been asked to be kind and respectful through now multiple hearings of multiple uh hours of staff time that has been devoted to this, multiple hours of this council's time that have been devoted to this.

And all of which is time and effort that could be devoted to the other 65,000 minus two that we faced are faced with here.

Um I'm totally sympathetic to what uh the nicely's have and to what the public has found in their uh farm and farm stand.

Uh but we're not taking this land, we're just putting it into the city.

And does it come with additional restrictions?

It may.

Um, but it's um it's not like the uh it's not this is not an eminent domain proceeding.

Um we have questions that need to be answered.

We have time to do that.

And I agree with Dr.

Rennie that if we should take this to uh back to the committee, we should then bring this back to the uh council.

And uh if at that time the questions aren't answered, then um we this motion would be appropriate.

Thank you.

Dr.

Alders.

Mayor Collins, through you.

Um the reason, another reason that I'm asking for this postponement is because um I had talked with my colleague from Word 3 who had talked about doing uh an amendment to um remove section uh four parcels four and seven from this annexation.

I believe that sets a really bad precedent um to have an annexation um proposed and all the work that's been done on it, and then to simply just remove two properties um from that annexation process.

Um, so my hope is that through uh um a postponement that we can get to the point where we have common ground and can then do this annexation in uh its entirety anyone else.

All right, hearing none.

The motion is to postpone all those in favor.

Please signify by saying aye.

I those opposed.

No, I see the hands in the nose.

Dr.

Rainey, Dr.

Emmons, Mr.

Wolfe, Mr.

Labourne and myself, Mr.

Seagrave.

No postponement fails, and we're back on the main motion.

Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Moody.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend by uh sub uh number 10 and everybody on council.

I gave you a copy, including the email.

And if I could have a second, I would explain.

Second.

Okay.

Mr.

Moody.

Yep, thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

So what this does, uh members of the public and my fellow colleagues is remove parcel four and parcel seven entirely.

So that way it does give significant time to define what an urban farm is and allow for all those questions to be answered, you know, whatever time it takes.

And again, it will require the staff to make some necessary conforming amendments, some more exhibits that is why the acreage in this substitute is to be determined.

What all simply does is remove these two parcels, and I'll explain more why we should do this.

Go ahead.

Oh, after a public comment.

Go ahead.

I do think that the public has said that they don't want this to be annexed.

We keep hearing it from our constituents.

I've had no constituents say they want it to be annexed, these two properties.

There is unity around this.

I would definitely encourage my colleagues to support this.

Thank you.

All right.

I think again, I know what the uh people in the green shirts are going to say, but we're all welcome to come up and um and speak if you'd like.

Mr.

White.

Mayor Connor White Planning and Development Department.

I just want to make some clarifying um comments with what this does, and actually have a question as well.

When we say parcel seven, are we talking about all three parcels that are involved in parcel seven?

Because I can tell you that the two parcels to the north, I have had contact with one of them, and they don't mind the annexation.

So I don't believe that we should be removing all of parcel seven.

Additionally, if this does pass, you also need to make an amendment to the next item for the assigned zoning to remove those same parcels because the assigned zoning also moves along with the annexation and has these parcels in there as well.

Because the assigned zoning also moves along with the annexation and has these parcels in there as well.

And I'm available for any questions if there are any.

Anyone else in the audience?

Yes, Jennifer.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Sheldon, you can go ahead.

Yeah, thank you, Alan Sheldon Ward Two.

Um, I was just actually waiting for this amendment to speak.

Um, I'm in complete support of uh Mr.

Moody's amendment, and I hope that you guys will vote for it.

Thank you.

Ms.

Love.

Mr.

Mayor Council members, um, I do support this amendment.

Um to uh Dr.

Aldrich's point.

Um, I don't think we can really set a precedent if all the other pockets have been annexed.

Um I don't think that's really concern.

Um I'd also like to address Mr.

Wolf's uh analysis that this is only an issue for just two people.

It's not just two people, you know.

I'm unfortunately this room doesn't fit 65,000 people, but I think you know, given that no one else has spoken in support of annexing these parcels.

I think we can safely say that we speak on behalf of those 65,000 people, and we don't want this annexation to happen.

So I again I don't think it sets a precedent, and I think this is the best path forward.

Thank you.

Please nicely welcome.

Hi, I'm Tommy Nicely, and um, I'd like to address a few issues of um you did talk about barn cats.

There is a leash law in the city.

I don't know if I'm going to be held to that, but even postponing for two weeks, if I have to now medically alter my barn cats to have notches in their ears, you have to give me time to be able to fit within city code.

Not only that, I found out last week at a planning commission meeting that zoning violations are a criminal offense, they're not a civil offense, and that really should be dealt with because now I'm in a position just by continuing to farm.

I can be a criminal, and it hasn't been done yet, but I don't want to be the first person to go to jail because I didn't do a site plan because I moved a caterpillar tunnel.

Um I think it's very unfair to put me in that situation.

Um, I don't even think two weeks is going to be able to address everything.

We have to have our questions answered, and then we need to respond to them and prepare for them.

Um, we still do not know how we protect our livestock.

I understand cattle has been in the city of Cheyenne for many years, and cattle with horns, but we're talking poultry, everything likes to eat poultry, stray dogs, foxes, and sheep that cannot protect themselves.

Um I do not know how to protect my livelihood by March 9th, and that is an extreme fear I have.

Um, and I'm I mean, willing a lot of those questions should be very easy to answer, and I need to know where they are in the code.

Um, so I can be a law-abiding citizen.

And I do think we can move forward in a proactive way where we can both be a blessing to each other, and I look forward to that, but I don't think we can do it in two weeks or four weeks.

Um I'm already a month behind in my planting because I've been devoting all this with the questions.

Um, when we handed those questions over, we said it's a rough draft.

We're trying to be thorough, we're trying to be very careful how we proceed.

Um, we're doing the best we can, and I'm very proud of how far we've done.

And I am so thankful for the support of the community.

And I that's what keeps me fighting.

And I I just continue to appeal to your humanity.

That I just don't think Cheyenne is ready for encompassing everything YFresh does and stands for.

Um I would ask to just be removed from the annexation and we just take our time.

There's no need to put the city under a rush to those that are on salary that now have extra work.

Um I do believe that's unfair also.

I think we can move forward in a very positive, proactive way.

And that's what I'm asking you all to do, please.

Donald, right?

Please come forward.

Um I just had a question.

Why what's up with the March 9th deadline?

Why then?

Why not in a good act of faith?

Again, I'm gonna keep going back to the case in point.

Yeah, they're not 65,000 of us in here, but I don't see anybody like standing against these guys.

Again, let me just say this as respectfully as I can.

You guys work for us.

That's that's it.

No one in here is in here saying, yay, city council.

No, we're out here supporting these guys.

And if you guys are representation of our voice, doesn't seem like that's real clear.

I mean, I'm not a professional in civics, but come on now.

I don't understand what the what the big deal is about a March 9th deadline.

I do believe that you guys have exercised.

I mean, if I'm being honest to give you guys some credit, you guys have worked with people.

You guys are allowing us to talk.

You guys are taking questions.

I know emails, phone calls, etc.

etc.

But why the rush?

I mean, I I just I don't get it.

Sure, you guys got an agenda.

Yes, Mr.

Councilman Wolf pointed out that this is maybe a distraction from other things, not our problem.

That doesn't mean that you get to scapegoat and take the easy path when you got a family like this and the public that's coming together.

That to me is very concerning.

It's disheartening because we trust you guys.

And in regards, if I can just say something in regards to the questions, some of those questions, I'm sure to you guys that you guys see this all the time.

It's probably just this is crazy.

But to a family that hasn't heard the decorum, the vernacular, they're probably trying to think to themselves, we need to answer this as full as it can because we don't know the pros and the cons, the consequences, the good, the right.

Why the hurry?

That's what I don't understand.

Um, other than that, you know, it's just I I want to believe in our governing body.

I want to believe that when you guys, ladies and gentlemen, stand up here, you guys really are representationalists.

And I'm sorry.

That it doesn't, it doesn't seem like it because you've heard an old, I mean, it's an overwhelming response in support of this.

I don't understand what the deal is.

Why is March 9th such a hang up?

Thank you again.

Appreciate it.

Welcome back.

Uh Chelsea McCord again.

Um, I am also in favor of this amendment.

Um, I think it clearly provides some much needed time as we've been expressing over the multitude of these meetings.

Um the in and of itself, the the confusion over is the question do barn cash cats need to be leashed on the property when the question was, do barn cats apply the leash law within the city, shows specifically why this sort of thing is important because there's misunderstanding, there's miscommunication between us as the everyday layman city people versus you guys as the government officials.

Um, and and I think that misunderstanding and oversimplifying some of these issues again makes it clear that having more time is necessary.

To also clarify for you, uh, councilwoman Emmons.

Um 68 questions were provided on Wednesday, or was it Tuesday?

I can't remember.

I hand Wednesday, thank you.

I handed them over myself, and on the top of the paper, it said this is an extremely rough draft that it would be worked on.

And then the 143 questions were turnaround.

Some of them are the same questions, most of them are revised versions or clarified versions of those 68 questions.

Um, so just so we're aware of what exactly that is, but those questions have not been fully answered.

Again, they're being worked on, and we certainly appreciate that.

Um, but we also don't think that all the city workers should see our issue as an emergency level situation and need to drop or postpone their other work or to go out of their way to kill themselves to be able to answer the questions for us.

We want them answered, obviously, and we appreciate them answered, but simply adding a little bit more time, whether that's in removing us through the annexation or some form of postponement allows them that time.

It allows all of us that time.

Um yeah, I just think that that in and of the fact that that there's not a clear direct answer indicates that there are some systematic problems with the annexation as it is.

So thank you.

And Chelsea, I really appreciate getting those questions on Wednesday gave us a head start.

Um, so we we were able to make quite a bit of progress uh on those, and we'll continue to work on the rest of those questions.

Anyone else, Mr.

Nicely, welcome back.

Um I would just like to say, what does it speak to us as a culture that we ignore the people in the room and we go to paint a broad strike of 65,000 people?

The great civilizations, Rome, Carthage, maybe not Carthage, Rome, uh Sumeria.

They all fail because their agriculture in some ways fails.

For Rome, their pathway to the seizures began with the Senate seizing up smaller property.

If Cheyenne is to gobble up small holdings all across it.

And what I'm saying is Cheyenne can gobble up small holdings.

That might be a good thing.

What you're for Cheyenne.

But if you do it in two months, more things are going to fall through the cracks.

This is not an emergency.

Uh, as Chelsea pointed out, this is just asking for questions to be asked.

You don't have to be playing a game of I'll just say Katan, where you're in the resource game early on.

You probably want to be playing a game of risk.

A year or maybe a two-year postponement could do a lot.

And if we are not put off of it directly, we live in a culture of committees.

A small committee that has more time to do things can do more than a large government that has a day to answer a crisis.

That is all.

David, nicely, 200 Wilter Shed.

I may be the only one in this room that's actually been to court over a cat.

The judge didn't even ask me how I pled, said it would be ridiculous to ask if I was represented by an attorney.

But I'm back to it again.

Um there's a limitation on the number of cats in the city.

Um questions are not ridiculous, and to suggest that they are is disrespectful.

Um it suggests that you're not listening.

Um, questions are honest, we're honest people.

Um, we wouldn't have submitted them if we weren't honest people.

And I would like you to apologize for implying that we're dishonest.

That was disrespectful.

David, I uncon.

David, I didn't hear that from anybody in this thing.

I think I've heard of nothing but respect both ways here tonight.

And um well, I I'd beg to differ.

The whole point of bringing up the so I it's not a rhetorical question he was asking.

Um, so um I'd like to say that I've been characterized as begging.

I'm not begging, I'm demanding that you apologize to my wife for suggesting that she was dishonest informing her questions.

That was rude, uncalled for and unnecessary.

David, you've made your point.

Thank you.

We're not going to take any more of that, okay?

We're not gonna have an argument between two people here.

I'm not arguing.

I am simply speaking, and I'm ruling you out of order.

Thank you.

We're not gonna do that tonight.

I am not out of order.

Well, I just ruled you out of order.

And I'm not accepting that.

That's fine.

You can sit down and we can just not accept it.

I don't care.

Please, sir.

Okay.

If you have if you want to talk about the motion before us right now, which is to remove items four and item seven from this agenda, I'd love to hear your comments on that.

All right, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm a in favor of the amendment.

We need time.

The lemons keep being thrown on the ground and stomped upon.

Three and a half years ago, I opened this discussion with the city, and the city would have nothing of it.

Again and again, we I asked questions.

The calls would not be returned.

I was asked, we were asked to put forward a comprehensive list of questions.

The reason why there's a hundred and forty of them is because we were asked to comprehensively list them.

The city code is huge.

The time required to do that is huge.

I asked for permission to call the city attorney's office and ask my questions.

You told me to put together a comprehensive list of questions and you would get the answers.

That's what we're doing, Mr.

Layborn.

Sir address your questions or your comments to me, please.

Okay, to Mr.

Lebourne through you.

That's what we're doing.

And and David, honestly, I did ask you to do that.

You've done it, and I've said thank you here tonight.

I to Chesley, Chelsea, thank you for getting to us Wednesday.

Thank you for the list here.

We will endeavor to do as complete of an answer as we can and get those to you as quickly as we can.

And again, to Mr.

Labourne through you, that's why there's an issue with cats.

Come on, cats, as you seem to have said.

Um that's why they're there.

Thank you, David.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else?

Okay, we're on the uh the amendment to remove items four and seven.

If there's nobody else in the audience, we'll go to the governing body.

Um Dr.

Rini.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd like um I guess I want to know from from the sponsor of the amendment.

So essentially, by removing parcels four and seven, does that mean that they are is it like a motion to divide the question that they will be dealt with separately and on their own, or is it just that they're gonna be removed and dropped off and go away and remain as county islands?

Mr.

Moody, yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

They remain as county islands for the time being, so all these questions can be answered.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Follow up, Dr.

Rennie.

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

For the sponsor, do you have any idea how long of time you would anticipate this process would take?

Mr.

Moody.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you uh to my colleague from War 2, I do not, but if from what they're saying could take up to six months to a year, we just don't know because they need to answer 143 questions, as we heard.

Mr.

Escobel.

Mr.

Mayor, I would like to divide the amendment.

That is uh appropriate at this time, so that both count uh parcel four and seven could be dealt with separately.

Is that an amendment?

Um Mr.

Ms.

Rusk, but I think that's exactly what this this does.

Um the motion before us takes number four, parcel four, and the southern part of the agricultural part of seven and removes them from the uh ordinance before us um so that we'd have to deal with them at a different time.

Then I went, Mr.

Mayor, do you I want to divide it so there's uh considered separately?

Oh, you want to you want to take the two?

Okay, I apologize.

I didn't understand your motion.

I apologize.

Is there a second to that?

Second.

Point of order.

I the motion the the motion to divide the question, I don't think is appropriate to this motion on the floor.

I think we have to dispose of this, and then I think the motion to divide would be and you know I don't have my c copy of Robert's rules of order here, but Dr.

Renee, what I think has happened is they made a motion to um remove both four and seven, and he'd like to say he'd like to talk about those individually.

So it'd be a motion so that one maybe would remove the other wouldn't.

I don't know the answer to what uh intent is, but I think that's how can you do but the mo the Mr.

Moody's amendment is to just drop four and seven completely.

So I think Mr.

Escobar might have you can't divide that part of it.

You could you can well, Mr.

Brody, do you have uh an opinion?

I I don't know why you can't divide, so you would consider seven separately from four.

Uh you my perspective, Mr.

Mayor, I I think it is divisible.

Each uh component of the motion can stand on its own.

So I think it is divisible.

Dr.

Rainey.

I think the main motion was is divisible.

I'm not sure the amendment is.

If if the motion is Mr.

So that I understand, then Mr.

Moody's amendment is that all the parcels one, two, three, five, and six, will continue forward through the annexation process.

Parcels four and seven will stop tonight.

Correct.

Okay.

So I guess.

But I don't know how.

I mean, if we're I understand how if we're in if we're entertaining all seven of them, how you can make a motion to divide out four and seven.

We we debate the one side first and then the other side second.

But essentially, Mr.

Moody's motion is that four and seven just go away.

And I would I understand the uh the motion to divide would be is we would consider four, decide if it goes away, consider seven to decide if it goes away, and then we'd be back on the main motion.

Well, if if I I don't think it's in order, but if you're gonna re rule the motion to divide the question in order, then that's a non-debatable motion.

Correct.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Uh if I could just interject, um 15146 uh speaks to um some of the limitations on annexation.

Yeah.

Correct.

Um this is sort of an interesting circumstance um that doesn't fall, you know, I think neatly within that prohibition.

Um, but it is something I think the council needs to be aware of whether or not by removing these two pieces of property, um, that's effectively going against that prohibition in 1514.

Uh thank you.

Mr.

Brody, I appreciate that.

You're right.

We can't do an annexation and leave a county pocket behind.

So either we have to annex um all of seven, or we but we can't just we can't just leave part of it.

We can't just we can't just annex part of it and leave part, right?

So four is a island of itself, but we seven would be.

Mr.

Mayor, yeah, it's an issue.

I just I want to bring to the council's attention for your consideration.

Thank you.

So for point of information, Mayor Collins.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Um for that my understanding from Councilman Moody was that his intention was only to um pull out um the southern southern western end of uh parcel seven, which is basically the fog dairy ranch, the old fog dairy ranch, and to leave the two northern pieces in the annexation.

But what city attorney Brody just said is that we would not be able to do that.

We would have to do all of seven.

Um that we would not be able to do that, which is another reason, I guess to divide this question.

Mr.

Mayor, for clarity, if we divide the question, we still have the very same issue though.

I I believe Dr.

Emmons, if that would allow us then the ability to deal with seven, we either have to annex the whole thing or none of it.

Um and four being a pocket in its own, we could deal with that separately.

If I'm understanding the motion in and the concern before you um is that fair.

Yes, Mayor, and I I I would say that the the prohibition in in 406, you know, um it's not 100% clear as all statutes love to be.

Um, you know, it's the prohibition on creating a county pocket.

Now, arguably there's a county pocket already there.

Um, but does the fact that the city chose to just let a county pocket that was created remain violate that prohibition?

Um that's something for this council to consider.

I don't I don't think the answer is clear.

I think we've always taken it uh, Mr.

Brody is you can't just annex part of a county pocket.

Either I have to annex the county pocket or you leave it.

So that's how we've always dealt with it in the past.

Okay.

Um do we have a uh second to Mr.

Escobel's motion?

Did you?

All right.

Well, now we're really getting me confused here.

So all right, we have a motion to consider um county pocket seven and county pocket four separately, and we're gonna go out to the audience because that's our rule.

Oh, you're right, it is.

Thank you again for that.

Um the motion is to divide those two.

All those in favor of dividing the two, please signify by saying aye.

I those opposed.

No hands with the nose, please.

Dr.

Rainey, Dr.

Emmons, Mr.

Wolf, Mr.

Labourne and myself, and Mr.

Seagrave.

So that motion is that motion fails.

Okay, and we're back to the motion to remove uh pockets four and seven entirely.

So that we could be talking about more than just uh wild fresh farms.

Is that possible?

Mr.

What do you have that capability this evening?

We're gonna take a five minute break and let staff find those maps, and uh we'll come back at seven thirty.

Questions, you can't get it.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna call this meeting back to order, and hopefully, we got a few things accomplished, and we had a couple minutes to relax.

And so we're on the amendment, which would removes four and seven in their entire well, actually removes four in entirety and the southern part of seven.

And we'll go to Mr.

Moody.

Uh thank you, sir.

Just a point of clarification.

So speaking with our uh city attorney, Mr.

Brody, and correct me if I'm wrong, it needs to be all or nothing for uh number seven.

So not just the southern ag property, but also the other two as well.

So that was my mistake.

And this is not an official subsuit as well.

This is just in draft form.

If I have to make an amendment to include all seven, I'm willing to do that.

Okay, Dr.

Rennie.

Well, Mr.

Mayor, that's understanding that the original um what we have in front of us is just draft form.

Um I was hoping that somehow councilman, my colleague from Ward 3 could essentially clarify exactly what the motion is before us, and then um and then I at that point, then I think I have questions for our staff, and I'd like to hear from Mr.

White when we Mr.

Booty, do you want to clarify your motion then, sir?

Uh yes, sir.

Um thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you and my colleague from uh war two.

Pretty much remove all of number four and then all of number seven after uh talking with uh Mr.

Brody.

And Dr.

Aldrich, do you agree with that?

You were yes, sir.

Okay.

All right.

Dr.

Rennie.

So, Mr.

Mayor, if you could could we have Mr.

White explain what the impact of that would be.

Connor, thank you for being here.

Mayor members council, Connor White Planning Development Department.

So basically removal of these two.

Um this would require that I need to basically amend the entire ordinance.

We'd have to amend the signed zoning ordinance, and I would have to get new maps created.

Um so I will have to contact the surveyor to get those done to so we can have exhibits for the substitute.

Um removing these parcels, this is removing them from the annexation.

That doesn't necessarily mean that we even have to go forward and annex them at a later date.

That's basically up to council's decision if we do that or not, or they'll have to annex themselves and pay annexation fees and application fees and all that.

So that's what this would do is basically remove them from this annexation completely.

Um again that's basically if this pocket goes forward, annexation goes forward, it doesn't mean we have to do another pocket annexation.

If we do another pocket annexation, that does require all new notice, all new staff reports, all new legal notice, basically going through the whole process again.

And Mr.

White, how long would it take and what would it cost to have to have a survey or redo the maps?

Mayor, through you.

This annexation for these maps was about 8,500 for the maps and their time, as well as the myLars printed at the end.

Um staff time.

I mean, it's just going through the normal annexation process.

So we'd be through another three months of getting through the process because of legal notice, uh, mailed notice plan and commission for the assigned zoning and then the full readings, three readings uh through council.

So public hearing, all that, yeah.

Yeah, so about three months for the actual annexation process.

Um, but that's after obviously I get maps and those maps get reviewed by staff.

So four months roughly.

Dr.

Rennie, follow-up.

Did that answer your question, sir?

Did thank you, Mayor.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Uh Mayor Collins, through you.

Um I'm just curious about whether we could uh whether we could add a date certain on uh amend this motion to add a date certain for annexation.

Is that Mr.

Brody, you're shaking your head no I'm thinking about it, but I I don't really see a mech excuse me, John Brody City Attorney.

I really don't see a mechanism to do that through an ordinance that isn't speaking to those parcels if they're completely removed from the ordinance.

I just think there's a bit of a disconnect.

Um Dr.

Aldridge.

Would we if we if we rejected this amendment so that we did not remove the parcels from this process?

Could we amend this ordinance then to delay with a date certain these these two parcels?

So like divide and then give them a separate date for uh annexation.

Mr.

Mayor, I I would certainly appreciate um planning's input, but from a technical perspective, I think we could create a new section in the ordinance that just applies to these two uh particular parcels, and then have a different effective date um for that particular section as far as annexation.

The the complication comes uh, I think with zoning, um, then that would kind of complicate that ordinary.

Mr.

Bro, we'd be voting to annex them at the on March 9th, they just would not become effective until a different date, right?

So it doesn't change the fact that we're voting, it just would it would just change the date that it would become effective.

It would delay the date that they come into the city, and then the zoning ordinance would have to have conforming amendments to somehow uh remote.

Mr.

White, you would I can see the the wheels turning, sir.

Mr.

Mayor through you, that may be possible.

I do know that there is a section in the ordinance that basically says annexation is a fact, is basically an effect upon approval and publication.

Um, so I guess if we did add, I mean, again, I'd have to work with the city attorney.

Um, but we may be able to add a section in there that would be spic to those those parcels.

Mr.

Bloom, you have some wisdom for us.

Mayor members of council, um, as Connor was alluding to, yes, you could change how it's effective.

You could have different sections affected at different times.

That would be something we would have to work with through the city attorney as to how that would work.

But it would still be let's say we did this on March 9th.

The the first group would all be annexed upon publication.

The second group would be a date certain later on, but would still be annexed, it just would delay the effectiveness of that.

Is that what you're saying?

Mayor members of council, that is correct.

Okay.

So, Mayor Collins, uh, with are we on comment?

Sorry.

Um, we are.

Um, with that in mind, I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment to um withdraw sections four and seven, which now we know we can't really do seven um because of the agricultural piece.

So um, without doing all of it, I would encourage you to vote no so that we would be able to go ahead and pass this annexation as it moves forward, and then we could umend it to have a date certain um one year from March 9th.

So March 9th of 2027, uh, that would give us time to do the things that have been asked for by um the individuals, a codifying the urban farm um getting all the questions answered and having them time to work towards uh that process.

And Dr.

Aldrich, are you thinking we would do that at the next committee meeting?

So we'd have some time to work through those issues?

Yes.

But I would encourage us to vote no tonight because otherwise we won't be able to, it'll be too late, right?

Mr.

Escobel.

I was just gonna say uh Mr.

Mayor, through you that was why I made the motion to divide uh, of course.

Any of you that were on the prevailing side could make the motion to reconsider.

Dr.

Emmons.

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So um I think these comments are where we're talking about.

Now I'm getting really confused.

But we're on the amendment to remove four and seven in its entirety.

So my concern with removing seven is that then we have basically neglected our responsibility to not create a county pocket because then there's gonna be a county pocket.

And while we may not be directly, I mean there was already a county pocket, so there's the potential that a court could come back and say there already was a county pocket, so it's not a big deal.

However, they could also come back and say you had the chance to correct this issue, and you just you've determined that you did not want to correct the issue.

Dr.

Emmons, the motion is to to uh remove the full the full pocket.

But I'm I'm concerned that if we take that pocket out, we have created another pocket.

No, we're we're talking about taking the the whole yellow piece, not just half of it.

Right.

I guess I don't understand the okay.

Okay.

There's a legal argument in there.

Yes, ma'am.

I think I heard it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mr.

Wolfe.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh, through you.

Um I think we should move ahead.

Uh, Mr.

Mayor, have a vote on this uh uh substitute that's in front of us.

Um decide whether it has enough support.

If it does, then we'll um address the other issues.

But I mean, my fear about this is that three months from now, six months from now, a year from now, we'll still be here.

And all of you will still be here.

And we'll all have a room full of people with green shirts on it.

Then we need to, as a council and as a staff, uh, and uh as a city attorney, we need to bring this to closure.

Uh the way to do that, it seems to me, is to defeat this motion, keep this on schedule, and then um have the committee take up uh councilwoman Aldridge's suggestion, if that has support.

Um, I'd also like to say um that we've heard from everybody who kind of has come up here who says there's nobody here speaking in favor of the annexation.

Well, that's not true, and that's not even the way this works.

The people speaking in favor of this annexation are all the people in the city of Cheyenne who have supported your signature undertaking, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council now for three and a half years.

So uh I think we in fact do have a lot of support.

Uh, and we should go move forward with our processes, defeat this motion, and then see in two weeks where we are with it and uh decide at that point.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moody.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Thank you, everybody for your public comment.

The public does not support this annexation.

They have said it over and over and over and over again.

We need to listen to our constituents.

This is why one of the reasons I ran because I was in that and I was getting frustrated, and I said, I need to take a stand.

They don't want it annexed.

I've heard no constituents from all political perspectives have said no, don't annex them.

I don't see the problem with keeping them out.

Other property owners there, they do want to be annexed.

Fine.

Four and seven have said no.

If we want our constituents to trust us, please vote aye on this.

Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

Mr.

Mayor, through you, seven has not said no.

One part of seven has said no, not all three parts.

Yes, Mr.

Leyborn.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I speak in opposition to this motion and this amendment.

Um removing this uh part this parcel that really is the point of discussion here, which is uh the farm fresh area, um, has implications for uh the other parcel, as has been expressed here.

And I do appreciate the time, Mr.

Mayor, to put the map up since I hope that clarifies some of this to some of the audience.

But terminate this process means those questions aren't going to be answered.

That we're not going to be able to clarify what an urban farm is, if there wasn't another application, if the I and I I look forward to speaking to this if we can uh defeat this amendment and then get back to the main motion because there's a lot of considerations here uh that I'd like to discuss, but I do speak against this uh for the very reason that we've gone through this process, and we're gonna we should continue and see the process through.

If at the next council meeting, there's sufficient uh votes to terminate the uh this annexation, so be it.

That would be after we've had the opportunity to thorough thoroughly review the whole situation, the specific comments, and what might happen to other properties that might want to uh maybe not do something of this magnitude, but um be able to uh operate uh in the city with uh agricultural purpose.

So I believe we should turn this down.

Thank you.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Mayor Collins through you.

Um I would encourage my colleagues to vote no, because I do believe that we can find common ground.

Um in when I spoke with um Mr.

Nicely, it the opposition wasn't necessarily to annexation at all.

It was to being able to get these questions answered, getting the urban farm definition codified, um, finding that common ground.

Um when I heard um the family the couple speak um from the I'm always confused whether it's the western side or the southern side of parcel seven, but the agricultural zone side of seven, um, they weren't necessarily opposed either if they could continue to do the things that they had planned to do with that property when they purchased it with their horses and um their business.

So I don't think we've invested a lot of time and money, and you've invested a lot of time and money coming and speaking with us about this.

I don't think it's time to throw the baby out with the bathwater yet.

I think we work on this for two more weeks or till next uh committee meeting, and we look at giving a date certain that would allow a different um enactment time for this um those two properties to give them plenty of time to be able to get the questions answered, get everything codified, and to be able to um look at how they could continue to grow their businesses um without uh wasting taxpayer money and the time and energy of staff to on all of the other parcels that we're we haven't heard from.

Um one one, two, three, five, and six.

So I wouldn't for that reason I will be a no vote on this tonight, not because I'm not supporting um the uh urban farming initiative and why fresh farm and our um constituents over at the old fog dairy, but because I believe that this process, we still have time to correct and make this work for everybody involved.

All right.

We have a motion to Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

I'm sorry, Councilman Seagrace had his hand raised.

Mr.

Seagrave, sorry you're not feeling well.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I I appreciate that.

Um I'm happy Mr.

Uh Councilman Layborn has had a chance to be heard uh when we left when you uh postponed when you stopped the meeting of it was because he asked for the maps to go up.

We've had all this conversation and we finally got around to answering his questions.

Um I am in opposition to this.

Um I I don't understand how it would benefit anyone um the nicely's or anyone else and uh anyway.

With that said, I would call a question.

Is there any of the other comments on the uh any other comments from the governing body?

All right.

We have a motion to remove four and seven in their entirety.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Those opposed.

No, no.

May see the hands in the nose.

Mr.

Seagrave, Dr.

Rainey, Dr.

Emmons, Mr.

Wolf, Mr.

Labourne, Dr.

Aldridge, and Mr.

White.

That fails.

All right, we're back on the main motion.

Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Escobel.

I would just like to say annexation really isn't a four-letter word.

It's not a bad word.

There's been a lot of successes with annexations, especially at Ward 3.

You just have to drive around and look at places that were just weeds, uh lighted properties that are now flourishing businesses.

We've created a lot of economic development and a lot of jobs in Ward 3 by annexation of uh county pockets.

Uh so uh this is different though.

Uh we have not ever dealt with a farm inside the city limits.

And uh I'm gonna continue to allow uh them to have more time to get all their questions answered and when they're comfortable with going forward, then I'll be comfortable with them going forward.

Mr.

Leyborn.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Well, this is uh very sustained and controversial annexation.

And uh I really doubt that anyone here uh on the council or the public or watching at home uh wants to hear me talk about my emotions and my feelings.

So I've got some.

But I do want to speak to the motion, Mr.

Mayor, by pointing out that the decision process that I in in my experience and mind is one that has touched on a number of issues that have been uh discussed and raised both at the at these meetings and in committee.

Um I'm absolutely appalled at the uh strangulation of uh small farms and ranches locally, nationally.

I don't think it's it's really a very destructive process that has uh done a lot of harm.

I think that uh corporate takeover of groceries and uh of these products is something that uh is very harmful, uh very, very harmful.

But I would point out that in all the other annexations that we've taken on, there have been issues and they've been worked through and has been pointed just pointed out a little bit ago that there are redevelopment, there is opportunity, and Mr.

Mayor, I think that it would be a big disservice to all the parcels that we've worked on for the past three and a half years if we found that this one situation justified uh a unique process.

Uh that process is one that uh many, many parcels have gone through.

And I I don't doubt that there are probably some other parcels, and I'm very familiar with uh these areas and this whole process going back many years who might want to uh do something not entirely dissimilar from what uh these individuals want.

I mean, there's that's not a lot of big spaces, but there is, and I want to point out that um when we get into this, um, we do allow individuals to continue their process.

So it really is critical that we follow through and continue this to the end.

Um starting over is just really not uh in the best interest of all the people that went through this process.

Many, many uh north, east, now we're out to the south.

Um they they went through this process, and I can assure you, I don't know who else is getting contacted, but I certainly am by people who are saying, hey, wait a minute.

You're gonna change the process for this particular situation.

What about the process I went through?

What about that?

There is a question of equal treatment here, and therefore I speak in favor of attempting to answer those questions to work on this, and I believe uh certainly the uh there is the question of how we would codify this in the code.

And I think I think we should try.

I I'd be glad to uh see what others could do to have an urban farm.

And it's certainly this issue's come up.

So uh I speak in favor of uh passage tonight.

I think that it only makes sense to follow through on what we've done.

And I would point out that uh, and and this basically would be in Ward One, which is my ward.

Um I listen to constituents.

I try to listen to all constituents and make a balanced opinion.

I don't listen to some constituents, and certainly I think the point that was raised here is that uh you haven't had a lot of people come down, and in fact, I don't believe there's been anybody that's come and testified that they want to see this annexation, but overwhelmingly they approved this process when they when they were annexed into the city through this effort, which will bring is bringing now and will bring benefits into the future.

So uh I urge uh the council to move ahead and continue this effort.

Dropping it now would not uh not really be beneficial in any way and would not answer the questions of how and why uh an urban farm could work in our city.

Thank you.

Mr.

White.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I I think this situation is unique in that we are talking about an actual working farm.

So that makes it different from all the other annexations that we've done over the past three and a half to four years.

I had hoped and uh earlier I supported the postponement.

Um I had hoped that we could postpone this for a period of time because to me getting some clarification of an urban, what an urban farm looks like within city limits, I think is kind of the linchpin for me.

We've never come across this before.

We don't we we don't have any type of classification for it.

I'm gonna support moving this forward tonight because I think we need to keep move, we do need to keep moving forward.

But I also think that we seriously should consider whether it be at uh public service or the next meeting of the governing body when it comes up for third reading, postponing again until our staff is able to get uh the clarification that's needed on what an urban farm looks like.

Um haven't had time to do that.

I don't think that that can be done in the next one to two months.

Um for me, that's very important.

Um, however, I will be supporting it, moving it forward tonight.

Dr.

Alderage, Mayor Collins, through you, I will be voting uh to support this tonight, but only because I'm voting to support the process and because um I'm hopeful that we're going to be able to add a date certain that would allow plenty of time to um get the questions answered to get the codification done of urban farming and to make sure that um we're doing this uh mindfully and thoughtfully.

Um, and and setting the really the precedent for future urban farms that may want to open in within our community.

I think it's uh a worthy and noble cause to have these urban farms and um obviously well utilized and supported by the community.

And I want to um make sure that we lay that foundation for future farms to come.

And the only way to have that continue to happen is to have this process continue to work forward.

So for that reason, I'll I'll be a yes vote tonight.

Um, with looking forward to being able to allow a date certain on these two properties.

All right, anybody else in the governing body?

Yes, Jennifer.

Mr.

Seacrave.

Mr.

Seagrave, welcome.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you.

Through this process, I've been pretty quiet.

I've been listening.

Um, there are unique circumstances here.

Uh, but I think it's it's circumstances we can deal with.

Um the nicely's are looking for assurances for guarantees.

We all look for those as much as we possibly can.

Business loves knowing what the rules are.

Just tell us the rules and we'll make it work.

Americans are great at that, probably better than most.

I truly believe through this process that they have more assurances.

I don't know about guarantees, but more assurances than they currently have in the county setting.

Prior to this entire process, they were a member of the county operating.

But I don't think the county is the same county as we might have known 10 or 12 or 15 years ago.

They're much they have they have building codes, they have all kinds of um entities similar to the city.

Whether the niceleys understand it or not, they are now very visible.

Do they comply with all of the county codes?

That would be a question for the commissioners.

I don't know.

I mean, I I truly don't know.

So as you walk out tonight, I I think it's interesting that through this process, uh the niceleys may have more assurances for their future than they did when this process started.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna vote to move this forward.

We still have time if something major changes.

Um I think this is a win for the community.

We've been working on these things for a long time.

And if we need to make adjustments in the next period of time, I believe we can.

Thank you.

Okay, we're on the uh ordinance on second reading.

Are there any last minute comments?

All right.

All those in favor of the ordinance on second reading, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

And those opposed, no.

No.

The uh ordinance is approved on second reading with Mr.

Escobel and Mr.

Moody voting no.

Number 11, ordinance, second reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, establishing the zoning classifications of AG, agricultural, MR, medium density residential, CB, community business, and LI, light industrial for land and next to the city of 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.

So with the annexation of uh property into the city, we have to give it a city zone.

And that's what this ordinance does.

Um, we try to look at what the underlying um zones are in the in the county, what the purpose is uh that the properties use.

Our staff goes through that, and then they recommend these uh what we call establishing of a zone.

And uh we'll go out to the audience to see if anybody has any comments on the establishment of the zones as presented.

Okay, Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the public service committee is to approve on second reading, and I would so move.

Second.

Seconded by Dr.

Aldridge.

All right, comments from members of the governing body on the zoning.

All right, hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye aye.

And those opposed, the zoning is approved on second reading.

Number 12, ordinance first reading, repealing and replacing ordinance number 4603, specifying the monthly stormwater runoff management system user fee in accordance with section 13.32.050 of the municipal code of the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and providing a revised effective date.

All right, we'll assign this item to the finance committee.

Next item is number 14 on page three resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to sign a final plat for village cooperative city of Cheyenne, Laramie County, Wyoming, located north of Prairie Avenue, east of Powder House Road, west of Ruter, and south of Story Boulevard.

All right, this item was on the uh consent agenda, but um the zoning is was on second reading today, and this plat would have been finalized.

And so it was just out of order by uh by two weeks.

So um what I'd asked the city council to do would be to postpone this for two weeks so we can catch it back up.

But I'll go out to the audience first to see if anybody wants to talk about the uh final plat for village co-ops.

I hear none.

Uh Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the public service committee is to adopt with staff recommendations, and I would so move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Wolf.

Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Rainey, Dr.

Rennie.

I would move to postpone until March 9th, 2022 meeting of the governing.

Second by Mr.

Wolf.

Second.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to a postponement about from the governing body?

All right, hearing none.

All those in favor of a two-week postponement, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

The postponement is approved.

Number 19A, professional services agreement between the city of Cheyenne and TDSI for professional design services for the repurposing of the historic pump house.

All right, we have a plan to uh um make the pump house the the home for our clean and safe program, which means we would do uh an adaptive reuse of that building.

We restore the south, the west, and the north edges are uh faces of that building, uh the roof and all of that, but the eastern side of it would have some garage doors that would allow our team to be able to put their equipment in and out of that building.

And so we'll go out to the audience and see if anybody has any comments on the professional services agreement to do to do the design work for that.

You sat through that whole meeting.

I appreciate your being here.

Thank you, Mayor.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, lift that mic.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

No.

Well, should I go to the other one?

Sure.

Please.

Testing.

Let's go to the other one.

Thanks, Ms.

Cowles.

Yeah, it was working.

I don't know.

Testing.

Much better.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

Marin Callas, uh historic Cheyenne Incorporated Vice President.

On behalf of HCI, I would like to extend my support to the efforts of Mr.

Sanchez and the Department of Recreation and Event to rehabilitate and repurpose the pump house.

Seizing upon this opportunity will solve many problems.

Number one, it will save the pump house from further talks of demolition.

To lose this vital link to our pioneer heritage would be a profound cultural loss to our community.

The many winters of abandonment has left this structure vulnerable, and the urgency to find a solution for its reuse is acute.

Number two, Mr.

Sanchez and his clean and safe team will finally have a consolidated space to store their equipment, as well as have a place to use the restroom, eat their lunch, and conduct a meeting.

This crew works very hard to keep our downtown looking beautiful, and they deserve a dignified space in which to conduct their business.

Number three, the Greenway.

Restoring integrity to the pump house will have the adjacent benefit of opening up a proper path that would finally connect bikers and walkers safely to downtown.

Currently, the Greenway Path dead ends at Ames Avenue, forcing bikers and walkers to navigate Lincoln Way in order to reach downtown.

Number four, the wetlands.

This land was developed back in 2012 for the Capitol Basin Drainage Project as a means of naturally cleaning stormwater.

It's currently fenced off.

This land has the potential to be another great outdoor space for public enjoyment within the city.

Train enthusiasts could have a park-like environment from which to view the trains, because as of right now, they are relegated to the parking lot at Benton 15th Street.

In addition, this wetlands area also just so happens to be the land upon which the original tent city of Cheyenne was born.

Proper care and maintenance of this land would be a memorial to the courage, the vision, and the character of those who founded this great city.

I cannot think of a better department to have boots on the ground on this land than the recreation and events department led by Mr.

Sanchez.

In conclusion, rehabilitating the pump house will not only provide the clean and safe team with a home base, it will help connect the greenway, help restore the wetlands, and potentially create a new park space, and most importantly, save this historic structure from continued deterioration.

There was simply no way that an external investor was going to solve this problem.

The answer to the pump house could only have come from within the city itself.

In its efforts to find a solution, the city has conducted work sessions, put it up for sale, and allowed historic preservation groups to host an open house so that the public had the opportunity to weigh in on the matter.

With overwhelming support, the public made it clear that it wants to see this building continue into the future.

The time is now.

Thanks, Mayor, for sitting through our meeting.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, Mr.

Escobille.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committee is to prove an amount not to exceed 198,903.

And I so move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

White.

I know we have a substitute.

Was somebody going to introduce that?

Yes.

Go ahead, Mr.

Wolf.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you.

Um, we do have a substitute in this matter in 19A.

Um I support this contract.

I support the work.

Um the substitute uh is just to the scope of services.

Um it arose from um I reviewed the contract and the scope of services uh and preparing for uh the uh finance committee meeting.

Um I talked to Mr Director Sanchez of I went out with Mr.

Labourne uh a week ago and took a whole set of photographs.

Um and um and then um met with um uh director Sanchez and Mr.

Labourne and uh Miss Callis and Miss Ms.

Stanfield at 7 a.m.

on Tuesday.

Uh porn or Ms.

Mayor uh then it requires a second.

I'll be happy a second.

All right, Mr.

Moody, thank you for the second.

Go ahead, Mr.

Wolf.

Uh, thank you.

Um, Mr.

Mayor again through you.

Um anyway.

Uh the upshot was that um I uh spent time basically rewriting the scope of work uh so that uh it incorporates all of the original uh uh discussion uh from the consultant's scope of work.

Um, but it adds in all the photographs so that somebody reading this wouldn't actually understand what it is we're talking about, what parts of the building we're talking about, because some parts are going to be demolished, other parts may be rehabilitated uh and reused, although they also may be replaced.

Um, and it also uh addresses uh issues that weren't in the original scope of work, uh, including uh questions of access, fencing, and landscaping.

And it also uh addresses uh issues that weren't in the original scope of work, uh, including uh questions of access, fencing, and landscaping, um, all of which I think are critical to um the future of this building, um, and all of which um I believe uh uh will be uh within the scope of work or within uh extended uh contracts the uh as a result of our relationship with the consultant.

And we should understand that that this consulting firm uh worked on this building previously uh during the um the time period when there was discussion about uh housing the chamber of commerce there.

So they're quite familiar uh with the building and the surrounding property.

And so I would ask um the uh council to approve um the uh substitute, which is dated uh on the 20th of uh 2026, February 20th, 26th.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Thank you.

We'll go out to the audience.

So this uh, as Mr.

Wolf said, um, this takes exhibit B and just add some context to the scope of work, which I think is much more um descriptive of what we're trying to accomplish.

Is there anybody in the audience want to speak to the substitute?

You can't talk to us, you resigned.

Welcome back.

It's so good to see you.

Thank you.

Very good to be here.

Millward Simpson 3102 Spruce Court.

Um it's it's pretty clear to me that this substitute is a good one, it's a positive one.

Um, it doesn't substantially um change the ultimate outcome, which uh the historic preservation community clearly supports, appreciate Councilman Wolf's uh efforts and interest and outreach.

Uh so uh speaking for myself, I support this substitute.

Really good to see you.

Thanks for being here.

Anyone else in the audience?

How about for the governing body?

Dr.

Rainey.

Mr.

Mayor, I just want to confirm that um TDSI with the change of scope of work that TDSI's had a chance to look at this and they're okay with the changes.

Mr.

Byers, thank you for being here.

Mayor City Council Randy Byers with TDSI.

Um through you, Mayor, to Dr.

Rennie's question.

Um, we were able to uh work with uh Councilman Wolf's uh comments and questions, uh, able to formulate those into the responses that you see that are appended to the original contract.

Um his questions really did serve as an opportunity to illuminate, um, not necessarily to change, but to illuminate what was going to be done.

And um, I appreciate his and and councilman Layborne's efforts.

Um we are in agreement.

Those are you see our letter appended to the back of the contract at this time.

So Randy, thanks for being here.

Follow up, Dr.

Rennie.

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, I I'll be brief on this.

Um Ms.

Callis said pretty much everything I wanted to say, and that was um I appreciate the fact that you and um Director Sanchez came up with a way to take care of their needs and save this building, and at a much lesser, I mean, we would have had to find some place for clean and safe equipment and an office for them.

And it actually, this option is a great option because it saves a building that we're all concerned about, restores it to its original status pretty much, and is actually less expensive than any other alternatives we had out there for finding a home for clean and safe.

So I just wanted to thank the both of you for coming up with such a great solution.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the governing body?

All right, we have a substitute before us.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye, those opposed.

The substitute is adopted.

We're back on the main motion.

Last minute comments.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, Mr.

Labourne.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um speaking as the council designated champion of the pump house.

Um I can't um express enough the difference that this is gonna make.

And I I appreciate what uh uh Ms.

Callis said because she talked about the entire project.

There is much more to this than just this building.

This is a key essential part of the West Edge.

It is uh that really deals with many other uh older buildings and their and their reuse.

And that's already happening, as we all know.

So uh that's uh pretty significant.

I'm really uh pleased that this is gonna be the responsibility of uh community recreations and events, which of course is the parks department, and I think that the landscaping and the and the pond and the greenway connection are in good hands with this.

So this is really a pretty special uh occasion for many of us.

And uh I think that uh with that specificity in this uh uh substitute, it really is um something that I hope the community will understand.

And I now that the fence has been removed, it's much more visible.

And when you look at the pictures here that are included, uh this is major, major historic building rehabilitation.

This is taking something that uh really many people believe should be demolished, and it's gonna turn into something that is an addition to uh the greenway to the water quality, to uh the community in that area, and I think that it's gonna lead to uh some significant redevelopment.

So um over the years, many of us have uh been frustrated and um seeing too many historic buildings go down.

Uh so this is a really big big step that makes up in at least to my in my mind for a lot of mistakes that got made.

And more than anything else, this shows that the community and the historic preservation board and the other entities that are involved here.

We need to be lead by example.

And this example that we're making here tonight is an amazing example that is gonna encourage others uh in private properties to take another look to think about it.

And I can think of uh some other projects that are happening on 15th Street and uh are going to happen on the uh corridor that are gonna benefit from this because what we're saying seeing here tonight, and of course, this is just the design.

We're gonna have to uh fund the actual construction, but we're saying that historic preservation really matters to us, and I especially look forward to the Alliance for Historic Wyoming spreading the word of what the capital city is capable of.

So uh thanks to everyone, uh thanks to uh the people that worked on the substitute.

And uh I think we're gonna pass this tonight and really really make a big difference in a way that uh is gonna be eventually quite noticeable and approved by the community at large.

Thank you, Mr.

Moody.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you, and uh yes, I will uh I am supportive of this.

Uh again, it's good also for our clean safe group to have a central location.

We'll be a lot easier in the long run.

We'll save money, especially on fuel and also uh making sure all the equipment is there in working order.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Wolf.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, thank you very much.

Uh, through you.

Um, just briefly, I wanted to thank you and your staff, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh I want to particularly thank Director Sanchez um for his work on this.

Um, and thank Mr.

Byers and TDSI and Mr.

Brody and David Hopkinson and his office who uh uh reviewed this.

And um I think it's a uh it's a good solution.

Um I would encourage anybody who's interested in this to look at this contract, uh, look at the pictures, get a real feel for it.

Uh and to uh Marin and Megan, um, thank you for all of your time and effort and coming to um early morning meeting and uh and um and then of course to Councilman Labourne who uh dragged me down there on uh Monday morning uh and um and then we we got it done.

So thank you.

Any other comments?

All right, before we vote, I just want to say, you know, we had a really long, almost like the YFresh um discussion about the um pump house a number of months ago.

And uh Director Sanchez came up to me afterwards and said, I think I've got a way to you can kill two birds with one stone, which is uh a home for his uh clean and safe department and taking care of his employees, which I really appreciate his uh thinking about his employees and making sure they're taken care of, but also you know, finding a way to save this building and to uh um coalesce around that.

And um, I know I do agree with uh our our former chairman of our historic preservation board who said, you know, uh I think it was him that we're just maybe it's mayor and said that we're just probably never gonna be able to find somebody who's gonna put four million dollars into a building worth 1.4 million dollars.

It wasn't gonna happen.

And so um I just think this is a marriage, and I really appreciate the city council uh seeing the vision of saving historic buildings and um you know, and being willing to put the resources forward to do that.

So um, if there's no other comments, we'll take a vote.

All right, all those in favor of the professional services agreement, please signify by saying aye.

I was opposed.

The uh professional service agreement is approved as amended.

Next item is 19B on page four utility easement agreement between the city of Cheyenne and Microsoft Corporation for grant of perpetual right of way and temporary easement for underground fiber lines.

All right.

Um we'll go out to the audience.

Does anybody want to talk about uh an easement with Microsoft for uh some underground fiber lines?

Hearing none, Mr.

Escobel.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committee is to approve an amount of $10.

And I so move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

White, Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Escobel.

I move to amend the amount of approval to an amount of 1,265.

Second.

Second by Mr.

White.

All right.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to them paying us more money?

It's a good thing, right?

All right.

How about from the governing body?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye, aye.

Those opposed.

The uh utility easement is approved as amended.

Next item is number 22A on page five.

Oh voucher report.

Well, missionary, do we and we vote on the full weight on the amendment, not the actual motion.

I think that might be true.

Thank you.

So we approve the substitute.

Now we're back on the main motion.

Thank you.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

No.

You said no.

Mr.

Moody is a no.

The uh the public or the utility easement is approved as amended.

Thank you for the catch.

It is getting late.

Number 22A voucher report.

Is there anybody in the audience or on the governing body that would like to speak to the vouchers?

Okay, next item, please.

22B revenue report.

Anyone in the governing body or the audience would like to speak to the revenue report.

Next item, please.

Other business.

Mr.

Hanlon, I think this is your turn.

I thought it was going to be five hours, so it was only two hours and 32 minutes.

So you got off lucky tonight.

Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I'm Ted Hanlin, uh resident of Ward 2.

And as you probably know, chair of the Laramie County Democratic Party.

Um some of the residents of Laramie County came to me last fall and told me they weren't uh particularly pleased with having flock cameras.

And to be honest, I had no idea what they were talking about.

So I went out and did some investigation.

One of the things I found in my investigation was that uh the ACLU is opposed to the flock cameras.

I'm pretty fond of the ACLU's ability to protect all of our rights, no matter what side of the political divide we're on.

And so I did some more investigation.

And that led me to create an online petition, which with your permission, I will present the petition and the signatures to you at the end of my little talk tonight.

Um I'd just like to uh read the petition into the record.

You are being tracked without robust public debate or a vote by the citizens.

The Cheyenne police department has installed flock surveillance cameras across our city, 23 in all.

I think there's actually more now.

These are not the standard white traffic cameras you see at most intersections.

They're advanced license plate readers that create a searchable database of where you go, who you visit, and when you leave your home.

This is a digital dragnet that monitors thousands of innocent Cheyenne residents every day to catch a handful of criminals.

We believe this is an overreach.

First, it's mass surveillance.

The government should not log the movements of law-abiding citizens just in case a crime happens.

Second, we have an issue with data security.

The data is stored by a private company and can be shared with agencies across the country, including federal agencies without a warrant.

And third, we're concerned with a lack of oversight.

There's no independent judicial review of who is searching this database or why.

We demand that Cheyenne remain a community of neighbors, not suspects.

We call on you, Mr.

Mayor, and the city council to number one halt the expansion of the flock safety camera network immediately.

Number two, remove existing cameras that surveil residential neighborhoods.

And number three, pass a binding city ordinance that prohibits the collection of data on innocent drivers without a warrant and bans the sharing of local data with federal agencies.

So with your permission, Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to turn this over to you.

We have at this moment, I I closed the petition tonight.

We have 779 signatures on the petition.

Thank you, Mr.

Hammond.

Thank you.

I know it's late, but if anybody has a question, I'll do my best to answer a question.

Appreciate you being here this evening.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the audience want to speak under other business.

All right, how about from the governing body?

Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Leighborne.

I know that these cameras have been a matter of community discussion lately and going back over a period of time.

But I want to emphasize that that petition is riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods.

That is absolutely not the case.

That's not true.

And the misleading of those individuals to believe that those kind of surveillance techniques that lead to the things that were mentioned there are something we support is absolutely not only incorrect, it's destructive.

And I want to particularly invite uh these individuals that signed the petition and the individual that presented this to come to our meeting next week at the public safety center, where the police department is going to be able to thoroughly explain the uses of those cameras, the history of those cameras, and the fact that they actually do the very thing that they are set up to do, which is catch people doing things like carjackings, robberies, and that there is a very specific set of circumstances that guarantee that only the Cheyenne Police Department looks at that.

So I mean, there's a just, and this was something that came up recently here at the library.

Um none of us, I'm sure.

I guess I ought to rephrase that.

I assume all of us are concerned about surveillance.

Whether it's surveillance at the Mini Mart, when we're trying to buy something or buy gas, whether it's surveillance at uh a house that you go up and ring the doorbell and they have uh a recording of who it is.

But I'll tell you what, when you don't trust and don't believe the facts of our police department, that's a big problem.

And the trust that we have to live with.

So I want to emphasize this, and Mr.

Hanlon, I hope you'll come to this meeting.

It'll be announced soon.

But next week there's going to be a meeting over in the public safety center auditorium for a full and complete explanation of what those cameras do, how they do it, and why we why we hired him and the history of them.

So this isn't just uh a vast system that follows people home.

And we've had the same problem with the uh other recent issues, you know.

When when people absolutely believe that we do the kinds of things that your petition talks about, that's extremely destructive to what we do.

It's destructive to the police department, and it's not true.

So I hope you'll uh be sure to let your petitioners know that they're gonna have an opportunity here next week to thoroughly review the actual law, the law enforcement and how it's administered, and what though what crimes those flock cameras have uh documented and solved, and who gets to see them and the kind of work that's involved in reviewing that data.

It's it's and and again, we just had a complete effort by individuals that were not bringing this issue up that were not specific to the program that we hired, that were not specific to our police department.

So I'm very confident that it'll be a good thing for us or anyone else to go to the public safety center, attend this meeting, ask your questions, get your answers, and understand what those cameras do and what their use, because it is completely and totally different than your very misleading petition.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the governing body?

Mr.

Moody.

Thank you, Ms.

Murray.

I just want to say congrats to our um athletes from the uh winter Olympics did pretty well in the metal count and also both the women's and men's hockey team, great game, and glad to see them win gold.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

That was a good day.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Mayor Collins, through you.

Um, I just wanted to um remind everyone that the last day to donate books um for the Delta Kapagama book sale, the um book sale that's been going on our on in our community for nearly 40 years now uh is March 1st.

Um, and you can drop those book donations at the uh Vandahai Beach, please at the Pickler at um the safeway on the south side of Cheyenne or Albertson's on uh North Yellowstone.

And um, so I look forward to seeing everyone at the used book sale that will raise money for uh numerous grants for nonprofit uh youth organizations and educational organizations in our community.

Mr.

Wolf.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor through you.

Um just um just want to uh announce on behalf of uh Councilman White and Councilman Leborn and myself that the uh Ward 3 uh will have our I mean Ward 3 Ward One.

I'm sorry.

Uh Ward One will have our council and coffee on March 7th, uh, which is Saturday morning at nine o'clock at the David Romero Center on Parsley Boulevard and um look forward to anybody one, two or three who would like to attend that and have an opportunity to talk with us about basically any topic.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, Mayor, yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, in that regard of these community uh events that we're talking about here, I just want to mention that recently at the uh Beast facility that we acquired as a city not too long ago, we had a really wonderful heartwarming uh packed house of individuals were there for the taco and tequila uh fundraiser for our comia shelter, and it was uh raised a lot of money.

There was a lot of volunteerism there, and it was the kind of wonderful, wonderful things that happen in our community in the effort to help unhoused individuals.

And no, it's not enough, and no, some people don't want to take advantage of it, but what I see here is a community that cares very much about everyone, including individuals who are in desperate, desperate circumstances.

So it was uh certainly uh an occasion uh for us to take a look at the positive side of what we do and how we do it, and not uh the fact that we are somehow spying on people and abusing their rights.

Um not a direct relationship there, but one that I found very persuasive.

We care, we work, and we try to do the best, and that was one example of that.

And I was certainly uh applaud the fact that we acquired the beast for this type of a facility that we uh supported uh comillo with the addition of the stagecoach motel and work towards that and the grant processes.

So um, I guess it's just my personal uh feelings and beliefs that uh there's an awful lot of good things and a lot of good people in this community, and we represent them imperfectly, certainly, but sincerely.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, I just wanted to share with the community that today a young woman in Rock Springs at Central Wyoming College, uh honor student, um student uh on the student body.

Very beautiful young woman, um, took her own life in uh Rock Springs, used a handgun and took her own life.

And I just want to remind everyone that if they are considering suicide or need any kind of crisis help, they can call the suicide hotline at 988.

Um, and hopefully we can save one person.

Thanks for that message.

Anyone else on the governing body?

Ms.

Labourne, do you have a motion for us?

Yes, I do, Mr.

Mayor.

You were hoping the night was done, but we have one more thing to do.

That's okay.

Send it out.

Mr.

Mayor, pursuant to Wyoming.

Thank you so much.

Uh for sure.

I thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, pursuant to Wyoming statute 164405A.

I move that the governing body meeting executive session to consider or receive any information classified as confidential by law.

Second.

It's been moved by Mr.

Labourne, seconded by was that Mr.

Moody?

By Mr.

Moody.

Uh, all those in favor of going to executive session, please signify by saying aye.

All right.

Aye.

Those opposed.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to move into executive session.

When we come out, we're just going to adjourn.

No other business of the governing body will happen.

And we thank you for being here this evening.

At this time, we'll ask you to leave so we can uh uh move into an executive session.