Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I would like to call the April 27th meeting of the governing body to order and ask the clerk to take the roll.

Mr.

Eschabel.

Here.

Mr.

Layborn.

Here.

Mr.

Moody.

Here.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Seagrave?

Present.

Mr.

White.

Present.

Mr.

Wolf.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Present.

Mayor Collins?

Present.

Dr.

Emmons.

Present.

One member is absent.

We do have a quorum.

Would you all join me, please, in the Pledge of Allegiance?

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.

Lyborn.

Number 15.

That's our six penny sales tax.

Concur.

Concur.

Okay.

15 has been removed.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Number 29A.

That's the purchase of the land for the Greenway.

Concur.

Any other items?

Mr.

Mayor?

Mr.

Laborne.

And number 29D.

That's an FTA grant for our transit facility.

Yep.

Concur.

Concur.

Anybody else on the governing body?

All right.

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.

Move to approve.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion to approve the consent agenda with items 15, 29A, and 29D removed.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The consent agenda is approved.

Number six ordinance, third reading, amending section 13.20.050.

General Prohibitions in Section 13.20.070.

Local limits of Chapter 13.20, wastewater treatment and disposal of the Code of the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming to revise local discharge limits and related provisions in compliance with MPDES and WPDES permit requirements.

All right.

We'll go out to the audience.

Is anybody interested in talking about our wastewater treatment and disposal codes?

Looks like you're off the hook, Matt.

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.

Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

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

And I so move.

Second.

Seconded by Dr.

Aldridge.

Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend by substitute dated April 7th, 2026.

Second.

Seconded by Dr.

Aldridge.

And I understand it all it does is just changes some of the percentages and corrects the percentages so we can uh have the right numbers in there.

Anybody in the audience want to talk about that?

Substitute.

How about from the governing body?

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

Aye.

Those opposed.

All right.

The amendment or substitute is adopted.

We're back on the main motion.

Mr.

Mayor.

Dr.

Emmons.

I move to postpone until the May 11th, 2026 meeting of the governing body.

Second.

Seconded by Dr.

Aldrich.

And that postponement is so that we can catch up with the 30-day comment period from the EPA.

Sometimes we'll just do these and hold them until it's done, but we decided to wait on this one.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to the postponement?

On the governing body.

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

All right.

This ordinance is a postponed until May 11th.

Number 7 ordinance, third reading, amending Section 2.76.040, designation of downtown development district of Chapter 2.76, Downtown Development Authority of Title II, Administration and Personnel of the Municipal Code of the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming, to expand the downtown development district.

All right.

Is there anybody in the audience here today that would like to speak to the expansion of our DDA district?

Hearing none, Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the Public Service Committee is to approve on third and final reading, and I so move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

White.

Comments from members of the governing body on the expansion.

Hearing none, Madam Clerk, would you take the vote?

Dr.

Emmons.

Aye.

Mr.

Eske Bell.

Aye.

Mr.

Layborn.

Aye.

Mr.

Moody.

Aye.

Dr.

Rennie.

There you go.

Mr.

Seagrave?

Yes.

Mr.

White?

Yes.

Mr.

Wolf.

Aye.

Dr.

Aldrich?

Yes.

Mayor Collins.

Yes.

The ordinance is approved on third and final reading.

Number eight ordinance, third reading appropriating money for the Reed Avenue Corridor Project.

All right.

Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak about the City Council's intention to appropriate $5 million for the Reed Avenue Corridor project if and when the railroad gives us permission?

Jim, welcome.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Council members for the record.

My name is Jim Walter.

I serve as the President and CEO of Visit Cheyenne, our community's destination marketing organization.

I also currently chair the Greenway Advisory Committee and I'm a Ward 3 resident.

I am here tonight in support of moving the Reed Avenue Corridor Project forward.

From my perspective, there's three reasons to consider a yes vote.

First, this is the kind of project we should find a way to fund.

It's destination defining.

I commend Council for finding a path forward without placing an additional burden on taxpayers.

If there's a path to an advanced and important piece of city infrastructure forward without going back to residents for more, that's worth serious consideration.

Secondly, this project aligns with the Cheyenne Tourism Master Plan.

On page 12, the plan specifically calls out the Reed Avenue Corridor as part of developing the West Edge of Downtown.

That same section also highlights improving downtown infrastructure and appearance as a priority because those investments shape how residents and visitors experience Cheyenne.

Third, a stronger and more vibrant downtown attracts continued private investment.

We have seen a lot of private investment on the West Edge already.

Public infrastructure is often what gives the private sector the confidence to move forward.

When we improve access, appearance, and connectivity, we create conditions for more retail, lodging, dining, housing, and other business development here.

At Visit Cheyenne, we believe downtown matters because it is one of the clearest expressions of our community to visitors and residents alike.

Reed Avenue is not just a corridor project, it's a signal about where Cheyenne is heading.

Thank you for your consideration.

Well said, Jim.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Mr.

Escobel.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the Finance Committee is to approve on third and final reading.

And I so move.

Second.

And seconded by Mr.

White.

Comments from members of the governing body on the ordinance.

Mr.

Layborn.

Mr.

Mayor, I think that uh what uh the visit Cheyenne just said pretty much covered it, but I want to emphasize this is following through on a long plan and a project that was on the ballot some years ago.

We're now going to fund it, and I think that's very important.

And hopefully it will be part of the discussion of the sixth penny because this is uh the the follow-up to that project.

So I think we are ready to uh move on it, and I expect the railroad to finally approve and we can actually support the businesses that have invested.

Thank you.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Mayor Collins through you.

I know there's been a lot of conversation about whether we should take five million dollars from our General Reserve to fund this uh Reed Avenue corridor project.

I am going to be a yes vote tonight, and the reason for that is because this is a a project that was started prior to my uh term on uh council five years ago.

And there was a commitment, I believe, that the voters of Cheyenne voted to support this project on that six penny ballot.

And the money, I think just didn't go far enough, quite honestly.

Um there were some missteps, definitely some things that we could have done better, probably as a city government.

Um but I think that over time the expense has also increased dramatically with uh increased pricing and um materials and things.

I think that there's also been a lot of footwork that's been done and a lot of foundational work that's been laid with the um BNSF road railroad in order to get this far.

And the reason I'll be voting to support this tonight is because this is contingent upon in a uh an approved plan by the BNSF route railroad.

If they don't approve the plan and give the final okay, this money will not be spent from the General Reserves.

So for that reason, I will be a yes vote tonight, but I wanted to make sure that people understood that this is a project that was started early on, and that we have a commitment, I believe, to finish a project that voters voted on and expected us to continue uh through completion.

Anyone else on the governing body?

Mr.

Mayor, Dr.

Rennie.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Mayor, I um I agree with my colleagues and I agree with uh Mr.

Walters said.

Um we did approach the voters with the vision for Reed Avenue corridor, and it was approved on the six penny in 2017.

And when we did it, we realized we knew at the time that it would give us a start, it would give us a plan, it would not get us to completion.

And we also knew at some point we would have to come back and spend more money on it.

How if we were going to complete it.

However, um we have a couple of big asks coming up to the to the voters in the next few months.

Um I the reason I don't like this in ordinance form, it means it's law, it means it's if it's passed, it means Dr.

Rennie, I think we lost you.

Can you hear us?

Dr.

Annie?

All right, we'll move on.

Anyone else in the governing body?

All right, hearing none, Madam Clerk, would you take the vote?

Mayor Collins.

Yes.

Dr.

Emmons.

Aye.

Mr.

Escobel.

Aye.

Mr.

Layborn.

Aye.

Mr.

Moody?

No.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Seagrave?

Yes.

Mr.

White?

Yes.

Mr.

Wolf?

Yes.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Yes.

All right.

This ordinance is approved on third and final reading with Mr.

Moody voting no, and we lost Dr.

Rennie.

Number nine, ordinance, second reading, amending the official zoning map of the City of Cheyenne, change changing the zoning classification for land located south of I-80, east of Southwest Drive from County LI Light Industrial, AG Agricultural, and AR agricultural residential to LI Light Industrial.

All right.

Is there anybody here in the audience today that would like to speak to the zone change before us?

Hearing none, Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

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

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Wolfe.

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

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

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

This ordinance is approved on second reading.

Number 10 ordinance, second reading, pursuant to Section 2.2.2 Planned Development, Regulating Plan, or Development Master Plan, and Section 5.6.2 PUD Planned Unit Development District of the U Unified Development Code.

Amending ordinance number 4524 by modifying certain standards of the adopted district planning unit development PUD for sweet grass, located southeast of the intersection of College Drive and Avenue C.

All right.

We'll go out to the audience.

Is anybody here today to speak to the change to this plan unit development?

Mr.

Palmer, welcome.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, members of council, Casey Palma, Palma Land Planning Agent for the owner.

So I what you have before you tonight is a PUD amendment as written in the PUD.

Any change to any major change to the regulations requires governing body approval as the governing body was the original body of the plan unit development zoning.

This amendment would allow for sort of a sharing of the originally anticipated park area.

So the total park requirement is about 67 acres.

And the city would like to develop about 45 of that as a private park.

And so that remainder of the originally proposed parcel uh would then be able to, with this amendment, be developed for privately for private purposes, uh potentially with uh indoor field house, playgrounds, trails, that kind of thing.

This PUD does this actually increases the total amount of open space and park required because this would not erase the other 22 that that was required with the original proposal.

So there would be uh sort of a reserved area for future park uh with this amendment.

And so we we've, as everybody knows, you know, wanted to develop that park for a long time.

Um so this this would be a way for the the city and and sweetgrass to to start to move forward on getting that park development to happen.

Um the commercial area has been a little slow in developing.

There's a lot of residents out there, and we'd like to go ahead and get get started on developing that park for them uh hand in hand with the city.

I have had conversations with the parks department about how to move that forward over the next year.

Um and so this this amendment allows that to happen.

Uh the only other thing in here um that was kind of a bookkeeping type of item is this would allow for zone changes to happen within the PUD.

So the PUD is laid out just like the city of Cheyenne with different zone districts, low density, high density commercial, that type of thing.

Uh this amendment also includes a provision that would allow for a landowner within the PUD to petition the committee to change the zone of their ownership, you know, whether it was originally supposed to be a commercial and then it wants to go to residential or high density to low density residential or vice versa.

Uh this would be the just basically enable the regular zone change process within the city for any land within the PUD to change to any other zoning within the PUD.

Be happy to address any questions you might have.

Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

Mr.

Moody.

Thank you, sir.

Um I'm assuming that the HOA of sweetgrass is okay with this.

They had a meeting, they contacted all their residents and they're peripherally okay with this.

Uh I can't speak to whether the HOA had a meeting yet on this item.

Uh we did notify every landowner within the PUD and every landowner within 300 feet.

I fielded about a dozen calls probably.

Umbody had any opposition that I heard, and I I don't believe staff has had any opposition once once the amendment was explained as to what was going on here.

All right, thank you.

I have no further questions.

Anybody else in the governing body for the staff?

Dr.

Aldridge.

Eric Collins through you.

Um thank you, Mr.

Palmer, for the email that you sent.

Um I have two concerns.

One is the ability for the landowner to be able to do a zone change.

Um do you anticipate from the way that I read the proposed um ordinance change, it would basically preempt, if you will, um conversation with the um folks that it would be impacted by those zone changes because it allows the owner to do that um without the normal process.

Is that um how you're perceiving that as well?

Is that the owner would then be able to do those much more quickly and efficiently?

So, Mr.

Palm, is this an administrative thing the owner gets to do?

Um, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Uh I I apologize.

I may have abbreviated it a little bit in in the effort of time.

Uh so within the PUD is a planned unit development, and so what this would do is allow any landowner, there is a committee, a review committee uh to make sure that the development is is proceeding as planned.

Uh so this would allow those landowners to petition the committee uh to to make a zone change and then it would go through the regular city zone change process just like you hear any other zone change as long as the committee was in favor.

And additionally, it's it's more restrictive than the city zone change process because uh you can only change up to 25 percent of a parcel.

So say you owned a big you know multifamily parcel and you wanted to rezone part of it.

Uh if that was more than 25 percent, then it would it would turn into a major amendment.

Thank you.

And one additional question, Mayor.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Uh, Mayor Collins for you.

My last question is simply about the uh proposed division of the park property.

Um I know in your email that you had said you had talked with um our uh community rec and events director, and that uh really our limitation would be about 45 um acres.

Isn't that right?

Um that we could suitably maintain and manage as as a city entity.

Um that there was um you just mentioned an indoor practice facility that was being considered for some of the other acreage to bring that up to that uh total of 60 plus acres.

Would that my concern is that that indoor practice facility would not necessarily be a public facility.

Um is that correct in my understanding?

Um That is correct.

I believe they've had some conversations.

Um I'm not uh they're not my client.

I haven't had been party to all of those conversations, but I know they have had some conversations with the city uh parks department and and other departments about you know making some arrangements similar to maybe how the Beast used to be.

Um I I can't speak to sort of that their whole uh plan.

I think we would be excited to see something there.

I've talked to them about um providing some sort of you know, either either discounted rates or certain hours available to residents of sweetgrass, um, but it would not be a public facility, uh, which is part of why you know we we've said we don't want to reduce the total requirement.

So even if this part this does come in there, um I think our preference would be to then provide future open space elsewhere in the PUD that would be potentially a public park.

So there's no intent that the PD uh on the whole is about 40 percent planned open space.

Um and so we intend to continue with that.

Um this is not an attempt to re reduce any required open space just to set aside a specific acreage that would be developable and maintainable by the city.

Thank you.

Dr.

Alders, I can maybe uh add a little bit to that.

They came and asked if if the city would have any um trepidation with reducing the amount of land for the uh the park.

And so I went and spoke with our parks director or our CRE director, and they said, you know, uh I think it is a holiday park size park is around 45 acres, and that's really what they are targeting for that area.

That's what they would like to have.

So the area um was bigger than what they needed.

There is a community group, um local people and guys like John Godina and other folks who are trying to build an indoor uh turf facility, some gymnasiums and things like that.

There's a very large um club environment now for volleyball and basketball, soccer, and they're trying to find a venue to help those clubs have a place where they can practice and play their games.

And so that's what they would like to do with with that land.

The owner is actually um uh willing to um she talked about giving them that land to be able to make that happen or selling it to him in a very reduced process to try to bring an amenity like that to the community.

And so that's how the uh the conversation came.

But in order to be able to do that, it had to come back to this governing body for approval, and that's where we're at today.

If that helps.

Anyone else for the developer?

Casey, thanks for being here.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the audience?

Who does?

Jennifer.

Is it Dr.

Rennie?

Uh Mr.

Miller, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Um sorry, give me just a second here.

Um this is the uh Mayor, Mayor Collins, members of the governing body for the record, um, Charles Miller.

My testimony tonight is strictly confined to the legal and procedural um sufficiency of the sweetgrass PUD amendment currently on the floor for its third and final reading.

I am formally entering the systemic audit into the administrative record prior to your vote.

The telemetry of this ordinance reveals an unmitigated structural defect.

The applicant is requesting exceptions to the unified development code specifically regarding block dimensions, density constraints, and phasing.

However, cross-referencing this with the city's master plan exposes a direct contradiction.

The current traffic and utility routing funnels unacceptable loads onto Sweetgrass Drive and College Drive, and the developer has not secured or funded the required secondary arterial connections to mitigate this.

Approving these UDC exceptions under these conditions constitutes a systemic arbitrage.

It privatizes the revenue of the subdivision while socializing the cost of the traffic and utility mitigation onto the Cheyenne taxpayer.

Because this is a third reading advancing this plat legally anchors the city to a defective fiscal model.

I am placing a constructive notice on the record tonight that this infrastructure deficit has been identified.

I formally request the council neutralize this advancement and vote no until the infrastructure costs are fully internalized by the applicant.

Thank you.

Mr.

Miller, two things.

One is it's on second reading, not third reading.

And the second thing is all we're asking to do is to change the uh the zoning to allow for uh this to be split.

We have not approved any sort of development yet, but that would have to go through our regular process, which would include uh traffic studies and all of those types of things.

So you're just a little pr premature, sir.

Anyone else in the audience?

Anybody else?

All right, hearing none.

Uh Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

Mayor, the motion to approve failed at the public service committee.

Therefore, there is no recommendation.

However, for the sake of discussion, I move to approve on second reading.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Seagrave.

Okay.

Any comments from members of the governing body on the uh change to the PUD.

Dr.

Emma, did you have a comment?

Dr.

Aldrich?

Mayor Collins.

Through you.

I am I'm really torn, quite honestly, on this because I see the benefit to the city of having only a 45-acre park to care for.

My concern is that 60 plus acres was set aside and that we would be using that access beyond the 45 acres for um basically a private venture, whether it be for a club use or community use or not, but it doesn't give people the same access as what a public park would have had that entire 60 plus acres been converted into a park.

I am going to go ahead and vote for this this evening because I believe that our community reckon events team is stretched thin with maintenance and upkeep of parks, as well as there's a big need for more floor space or gym space in our current climate and environment.

I know that plan will be coming back before us, and at that point we can have a conversation about access for the general public.

Anyone else in the governing body?

All right, hearing none, we're on second reading.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

And those opposed.

This ordinance is approved on second reading.

Number 11 ordinance, second reading annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, land west around Top Road and adjacent to Happy Jack Road.

All right.

This is an owner initiated annexation, and uh we'll go out to the audience.

Uh it looks like we have a lot of people here again today.

Um I do know that uh there has been a uh well I'll just let the people talk.

So um would you push the button, Cindy, and introduce yourself?

Certainly.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

My name is Cindy DeLancey.

I'm a partner with the law firm of Holland and Heart.

I'm here tonight with my client, Tom Glismeyer and Jack O'Neill on behalf of VOS.

On April 24th, Mr.

Mayor, um, I respectfully requested a postponement on the um uh second reading for the ordinance currently um before you this evening with the hope of maybe having um opportunity to work with my clients and some of the interested parties as outlined in the um letter to allow for more time to develop some of the conversations that built upon the discussion uh in the committee.

And so with that, Mr.

Mayor, um that is the request that we hit the pause button in a way that is appropriate under your rules as well as um at the desire of the governing body, however you may choose thank you.

Thank you.

Did one of your clients want to speak please, sir, identify yourself for the record?

Tom Glismeyer, via West Group.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

We uh appreciate the consideration to pause.

We uh believe and see it's very obvious that Cheyenne is a very close-knit community and we take that very seriously and want to respect and respectfully have the discussions unfold in an appropriate timeline.

Thank you.

Jennifer.

Mr.

Mayor, I do have um Director Bloom with his hand raised.

Mr.

Bloom.

Mayor, members of council, Charles Bloom, Planning and Development Director.

Um I just want to note that I've had some conversations with the applicant regarding this postponement.

And there have been some conversations with folks that have been um thinking it or thinking it may be appropriate to postpone this to uh period of time this fall.

Um if you all do see any type of postponement on this item, I would recommend that you all seek the first regular meeting in June.

I believe that is June 8th.

Um this could allow the applicant to forge forward with a plan to address some of the items that were identified at the public hearing.

Um if those items still need further addressing at that June meeting, we could consider postponing it even further.

In addition, there is a companion item that is also on this agenda.

That it would allow for this item and that item to be discussed side by side as a land use five amendment.

I'm open for any questions that you may have, and I do know the other staff is there as well that can definitely handle the questions too.

Thank you.

Thank you, Charles.

Ms.

Woodhouse, welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Gay Woodhouse for Cox Ranches LLC, which is Mark T.

Cox IV and Beverly Cox Black.

We've been here before to discuss the problems with the mausoleum being on this property and needing to preserve that, not only to preserve it in situ, but also the access to it.

Uh we have very uh received some very positive responses from the developer and plan to have a meeting here later this week.

And quite honestly, what we need it is something in place that will protect that mausoleum, and it can't be done by June 9th or I mean, we need some time.

There need to be some surveys done.

There needs to be some other parties involved with what we need in order to preserve that mausoleum and to keep it as it is to allow other members of the family to use it if they desire, and certainly to access it over the in perpetuity.

So honestly, we we would like something in August.

We it's gonna take a while, and we don't want to be rushed.

We don't want to be in a position where we're having to not have all our T's crossed and I's dotted.

Sounds good.

I'm happy to hear that progress is being made.

Yeah.

Ms.

Woodhouse.

There's a question from Mr.

Moody.

Yep.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Marathon.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Woodhouse.

Juan asks, is there anything in the will or any wills that say this property can't be developed and it must be maintained this way?

Because I know that happens some mausoleums and uh final wishes.

Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Mayor, through you, uh Councilman Mooney, there was nothing like that.

No.

All right, thank you.

If I might one of the questions, please.

Part of the issue that's arisen here has to do with the fact that when Elizabeth Cox uh was living on the property, her son William S.

Cox, who's also buried in a casket in the mausoleum, uh, convinced her to convey this particular property that has the mausoleum on it at the time during her life.

So that of course she would have assumed that nothing would ever happen to it in terms of not having access to it or not being kept in the proper condition and so forth.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

I don't know who to give this to.

What is it?

It's just my statement and some supporting documents.

If you could give it to our clerk here.

Good evening.

My name is Heather Madrid.

I'm a resident of Harmony Meadows.

I'm here in opposition to the Cox Ranch Ranch annexation.

During the public services committee meeting on April 20th, several facts about this particular parcel were presented that should make this proposal a non-starter with no need to postpone.

There are likely endangered plant species on this property along with bald eagle and raptor nests, which are federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

These laws make it illegal to disturb nests, interfere with eggs and feeding or raising young.

There's also surface low surface flow from Crow Creek on this parcel, which is an integral part of Cheyenne's water supply, including our drinking water.

Even when it appears to be dry, there is still water moving below the surface that helps recharge the local aquifers.

Adding a data center there will reduce recharge and increase pollutant loading.

The impact of disrupting this fragile system will extend beyond this property, weakening the property rights argument.

With all due respect to the Florida-based property owner, the Colorado-based developers and the Texas-based operators, Wyoming water rights are health, quality of life, cost of living, and the long-term livability of our community must come before opportunistic get-rich schemes.

Another concern is that this proposal follows a recurring pattern of secrecy that prioritizes the interest of the joint powers board, Cheyenne Leeds, and their dual overlapping and private members over the public's right to transparent governance.

When representatives from Meta, Microsoft, Crusoe-related digital and tall grass pay for seats on the Board of Leads, which according to their own bylaws guarantees influence on private economic development decisions, the public loses its voice.

When leads is paid by the city as the official contracted economic developer while also acting as the private landowner and managing the sites they recommend for development, meaning they stand to profit or otherwise benefit from their recommendations, an inherent conflict is created.

When the mayor and county commissioners serve on these same boards and are involved in the same private decisions, then participate in related public votes.

It raises serious questions about objectivity.

This council had the opportunity to fix this in 2023, but chose not to by voting down an ethics ordinance requiring disclosure and recusals in such situations.

Cheyenne deserves an economic development model where our elected officials make decisions in the open, not behind the closed doors of a private nonprofit boardroom where code names like Project Cosmo are created, non-disclosure agreements are signed, and shell companies like GOAT Systems LLC are developed to hide in obscure details from the public while projects are fast-tracked on land owned by leads.

The public services committee rightfully voted against this annexation, partly because of the impact on our water supply, and partly because the data center component was withheld from the public.

I urge you to follow that recommendation and vote no, not only on this annexation, but all future annexations and rezonings for the purpose of data centers or business parks until robust ethics and disclosure standards are in place.

Our elected officials elected officials should not be serving two masters.

Thank you.

Folks, I'm gonna ask you not to do that, okay, please.

We're uh I appreciate you guys love what she said, but uh uh please public input.

Great.

Come right up here and have that conversation.

Uh sir, did you want to come?

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening.

Thanks for having me, Jordan, community member.

I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed annex.

We keep hearing that this will benefit the neighbors and the broader community, but the biggest issue many residents have tonight isn't just the project itself, it's trust.

A lot of residents no longer believe their input actually changes anything.

People show up, they send emails, they speak during public comment, and then decisions move forward exactly the way they seem to be planned from the beginning.

Now comments on social media have even been disabled.

When that happens over and over again, public participation starts to feel less like it matters and more like a box that just needs to be checked.

Now we're told that the annexation will help the area by bringing city fire and police services, but that claim raises another question about capacity.

The city has struggled even to address issues like compensation for the firefighters who already serve this community.

If supporting the people who are currently protecting the city has been difficult, it's reasonable for the residents to question how expanding the city's responsibilities will work in practice.

At the same time, we've seen the county sheriff's office picking up more of the workload created by the recent annexations.

They've stepped in to help cover the gaps, and they're doing that without the receiving additional benefits or resources from the city for that effort.

So when the city says annexation will improve services, many residents understandably want to know how.

That promise will be fulfilled when the existing system is already under strain.

Leadership requires more than announcing projects and asking the public to trust the outcome.

It requires transparency, honesty about impacts and willingness to listen when the community raises legitimate concerns.

Tonight you have the opportunity to show the residents that their voices matter before decisions are finalized, not after.

Thank you.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

Connor Nicholas at Bud Fallon Law's I represent the landowner who's uh petition for this annexation.

I just wanted to give a little bit of a background of of who the landowner is and you know what the purpose of of what we're trying to do is.

Um the landowner is the is the trust, um, William S.

Cox Trust and the intent and purpose for this for this foundation uh for this uh purpose for the uh selling the land and and to be able to um develop the land is to fund a foundation.

Um the foundation is the Cox Family Foundation.

It is a foundation that's intended to support local issues here in in Wyoming, um including FFA and and agricultural related issues.

Along those lines, that foundation um did uh support uh Chinaists uh efforts in bringing kids to the FFA national championship in Indianapolis this last year.

And we do several things along those lines.

In order to be able to develop this land, it that allows us to be able to fund that foundation, and it's it's really trying to bring good things here to the community.

So I I am happy to talk more about some of that intent, um, but I also am available for questions.

Thank you.

Dr.

Alders.

Mayor Collins through you.

I'm just interested, Mr.

Nicholas, in the um you said the Cox Family Foundation.

And I think there's been a lot of um confusion because the my understanding is the owner of the tr the that's of the land is his last name is Cox also, but he's not related to the Cox that were the original Cox family.

So is this Cox Foundation, family foundation held in trust by Mr.

Cox that lives in Florida or Mr.

Cox and Mrs.

Um Black that live here in Cheyenne?

I'm just not really sure which Cox family we're talking about.

Mr.

Nichols, can you answer that question for us, please?

Yes, uh through you, Mayor.

Um the way that that works is that yes, it's it the trustee is Mr.

Joe Cox in Florida.

However, this is due to a trust that was created for Mr.

William Cox, and this was his last wishes that are created through that trust.

And so by um Mr.

William Cox uh uh his dying wishes was to create a foundation.

And that foundation is what is being perpetuated through Mr.

Joe Cox.

And it's running the things that that Mr.

William Cox requested in his estate.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Mr.

Moody.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor Through.

Uh thank you, sir.

So I'm just trying to understand it.

So you're saying selling this land is to benefit the Cox Foundation, is that what you are saying?

It is to fund the count the Cox Foundation in order to uh enact its its goals, which among other things, is to support local communities and to support the FFA and local issues that way.

Follow Mr.

Mayor?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I think for that answer.

I guess I'm just curious if that's the case, then why wouldn't it be sold, say, to an agriculture base uh company or to a government entity to keep it preserved?

Mr.

Nichols.

I think a few things that comes out of that is um as a landowner, they're trying to develop the land the best they they see fit for the uses that are in the area, and to be able to fund that foundation the best way they can.

And so we were given mo many different opportunities and and options as to how we wanted to develop this land.

And I guess the the the long and short of it is this is an opportunity that the foundation saw as as a benefit here that allows them to fund the goals that they have.

And so that's really the long and short of it.

Um yes, there's there's the goal of of founding uh of funding agricultural advocacy and things like that.

Um and part of funding agricultural advocacy is to be able to allow for um raising up the next generation and ag and teaching them things as well.

And so this is the best way for us to be able to fund it, at least at this current time and in place, and and that's really the goal here.

Thank you.

I have no further questions.

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

And I don't know.

I'm hoping this is an appropriate question.

Um so is the foundation a 501c3 charitable corporation?

It I believe it is.

Um the the trustee is the one establishing the foundation, and um part of what we need is to be able to fund it.

And and so they're working through those that that as we speak.

So the corporate I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Mayor, um, so is the corporation papers currently filed, or are they in the works of being developed?

They're in the works of being developed for my understanding.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Wolf.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you through you.

Um Mr.

Nicholas.

Um who is the counterparty on this land transaction?

That that'd be via West.

Via West, okay.

And so they are the data center developer, is that right?

That's correct.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh I brought a couple of follow-up questions.

Um I take it because your uh found your your client is uh the applicant in this case that you haven't reached a firm and final agreement uh with via West to transfer this property, is that right?

Mr.

Nichols?

Through you, Mayor.

We we have entered into a purchase sale agreement, um, and that's that's it.

It hasn't closed, yes.

Okay.

And and and uh one thing I just want to say first is I have to be careful um because there is a confidentiality statement that um you know that we are bound by.

So I need to be careful that to not breach that.

So um some of these I may have to defer to to via West to answer just so I don't break that side of the of the agreement.

Well, and and uh Mr.

Mayor, um through you, thank you.

Um I I certainly wouldn't ask you to do that uh uh Mr.

Nicholas, but um I guess is it fair to assume that this agreement uh between uh your client and via West is uh contingent upon the annexation being approved by the governing body?

That could be one of multiple multiple items, yes.

Um in your discussions um with via West, did you ever uh uh consider with them that uh they would be a co-applicant with you on the uh application for annexation?

Yeah, we were open to whatever whatever made sense, and so we we applied as was recommended by our by both parties as to how we wanted to do this.

So we we have not really had any kind of you know requirement that we had to be a co-applicant or or the sole applicant or anything like that.

We were playing as as partners on that side.

Mr.

Wolfe, I'm not sure they can.

I think the application has to be signed by the owners of the pro at least 50 percent of the owners.

And that was our understanding of the yeah.

1514, I think it has to be signed by the owners of the property, and if you're not an owner, I don't think you can sign the application.

And that was my understanding as well, Mayor.

I apologize for for interrupting.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, just another follow-up.

I'm uh Mr.

Nicholas, are you aware of the fact that the first time we, the council learned about Via West and Skybox was a week ago Monday?

I I wasn't aware.

Um we were, you know, we we entered into the contract and we did not want to to step in on toes we were involved with um with our parties.

Uh and and um Mr.

Nicholas um mayor a follow-up on this.

How long have you been in discussions with the planning department about this proposed annexation?

I wouldn't have to defer to to Via West on on that.

So you personally haven't had any discussions with the planning department.

No, not beyond um anything that was requested of us, but but these have been done through via West.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Nicholas.

Anybody else?

Mr.

Nicholas, thanks for being here.

Thank you.

Sir, please.

Mr.

Mayor, Council Rick Kessler, Rolling Hills Estates.

Um recently the council president talking about data centers was quoted as saying historically these developments have occurred in a business park environment, which is somewhat isolated from daily activities.

Well, that statement is absolutely correct.

And it's it's it's exactly why this proposal is so deeply out of place.

The property being considered for annexation is not a business park.

It's not a vacant lot waiting for development.

It's a ranch.

It's part of the historic Wyoming Angus Ranch established around 1896.

It sits among other long-standing ranches, the King Ranch, the Shellback Ranch, and the Polar Ranch.

These lands are woven into history and the identity of this community.

The proposal before you does not comply with State statute.

It offers no clear benefit to the health or welfare of the neighbors who will be most directly affected.

It does not constitute a natural geographical, economical or social part of the city.

And it's not a logical or feasible addition to Cheyenne.

And in addition, the City Planning Department apparently hasn't even followed its own established procedures for annexation.

We have learned from previous testimony that the city purchased a portion of the ranch from the Cox family without disclosing the purpose.

Only later did they learn that the purchase was made to enable annexation of another part of the ranch.

Does this reflect the Western values the mayor speaks about so often?

Values like honesty, forthrightness, and respect for the people who built this community.

So let's return to the Council President's own words.

Historically, these developments have occurred in a business park environment.

If that is true, and it is, then let's stay on the side of history.

Cheyenne already has several established business parks where data centers centers can be built without sacrificing this historic ranch or the neighborhoods next to it.

Development can happen and it should happen in places designed for it.

You are the stewards of Cheyenne's future.

This decision is not only about land.

It's about identity, trust, and the values we claim to uphold.

Preserving this ranch preserves a piece of who we are.

I urge you to choose the path that honors our history, respects our community, and reflects the integrity Cheyenne deserves.

Thanks.

Mr.

Kessler, can I ask you a quick question about uh the city bought some property in order to effectuate an annexation?

I'm not I'm not following that.

Can you help me with that?

Mr.

Mayors, I understand it, and the Cox family can help me with this.

There was a 44-acre parcel along Happy Jack Road, and that's what's being used to make the Cox Ranch that's proposed to be annexed contiguous with the business park.

Thank you.

Mr.

Nicholas.

That 44 acres was part of an estate settlement that was and and it's owned by the the Welling S.

Cox Trust.

It's not owned by the city, it is owned by the William S.

Cox, and it's part of this application.

Okay.

So just so I'm clear, Mr.

Kessler and Mr.

Nicholas, there are some land that was used to create the contiguity, but it was not city-owned property.

We did not initiate the annexation of that.

We didn't purchase that property.

It's owned by us.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure we had the record straight.

I appreciate your comments, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Nicholson.

Sir, welcome.

Mr.

Mayor, uh Councilman, my name is Brendan Craigie.

I didn't come here with any prepared statements.

Can I bother you to bring that microphone?

Yes, sir.

There you go.

I came here as a concerned citizen.

I live off of Happy Jack Road.

My thoughts on this annexation is where does it end, Mr.

Mayor?

You established a proposal to annex uh city pockets or you know county pockets inside the city itself to uh create continuity with fire department EMS 911 calls.

I understand that.

If you look at this annexation, there's probably two square miles that butt up against the Air Force base that are not annexed into the city.

They're still county.

So how does this play into the city's requirement and where does it end?

If in 20 years we're at the same fight in another 10 miles, then it's my fight.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Understood.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Thomas White.

Um, you know, that data center that's there.

How many data centers are we gonna have in Cheyenne?

You know, I speak for some of these people here that live out in the county.

I live off of Terra Ranch Road, right south of my house, they drilled a well 1,800 yards from my well.

I'm under well water, and that data center is going to be south of where I live.

And you guys live in a city, you guys don't live out there to understand what some of these people are talking about.

My thing is their lights are just like that Facebook.

My son lives in Orchard Valley, I go see him, you see that light.

Used been dark, nice, now it's not.

And that's what's going to happen out there on Terra Ranch.

But like the data center, how many more data centers are we gonna have in Cheyenne?

And on top of that, if they do build that data center, you gotta consider the traffic.

Right now, off that Greeley Highway, just with that data center east of that port entry, and that then they got that Facebook.

That traffic is bad.

In the morning at night.

I mean, there's been already a couple of accidents on that road already.

And then once they finish the other data center, could you imagine what the travel is going to be like?

What I'm saying, the people at Happy Jack Road, you know, that that road out that way is a two-lane highway.

You know, if you have that much traffic, that much employees going in and out.

Could you imagine what it's gonna be like out there for some of these that people that lived out there?

You've got to consider the people that live out there because they lived out there for a reason.

They've been there longer than the guys are building the data center.

That's the way I feel.

Yes, I'm Native American, and I love the land and the land that we have in Wyoming now.

A lot of it is getting destroyed.

You know, I I did research on data center, data center across the country.

People are fighting against that data center.

Some have stopped them.

A rancher, I read one where they're gonna pay him $18 million, $80 million.

He turned them down.

He says, I like my people that I live near, you know, the resident, the people that live there.

He said, I care for them.

It's something to consider, not jumping into it, do a research, because I know you guys are busy.

Some of you guys need to go south of Cheyenne in the morning at night and see how that traffic is.

It's terrible.

It wasn't like that a long time ago.

And then, you know, after they get done with that, then you they're gonna be thinking about a man camp.

That's what you're gonna have about 800 guys that's gonna be parked over there somewhere, and you when they build that data center, how many employees, how many man camps are gonna be there?

You gotta think about your people here in Cheyenne.

You know, I'm a full I live in Wyoming most of my life.

All I grew up west of Cheyenne, out in the county all my life.

And I see Cheyenne is growing, yes.

But we've got to be careful how it grows because the more this is what I always tell people.

The more people you get, the more problems we're gonna have.

That's just the way it is.

You know, and that's basically what I I feel, and I feel for the people around Cheyenne.

You probably heard people around Cheyenne that Shines.

We have people coming from all over the country coming here, and Cheyenne is starting to change.

You have people coming in trying to change us from wherever they came from.

And that's all I have to say, sir.

Thank you, Mayor, for allowing me to speak.

Appreciate you being here.

You guys have a good night.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, ma'am.

Hello.

Okay, my name is Sue Roca.

Sue, I can have you bring that microphone point it right towards you.

Works?

Okay.

I'm sure I'm going to botch this up.

Uh I'm not, I don't like to speak in front of groups.

Um, I don't like politics.

I don't, but I just I have to ask some questions.

One, this foundation.

I guess I would like to know more as an individual.

What else is this foundation for?

Okay, I mean, it's got to be more than just the FHA and you know, little projects like that that they have.

What else does it fund?

And why does it have to be funded by selling this property?

Okay, I mean, I would have thought that other things would have been taken into consideration.

To me, it looks like a quick way to make a nice big buck.

Um the other thing is, you know, okay, this foundation is created.

We have the mausoleum out there.

Somehow I don't think their intention was to look over a business park.

Okay.

I I I mean, I just I'm not seeing this.

I don't think that was their intention when they wanted to have their remains left on the ranch there and stuff.

So I struggle with that.

Um the other thing is for those of us that own out there, my husband and I just bought out, and I guess it's the COC states, it's called, but we just bought out there two and a half years ago.

We lived out further west off of Happy Jack.

We moved into town, we were snowbirds for a while.

We gave that all up because we want to be back in the county.

And to see that this is even a possibility to have that taken away from the people out there.

I'm like a lot of the others here.

I don't see where it's benefiting us.

Most everything out there is four, five-acre properties, maybe ten acres zoned to have horses and goats and whatever other critters that people want to have out there and raise.

What happens to that when it's next to the city?

Who wants to buy five acres in the city?

I I'm just not seeing it.

Okay, and that's where my biggest concern is our property value is going to go down.

Okay, we spent quite a bit top dollar to go back out in the county and purchase the place that we own out there.

And all I see is that we're gonna lose money on our properties.

I don't see how that benefits.

I you know, as far as the fire department and the police department and all of that, I don't see where there's the great need out there.

I'm not seeing people running the streets killing each other and whatever else to bring them out there.

So I'm sorry, like I said, I'll probably botch this up.

But you know, I just I I think it needs to be looked at closer.

What is the foundation funding that they need to sell this property to fund it?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Emmons.

Mayor, City Council members, Brad Emmons.

Uh AVI agent for the applicant, uh, the trust.

Um just wanted to come before the body and and give a little background of the timing of some of the things of the different ordinances that are going through.

Um of the reasons the uh business park and data center wasn't brought up at the public hearing was because the public hearing was for the annexation portion of the project.

And we discussed the business park and the data center at the planning commission meeting uh the week before, and and which is also item 13 on today's agenda.

Um so there was never an intent to not say what it was or where it was going.

Um we had those discussions at the Planning Commission meeting in when we discussed the zoning and the future land use plan.

Uh we did hear a bunch about it at the public hearing meeting, obviously, and so we thought we would bring that forward right away at the public service meeting, which probably caused a little uh confusion at the public service committee meeting.

Um so just wanted to follow up on on the process we were following and and when we were submitting the items.

Thank you.

Dr.

Hammond, Dr.

Aldrich.

Uh, Mayor Collins for you.

Um, Mr.

Emmons, you said that uh this follows along with item 13, which is the changing of from agriculture to business park.

I'm just wondering, is there any reason why this what because you're an agent for the trust?

Mr.

Mayor, you're correct.

Okay.

Um is there I guess.

It's I understand the need to fund a tr uh to fund a foundation and to sell this property for as much as you can sell it for for that foundation to have the corpus to continue on for many years to come.

And it sounds like it has some worthy things it wants to do.

Um but I'm just wondering why this it would be ideal to annex this and then rezone it for a business park when it seems to me that we have business parks still available with available space that could uh house this data center in one of those existing business parks.

Mr.

Emmons.

Mr.

Chairman, you're the expert at that, but you do do a lot of land use.

Well, I can I can talk a little bit in the broader scale of the locations of data centers in general, and when we help them come out, there's you know, many things they need they need, primarily power, water for fire protection, and fiber.

Um and so they work very closely with Black Hills Energy to come up with these locations.

And so there are definitely areas that cannot um provide the power or that they cannot get power there in the future.

And so generally um they they look for locations that kind of have create those criteria um to make it successful project.

Um what we found is in primarily um currently they're finding locations that they can have uh large buffers that have uh you know uh things like that so that they can have some open space around the property and some other things.

And so that leads you to some of these parcels um where you can do when you get to the site plan stage, you can create those things that um to either try to hide them or keep the noise away or uh anything else.

Um I would say that's in general why we found the data centers have chosen those locations.

I don't have any background on the foundation part, so um I was you know that's not my side.

One follow-up question.

Mayor Collins for you.

So this property um has the fiber, the water, the power, and the fourth item that was the space.

Yeah, the you know, the more space that they have, the more flexibility they have in their design.

Yes.

And so this property has all of that.

Yes.

And I would I mean, that's really probably more of a question for via West and their final determination, but that's what we found in the in those locations.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So I just want to get my brain wrapped around this.

What we're talking about right now is just annexing a piece of property.

We're not talking about what would go on that piece of property necessarily.

If we annexed it, the sale could go through.

It could not go through.

It could be used for many things.

It's not I mean, what we're talking about is just the annexation, not the zoning.

Is that correct?

Mr.

Mayor, through you on item number 11 of this agenda, that would be the item that we're discussing now, which would be just the annexation portion.

The next item based on the rules, uh the city has it, it gives it an assigned zoning, which would give it the first zone for the piece of property, and then the next phase would be to get it zoned to what the uh applicant would like it to be.

So that would be item 13.

And number 13 is to change it from agricultural to business park.

Mr.

Mayor, that is correct.

Mr.

Moody?

Uh Mr.

Wolf from over for me.

Mr.

Wolf?

Um Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Um thank you, Mr.

Emmons.

Um, make sure we've got a couple of things clear.

First of all, you're the from ABI and you represent the applicant in this case.

Is that correct?

Mr.

Mayor, through you, I have been uh I represent getting this through the City Council process for the the current owner as who signed the applications.

Okay.

And with that answer, and that you're representing the applicant, you're not representing via West, is that right?

Mr.

Chair, I via West I would say in in this case I represent both from a standpoint of the applicant is requesting that the trust uh change the zone and annex the property.

Okay.

So basically you're working hand in hand with via West, is that right?

Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Via West has been directing uh some of the annexation, otherwise the trust wouldn't be submitting the annexation without via West.

Mr.

through Mayor, through the Mr.

Wolf.

Uh thank you.

So do you know anything about Via West and Skybox's plans for this uh data center?

Mr.

Mayor, through you.

We uh have talked about the locations of some of the buildings, those other things as if this project moves forward.

Okay, can you speak to the water use um that they plan at the when the data centers built?

Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Um currently I don't have those numbers, no.

I have not been provided those.

The the BOPU requires the closed loop system, which we do know that what that generally takes per thing.

But I would those if you wanted the water use questions, those would have to go to via West and Skybox.

Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Wolf, I can answer that question on a closed loop system if you'd like to know the answer.

No, I don't I don't that's that's fine.

I understand that.

Um but in terms of the water use that the plan contemplates, both water and sewer, that's not something you can speak to, is it, Mr.

Emmons?

Mr.

Mayor, through you, we we don't generally get into that until the site plan stages of the of the projects.

Um then um and again, we at this point um have not I mean I don't know enough about the final project to to be able to and those would be coming from their engineers, their water engineers, their mechanical engineers, that's where those numbers would come from.

So your answer to the question which is what do you know about their energy supplier and their energy use?

Um that's not something you've been working on, I take it.

Mr.

Mayor, through you know, those those those go directly to Black Hills.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Mr.

Emmons, um, you've talked about this two-step dance, which is the annexation zoning as uh agriculture, and then the final zoning as a business park.

Um you have a lot of experience uh working with the planning and zoning office.

Why does it go through that two-step process?

Um Mr.

Mayor, through you, I believe the city started the second zoning when there a piece of property did get annexed on an earlier item and then voted down the zoning.

And so they added this assigned zoning so that it could be in the city with a city zone.

Mr.

Wolf, we had an annexation that happened and then a couple steps later would have been the zone change.

The annexation passed, but the zone change didn't.

So we had land in the city that didn't have a zone, so we couldn't enforce nuisance or anything like that.

So we came up with a process to uh zone uh any uh piece of property that comes into the city with whatever the underlying zoning is in the county.

So if it's agricultural, we'll zone it agricultural.

So whatever the whatever it was in the county, we'll zone it to the closest uh zone that's there in the city.

And that way, if uh the zone change doesn't pass, at least it has a zone that we can enforce.

Um so that process happened two or three years ago.

Um there was an uh an annexation on Holland Court um on Ridge Road, and that precipitated this what you call the two-step dance, but it's important to make sure that every piece of property inside the city has a city zone so that we can enforce that.

Um Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

That that's very helpful.

Um you're aware of the requirements under the annexation statute to make these specific findings that the statute specifies, is that right?

Mr.

Mayor, through you, I would say yes, that we read the those and uh talk to the city prior to submitting and go through the discussion with um with if we feel that it meets the criteria or not.

Okay.

Um is there a document that you submitted that uh contains your analysis under the statutory criteria?

Um Mr.

Mayor through you, I believe there's I didn't uh don't believe I there's a specific letter or anything if I remember.

Um on the annexation portion of the submittal, there is a um check checklist that you sign off on.

Okay, but you you, Mr.

Mayor through you um you, as the representative for the applicant haven't prepared your own analysis of the statutory requirements in the annexation statute.

Mr.

Mayor through you, I don't believe so.

Um how long have you been working on this, Mr.

Emmons, with um the applicant?

Uh Mr.

Mayor through you.

So maybe in January, January, February.

I'm trying to think back, but I would have to look and see when the when the initial stuffs were signed to start working on it.

And and Mr.

Mayor, um, through you, uh at the time you started this, um, were you also in contact with Via West about their plans?

Mr.

Mayor through you, yes.

Okay.

Um Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Ammons.

Thank you.

Yep.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor through through you.

Um I have a uh follow-up question from my colleague from Ward 1S.

We heard about the uh water usage, uh power usage.

I understand we have a tariff for the state, they have to build their own power stations.

What current power station is out there?

Because I was on the impression you have to build their own, because I know the Microsoft Data Centers to the South have their own power station.

Are you planning to tap into that one or build your own out there?

Mr.

Moody, when you say power station, can you define that?

Uh sure, Mr.

Mayor.

It's the ones there by the data center, you know, the one there off of uh by by the Walmart distribution center, they have their power station there to have their own power.

That's the tariff.

Are you talking the substation?

Substations, there you go.

I didn't quite understand.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Substation, my apologies.

Yeah.

Mr.

Mayor, through you again, I can give you a general data center thing.

I I this one, this project is not that far along that I could specifically say.

Um but generally every when they apply with Black Hills, they apply for a certain amount of power.

They get a design from Black Hills, and then they have to build that design.

I have not seen currently of any of the larger data centers not have to put a substation on their own lot that they give to Black Hills.

So in our larger acreage ones, every one of them have had to put a substation on their site and then dedicate that or deed that over to Black Hills.

So they have all built that.

So I would assume on this one that they would have to have a substation that they give to Black Hills.

On this, um, I believe the substations that Black Hills currently owns that are off-site are just south of I-80, um, just south of the King Ranch, there's a brand new substation there that I would assume that that's feeding the North Range Business Park data centers in this one.

But um again, those are just general answers to what we've seen on the other data centers.

That's how I am, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Mr.

Wolf.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Um uh Mr.

Evans, given your broad experience with this, let me let me go through the thing about this whole process that uh really causes me a lot of concern.

Um you want to separate the question of the annexation from the first zoning, which is agriculture, or another one, and then the second zoning, which is to business park.

And in your experience, as you've seen this, and as I understand, because of the questions I asked Mr.

Bloom at the council meeting two weeks ago, the public is involved, and all these fine people are here because they're entitled to come and be involved in the process for the annexation.

Is that correct?

Mr.

Mayor 3U, that is correct, and the zoning.

There's both of those are public meetings, public hearings, three readings for both of those.

So the public can be involved in the annexation, the first zoning, and the second zoning.

But once the second zoning is done, and they have the business park zoning, that's the end of the public's participation in the process, isn't that right?

Mr.

Mayor 3, that's how for all Mr.

Mayor 3, you if if a plating occurs, then the plating would come before the governing body as a resolution.

So if they decide to split the property in any way, that that the splits of that property.

So for instance, when I was talking about giving a parcel to the Black Hills for their substation on site, that would be a uh if it's a plat that it's outside of the administrative process.

There are some administrative platings, but if it's platts can come before the governing body as well.

I can't say in all cases whether or not the plat would come forward or not in front of the governing body.

Um that's really the only other after that the if you meet the criteria within this existing UDC, those would be administrative processes.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, just one more follow-up.

So what I'm concerned about is that all of these folks who've taken the time to come here and are concerned about this, once the business park zoning is granted, if it is, but once it's granted, then the whole site plan and all the issues with this siting of it and all of the decisions about how the plants going to be put on the property, and how many part how many buildings are going to be put there, and what other kinds of buildings and how the traffic is going to go.

That all occurs without all of these people and all of us, and the council is not involved in that process either, is it?

Mr.

Mayor 3U, that is currently how the City of Cheyenne has their development regulations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Evans, thank you.

Yep.

Ma'am, welcome.

Hi there.

Uh I'm Megan Plummer.

Megan, bring that microphone so it points right at your mouth.

There you go.

Megan Plummer.

Yes.

And I'm a uh resident west of town.

Um just I too did not come with any great planned uh thought-out speech, just kind of um wrote up some questions that I had.

Sometimes that's the best way to do it.

Um I'm a Wyoming native, moved away to Colorado for some time.

Welcome home.

But came back because Colorado Springs was getting too big, too crime-ridden, too many things, and actually the last straw was our vehicles, the windows were shot out.

Thank goodness it wasn't the house windows.

Um so we came back, bought some land, because we like the Wyoming Wild West.

Um, and you know, I see quickly within return, it's changing really fast.

Um actually that was in one of the articles I read today, that was a quote from I'm not sure if it was a council member or someone in the you know, government of Wyoming or or the county.

Um but I'm reiterating and restating, I think, some questions kind of concerning items 11, 12, and 13.

Um, and I understand we're still really only on 11.

Um but I just I guess I want to ask again, how many data centers do we already currently have?

How many are we projected to build?

And I understand with the building, there's a lot of employments, but from what I have seen from other data centers and the talk of the man camp uh and friends that my son knows, a lot of those employees come from out of state.

So how many people from the actual city and county are impl employed by those uh data centers?

And I I don't know if you want me to keep asking or throwing out my questions or if you want to answer or I'm not sure we have all the answers, but uh right.

Right.

Well, or speak to speak to, I guess.

Um or I can continue with my thoughts.

Um I guess my other thought and concerns were um the water and power.

I understand that they generate their own water power and everything like that, but um we're already in a significant drought out by where I live.

People's wells are either completely dry, um, they're having to spend you know thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to redrill.

Uh and what about all of our ranchers?

You know, the the true history of Wyoming.

I I saw another poor guy had to take uh a good portion of uh his uh cows to market because he doesn't have the water, the resources to feed them.

So I kind of feel like maybe we should turn our focus and try and help those that are already here.

Not saying that economic development isn't good.

Because it is, but I I think we should limit what instead of just saturating the market.

Um I also think about the pollution and long-term health effects, uh, the noise, the lighting.

Um, you know, I've read several things where you know people are, you know, ending up with cancer and just all of this.

And reiterating what several articles have said, that well, these CEOs of these companies, they don't live right by these by these data centers.

They're not hearing what goes on.

Um other people have brought up the wildlife.

You know, we're just pushing, we're pushing them out of of their homes.

Megan, we're getting we're running out of time.

Did you have one more last real quick question?

Or uh sure.

Just what are they doing for the community?

How is our infrastructure going to uphold them?

And finally, why are so many other towns, counties, and tribal lands saying no to data centers?

I think one of the only questions I can probably answer out of all of those is uh I think we have 12, what we would call hyperscale buildings in in our community now.

Um we have five that are under construction, and uh and then some more that are you know in the process of planning but have not come to fruition yet.

And we talk a lot about water, and I met with uh one of the data center companies today.

You know, we talk about using closed loop systems, and closed loop systems are um uh they're filled with uh about the same amount of water that would be in an Olympic swimming pool.

Um part of it's what what they call a uh uh the facility uh property or facility loop, and then there's another loop that is uh more towards the technology.

The technology loop has about 90,000 gallons in it, and it's filled with water and gly glycol, which I guess is like anti-freeze material, and that uh that is what goes through and actually cools the the chips themselves in the servers, and then the other about 500,000 gallons of water um is in a loop.

And it once you fill it up, um it basically stays in there into perpetuity.

Um when you change your your filters and stuff, you have to put a couple thousand gallons back into it.

But it's about the same amount of water is used by eight homes in a year, and once you charge it up, then it stays into that that area.

So you know, if we were to uh think about your wells and things like that, if we were to put five-acre ranchettes in that area, that would be uh an impact on your wells.

But as I understand the uh the closed loop systems, they don't have the same impact.

So if that helps you answer your question just a little bit.

Thank you for being here today.

Sure, thank you.

Uh Ms.

Mayor, just a point of clarification.

You said there's 12 data centers, five under construction.

How many under permitting right now?

Um I don't know uh how many uh are planned.

I honestly don't know the answer to that.

All right, thank you.

Ms.

uh Ms.

Mayor, if I may.

Yeah.

Uh just for the benefit of everybody here, um this information is available.

Um leads tracks this.

Uh we have a map that shows where all the data centers are.

We have listings of the data centers that are currently operational.

We have listings of the data centers that are planned.

And then and and the mayor's, I mean, this list has 12 that are currently operational.

It has nine that are planned, um, some of five of which I think are actually under construction.

And realize that the ones that are actually here already are many of them, particularly in Microsoft's are early generation relatively small units.

The really really big ones are the ones that are either currently under construction or planned in the future.

Leeds is tracking 43 other data centers, according to their PowerPoint, which they've they've have and handed out.

Now, as you talk about data centers, you gotta realize that data centers are both a singular noun and a collective noun.

Data centers can define one house or hall, the terminology changes, or it can describe a collection of halls so that you could have two or three.

And of course, these, as we're seeing, can be enormous, 800,000 square feet.

But there isn't any secret uh about what we have, what's planned and publicly announced.

The real question R is what is going to come in the future.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Sir.

Please?

Yeah.

I'm Richard Lyell.

I live in the city of Cheyenne.

I'm not affiliated with any data center or real estate developer.

Recently there's been a big push led by Senator Stan Sanders and Representative Ocasia Cortez to freeze and stop the construction of all data centers all across the United States.

Last uh March 26, Senator Sanders introduced a bill entitled the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act.

And Cascia Cortez is introducing a companion bill in the House.

I do not agree with uh Senator uh Bernie Sanders.

This is AI technology.

There are two issues.

One is the specific location where you're looking at environmental problems, um, you know, water usage and traffic flow and whatever.

The other is the whole technology of AI.

And I would much prefer that this technology stay in the United States, hopefully in Wyoming, where the people who have the skills can help us protect our freedoms and our liberties and our way of life, as opposed to shipping it off and letting the Chinese Communist Party do it.

Yeah, I we can't turn back the clock on this technology.

But I'll show there's good and bad in it.

One issue is um facial recognition technology.

It takes a huge amount of data.

There is one company called ClearView AI.

They have several billion images in their data backup.

Law enforcement uses it, and they pay them a lot of money to identify people.

As a result of this technology, they've identified thousands of persons of interest, and they've arrested a lot of criminals and put them in jail.

The other side of this technology is what they do in China, and they are using facial recognition to watch and keep track of everybody in the country and give them a social credit score of whatever.

Another use is there's something called a geofence warrant.

That is a warrant directed to uh a cell phone company or to Google for the identities of every person who has been in a specific location during a specific time period.

Because everywhere you have your cell phone is it's being tracked by Google and everybody else.

Um that maybe that's very helpful to law enforcement, but it also raises privacy issues.

The Supreme Court granted certain a case like this.

Mr.

Lyow time's up.

Can you conclude for me, please?

Okay.

Uh the last uh point I'd say is that Kroger's um uh grocery company makes um over three billion in profits.

Two billion is from selling groceries, one billion is from harvesting our data and selling it to third parties.

So we need to be able to control that by having the technology and the people who are skilled, be right here.

Thank you.

Sir, welcome back.

Mr.

Mayor, uh, with all due respect, I think this train is run off the track.

Item 11 was to do with annexation, and it's turned into a data center discussion.

So I think we would should get back on uh what the uh the the uh agenda is and about the annexations and leave the data center part for a later time.

I would appreciate that.

Point of order.

Sir?

I just exactly what Mr.

Kessler just said.

Sir.

Okay, sir.

Maybe I'm out of line in that case, Mr.

Mayor and Council members.

My name is Darrell Seifert.

I'm a 40-year resident of Rolling Hills Estate.

I'm uh third property away from McCox Ranch.

I'm the second property north of the North Range Business Park.

I've seen the data center go over there, the Chinese one that was mining uh data that the Air Force Base wouldn't allow, and then now the new Bitcoin come in.

Um my major concern is water.

Um I am an Air Force officer who was a uh missile launch officer.

I saw launch equipment buildings with closed loop water systems fail repeatedly.

Um I walk my dogs in the North Range Business Park, and I've seen uh drilling companies come in on a Friday night, drill Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, Sunday, and Sunday night, and pack up and leave Monday morning before the city could be out there to see them.

So I'm really wondering if if they're really using city water, which is available in the North Range Business Park as long as Swiss and electricity, or if they're drilling wells surreptitiously and using that water without us having any way of monitoring it.

Um with that uh I will yield.

But I do want to bring up that that fact.

I've noticed a decrease in my water pressure on my property uh since they drilled that well over there.

So I think it's a real concern.

And if we're gonna annex something with the possibility that this is going to be a data center, I think that should be a question of whether we should approve the annexation.

Thank you.

Good evening, sir.

My name is Alex Bowler, and I'm a uh I'm here on behalf of the Cheyenne Area Landowners Coalition.

Uh basically we're rural folks who uh exist in the eastern half of uh Laramie County, where the State Engineer has declared that we have a water control issue.

And I'm glad Leary has uh that map because that's I'm gonna tell you that there are 13 or 14 um data centers already in existence or under construction in Laramie County.

We're the Mecca of data centers.

There's one in Gillette, there's one in Evanston.

Um, but there are very few in Wyoming, and we've got them almost all of them.

Now, my the coalition's biggest concern is the water.

And where the heck is it going to come from?

Uh if you if all 14 of these data centers are going to be recycling their water and use about 25,000 gallons apiece, you do the math and you come out with about 350,000 gallons of water.

That's a lot of water.

And it's it's a major concern.

We have we have uh got assurances from High West Energy, which is the uh electrical supplier for most of us out in the in the rural areas of the county in the uh Nebraska and the war and Air Force Base.

And they've assured us that no matter what happens, we're not going to see our rates increase, which is a good thing.

But the water issue is really, really, really important.

And Larry, I'm glad you have that map because if you look at that map, you'll see that there are 13 or 14 data centers, either operational or under construction in our county.

And at 25,000 gallons apiece, 25,000 gallons apiece.

Uh that's 350,000 gallons of water, quite a bit of water.

So I I realize that I've digressed to the item number 12 and item number 13.

Uh, but I wanted to try and answer your your questions about that.

Um if you have any for me, I'd be try to try to take them on.

Thank you.

Mr.

Escobel.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you, the the coalition, they're pretty strong believers in Wyoming property rights laws.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Sir, welcome.

Good afternoon.

Um my name is Jack O'Neill.

I'm with the purchaser of the property, not the seller.

But uh thank you all for the time and I appreciate all y'all taking the time to come out.

It does mean a lot to be able to engage.

And I just want to remind that we just asked for a pause for an opportunity to do four things.

We want to put engage with the community, have conversations, have phone conversations, and pop in-person coffees, actually engage with the community is the first and foremost.

The second is really and is the most important is to help be a catalyst between the seller and the previous owners, the Cox family and the black family to come to a resolution on a very important family and very sensitive family issue.

And we'd love to be part of that solution and uh in whatever way we can between those two parties.

And I think that is a incredibly important thing for both parties to come to an agreement on that we would just ask for the time to help catalyze.

Um the third thing we like to do is because you are exactly right, um uh the council, Councilman Wolf, that this is kind of the last city's opportunity and the folks' opportunity to participate in kind of what it is it like to build one of these.

So we'd like to draft a development agreement as well with the city to make sure that everything is put in place in a responsible way, um, whether it be stringent lighting, which is more stringent than the county, and uh whether it be stringent sound, um mandating closed loop water systems.

Um I was an engineer for five years for another developer.

I currently live by two of these facilities that are owned by Digital Realty.

Um our facility in Northeast Austin uses about 130,000 gallons of water a year.

The average home in America uses about a hundred thousand.

So we would not drill a single well, we not do any septic on this property, we would aim to fully engage in city services and pay our fair share as well as any and one hundred percent uh costs related to serve the property, whether that be for any kind of road, water, sewer, um, police and fire services, um, as well as just anything else necessary.

And then in regards to any of the power questions earlier, uh the State and Black Hills Energy have a 100 percent mandate that none of that cost is ever passed on to the ratepayer.

Texas just passed a similar thing, most states are passing it, and if not, they should.

Um, as a ratepayer of electricity and a daughter of a 10-month-old, I think it's really important that we build these, but build these responsibly.

Um, if not, Chinese build about a one coal plant every single week.

We will lose the AI race if we do not do it responsibly in the free world, and we need to do it in the free world, so then fantastic men and women like yourself and the people in this room can decide how do we legislate these later once they are built.

Do we want these technologies being used for XYZ or you know, do we want to say in it?

And I strongly believe that these should be built in the United States and they should be governed by great states like Wyoming, like Texas, like Pennsylvania, and uh stay in those communities and be great partners in those communities.

Um to any of the traffic issues, um, we would love to do a traffic study, and again, that's why we ask for a little bit of time.

Uh we will also have an environmental study completed by next Wednesday.

Um thank you for your time.

Open for questions as well if needed.

Anybody?

Jack, thanks for being here.

Thank you very much.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

I'm gonna be quick this time.

Um I just feel like in the interest of transparency, it's worth pointing out that the gentleman that was I don't it wasn't clear if he was representing Byte West or the trust or whatever, but also sits on the Board of Leads and that organization, ABI Construction also has representation on the joint powers board.

Um highlighting the very deep conflicts of interest that are going on in all of these data center conversations that happen without our knowledge, and it sounds like without many of the city council's knowledge as well.

Oh gotta turn the other way.

Sir Mr.

Mayor, Councilman.

Can you bring that microphone up just a little bit?

Just a bit.

Sorry.

Mr.

Mayor, Councilman, my name is Mark Isley.

My family runs and operates and owns the King Ranch west of Cheyenne.

Um I'm here kind of to address 11, 12, and 13, and I really want to talk about the annexation because in your annexation plan, you've clipped the east end of our ranch, our headquarters in that.

And I think that's an unfair land grab, so to speak.

Uh the planning portion of that, I understand.

Our ranch isn't going anywhere.

I have two generations coming in behind me, and they are dead set on maintaining that as a ranch.

When I was a boy, there were 12 ranches between the edge of Cheyenne and Laramie.

There are five now, soon to be four.

Ours is 120 years old.

The Cox Ranch is the same age.

I lament the loss of that.

However, I would like to emphasize the importance now, and I have to be careful in my discussion with the city, because we're partners and we've been partners on a lot of things.

Sometimes it hasn't always been great.

Uh I think I've worked really hard to to make that a better partnership.

We have the landfill, the Sherrard plant, your water uh facilities, pipelines, etc.

I'm also a contractor with you over at the Bellevoir.

So you're on my south side, the east side is the business park, which we agreed to because we didn't want all those homes built, because we knew it was a traffic water and safety issue.

Why is the ranch important?

Well, it's my home and my family's home.

It's also the home, and we just finished a count yesterday with the Audubon Society, which comes out and does a regular annual uh monthly count.

200 bird species on our ranch.

Big game, all kinds of fur-bearing animals.

We allow hunter access, we allow fishing, especially the young folks.

We can't take another hit from you guys, and I'm not I don't want to be engaged in a legal battle over that East Annexation.

I that was very convenient for you to draw that enclosure.

I'm requesting that that be removed our portion of that, and that's just on the west side of the business park.

I have concerns about the the annexation, the construction.

Uh I've been hit turning it out of the ranch of my to no fault of my own.

People are careless, and traffic problems are a concern.

Water is a huge one uh for us.

We constantly have to drill a new well every other or every third year because we continue to lose stuff.

We have some that are almost 700 foot deep now.

Why are cows important?

This is my final comment to you.

You guys all rely on cows, you don't even know it.

Your cell phone, your laptop, construction of steel for cars, pharmaceuticals, aviation.

So it's more than just hamburgers and stakes.

That's why the ranch, in addition to history and the folks that have been there, deserve a shot at this or a break on this.

So we'll probably weigh on some other issues, but I appreciate your time very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah.

There collins through you to Mr.

Isley.

Um I just had an opportunity recently to have um coffee with one of our department heads who um actually your name came up as being uh an excellent partner over the past, and we appreciate that.

Um my question is can you more clearly because I'm not sure in looking at the map, it you said it clips your headquarters.

So is there a parcel number or a piece something you can direct us to?

Mr.

Mayor, I I don't have the map with me.

Uh you probably have it.

It basically runs uh it actually goes by uh our there it is.

This doesn't really this doesn't really indicate the uh the the area to be zoned, but it's basically south from here, and it goes right through our main portion, uh right on the east end of our portion.

Actually, my daughter's shop is on one side, and my wife's will be inside that annex zone.

Okay.

Ms.

Remnants.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, uh I think I'm at Mark, did you don't you mean the feature land use plan?

It's not the annexation line.

Well, yes, that is correct, Mr.

Emmons, and I Mr.

Mayor, through you, I'm sorry.

Yes, that is that is the correct thing.

I'm trying to bring awareness to that right now.

So we get ahead of traffic, we get a water.

I I have the same empathy as the Rolling Hill Estates uh uh folks and my neighbors uh both to the north, south, and west of me.

Thank you.

Understood, thank you.

Thanks, Brad.

Ma'am, welcome.

Hi, I'm Jane Listener.

I live out on Happy Jack.

Can you say your name again?

I'm sorry, I didn't catch it.

I'm Jane Lessinger.

I live out on Happy Jack House.

I have a property in town.

Um I was looking at the staff report, and with regard to item number one of the staff report, the wording says may comply to the very edge, and that there's a buffer zone.

I really question that word may.

I know things are written in wide perspective, but I would say the criteria for number one of the staff report is not met.

Number two, staff report, adjacent to the point, but um a quarter acre included and make adjacent to or that 44 acres, excuse me, my notes, acres, um, included, make it adjacent to.

So with beyond not having that 44 acres part of the annexation does not make it adjacent to, and so that number two of the staff report I get I feel does not comply.

Number three, somewhat developed now.

Um I think that's in number seven of the staff report.

It says the area somewhat developed and it would not meet future needs.

They're talking about the road and other services.

Also does not meet the criteria for approval.

It also says, I believe in number seven, challenging higher level of services.

There would be a higher level of services in the area if that annexation went through.

And again, I don't believe it meets the criteria for the annexation for approval.

A couple other items I've noticed in people talking with regard to Mr.

Nichols, I believe, from the trust.

The trust he said was agricultural, data center does not meet agricultural standards.

There's other ways to have that area developed to agricultural to meet their trust criteria.

And to Jack that spoke a little bit earlier, O'Neal, for uh if he wants to have a community meeting, I suggest he also invite the trust people besides the community.

Um also what we're talking about 1112 and 13.

We also need to consider item 14 in the consent agenda, as in relating to what we're talking about tonight.

We also need to consider future expansion because once if this annexation goes through and third 11, 12, and 13 are going to be all tied together.

They're going to be like one thing together if it's approved, then what's your future use for those people in Rolling Hills?

It's going to be a forced annexation in the next 10, 15, 20 years.

Property values go up.

Your uh equity value will go down because you'll need to pay the own your own water and sewer hookup, unless the developer wants to put that into their agreement that they pay it if when it comes to that time, if it comes to that time.

Um the one question I got asked to ask is how many data centers are just or how many data centers are they looking at for that building if it goes through for that annexation?

Um is that just for now or is it in the future?

Also, please consider that Denver, Reno, and Arizona are pausing because of water and electrical considerations.

Sorry, I'm getting dry.

Um so are we any smarter than Denver, Reno, and Arizona that we would want something to go through?

Not and they're maybe in industrial park areas.

This is not an industrial park areas.

We need to have the concerns that are broader than just than uh an industrial park with consideration for the land, what other people have brought up and the history of the area.

And I have one thing here.

We had this flyer.

It says build on history, sustained by community.

If this is something that the city is considering for other areas in our town, then that needs to be considered also for their annexation.

Build on history, there's great history in that land, and sustained by community.

We have community support here not to have the annexation.

Thank you for your time, Mary.

Thanks, Gene.

Yes, ma'am.

Hi.

My name is Sandy Walk.

I am a resident of rolling hills.

I didn't hear your name.

Sorry.

Sandy Walk.

I am a resident of Rolling Hills.

Why is this coming up to annex?

Why can't the county change their zones?

And maybe that's already been addressed in previous meetings.

Sandy, the this is not the city initiating this.

It was the landowner asking to become part of the city.

So they they I think they believe that if they had city water sewer and things that would make their development more successful.

But it's going to affect we look we bought an accounting.

We want to stay in the county.

And if this were to go through, we would then be annexed later on, like many other people have said, because we would then become surrounded.

We bought because we wanted to be able to have animals and stay in the county.

You are a long ways from being surrounded, ma'am.

Sam, welcome.

Good evening, Sam Galliotis.

Um couple comments and then I have some questions.

First of all, the foundation gentleman wanting to serve kids, teach them agriculture.

Can't think of a better way than a long-term historic ranch in Larry County to do that, just an opinion.

Um, uh there was a question asked about is the power and all the infrastructure already to the site.

Um I I believe that was answered in the affirmative, but I don't think that's true, probably a mistake there, because I don't think all of everything is there that needs to be there.

I think that needs to be clarified.

Number three, um, I've heard earlier on this evening trust stewardship of you folks with the community and its assets.

Um, and it it brings me to the real core of of of where I'm coming from on this, and that is uh I read too in the article today about uh the comment that the everything going on is outpacing the your ability to plan.

And I think that's probably an understatement.

Um it brings me to the question when I look at the plan Cheyenne document, and I brought this up in the public services uh meeting.

It says that it's gonna be updated every five years.

The last time it was the work was done to update it was in 2013.

It was released in 2014.

And I think when it gets to trust and stewardship, those are documents that the plan Cheyenne document goes through about community support, community input, and everything else.

So my first question is why has it not been updated for 12 years?

And I would make the statement that with everything that's been coming this direction over the last 10 years or so, whether it's a sentinel system, data centers, man camps, whatever, it almost seems very negligent to me that there hasn't been a more formal planning update uh in plan on the plan Cheyenne, which is a joint effort of both the city and the county, and went to the people.

So my first question is why have you not initiated planning exercise within that five-year guideline that's included in your own document?

The second question I have is that on page 17 of the document that comes from the city's website when it talks about the plan amendment process and procedures.

Item number two says that if specifically related to a development project, the proposer should schedule a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project with area property owners prior to bringing the proposal before the planning commission.

Well, what I've heard here is that it's gone through the planning commission.

I didn't get invited to any neighborhood meeting, and I don't think anybody else did.

And that's the only input the public has is through your plan Cheyenne, which is jointly done with the the county, and you've basically eliminated that opportunity for people to give that input, so we aren't here tonight.

So I'd like to understand why it hasn't been updated.

And and and why was this process not followed?

Sir.

I'm sorry, but I come to these meetings and ask questions and they don't get answered error.

So I'd like those two questions answered.

Sam, I can tell you we uh put in the budget um I don't remember is it 250 or 300,000 to uh to do exactly that to start a process to update that.

We did that in the last um the last budget, and uh I wish Charles was here to tell me when uh when the RFP and that goes out, but uh we are working on that right now.

With all due respect, it was done due in five years.

That was 2019.

I wasn't here then, but I am now and we're working on it.

Well, you're 20, 21, 22, 23, and then why not the process being followed?

I can't answer that question.

I don't know.

Yes, Mayor Council Connerway Planning Development Department.

Um just an update on the RFP.

It is actually out.

Okay, thank you.

Sam, it's out of the Speaker 1.

Hi, my name is Ann Margaret Burns, and um I just became aware of this situation just last week.

I was part of the West Side Planning Commission committee that um helped and worked with Leeds to help bring the North Range Business Park to our neighborhood.

There were and we were also part of um fighting many um subdivisions that had all kinds of problems with septics and drilling wells and our community in Rolling Hills and uh worked really hard uh with leads to make sure that the business park was gonna be a positive thing for our side of the West Side of Cheyenne.

Um they worked to ensure um we haven't heard anything.

The neighborhood has just suddenly been um having to deal with this all of a sudden.

After years of trying to make sure that our community would be protected, Leeds helped us.

We haven't heard anything from Leeds either.

Um I do know, you know, we were working with County Commission in different in a different situation here.

In a different situation here.

But they worked really hard to make sure we had low light.

We had a greenway.

We had to have trees planted.

There was not going to be any truck traffic on Happy Jack, that there would not be noise pollution.

And right now we have we have the Bitcoin operation over there creating tons of noise pollution.

And the solution that has been undertaken is unsatisfactory for us.

We are concerned about our quality of life.

We're concerned about the light.

We're concerned about the fact that there's multiple bodies of water on the Cox Ranch.

What is going to happen with those?

How are our community or the county or the city going to benefit from this?

Are there going to be parks put in there?

Is there going to be a greenway put in there?

These were things that we wanted to have with the North Range Business Park.

And these are things that they negotiated with us.

And this is the first time last Monday my husband came to a meeting, and it was the first time we had heard anything about an annexation.

And it's such a such a giant change.

Because the annexation is coming in.

Those types of situations.

Why you're going to annex and then have all this stuff done after?

Where is the talk about how these data centers are going to enhance our community?

So that's what I'd like to say.

The other thing is with contamination here.

I did we did a quick quick uh Google search on from the EESI Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and they said that during the cooling system maintenance procedures called a blowdown release for a PFAASA forever chemicals linked to cancers and fetal development cause problems in these situ in the in these areas.

And then also I just did a quick Google search on closed loop water systems, and it says under the contaminant control, even when sealed, these systems face challenges from corrosion, scale particulates, and microbiological biological growth.

So there are environmental concerns, and there are natural bodies of water on that ranch that should be protected.

Thank you, ma'am.

Mr.

White.

Push that button, turn the microphone on.

Turn the microphone on.

There you go.

Oh, there it is.

When they drill that well, when I talked to these corporate before when they were starting this thing, they have drills through my the aquifer there.

And the diagram they showed me, let's say the water, the water that I get is here, and then they're trying to get to the water down below.

In between there, they're gonna drill through there and go below it.

We don't know what the water is like under that.

There might be contamination that comes from under the water mixed with the aquifer.

So I just saw it give you attention that if water is a fragile, we can't, you know, when when it rains, it takes forever to get to the underneath the ground wire, water.

I can't remember, it takes a long time.

So that's something you gotta think about.

Like if they're gonna drill or whatever, you gotta remember there's aquifer.

You don't want to ruin everybody else's water.

And second of all, just one more, that uh, you know, data center agriculture is two different things.

Because it has nothing to really with agriculture one more.

The thing was I I'm an actor and model at times.

Artists are upset because the data center do for a copy that's not real.

If you look at the phone, they do all these things, it's getting to where what is real, what is not.

Think about that.

False presentation of news using the data center where there's good things, yeah, probably for data center, but people will take that and miscump misuse it, make something that looks real but not real.

Something to think about that.

That's why our country is starting to fall into.

To me, data center is kind of evil in a way.

Thank you, May Mayor.

Can I remind you guys again?

We're on annexation here.

I appreciate data centers and that kind of stuff, but if we could try to keep a little bit towards the topic, I'd appreciate it.

Sir, Mr.

White.

Through you, Mr.

Chairman, and Mr.

Mayor Michael White.

I would like to say that I've heard more tonight about annexation of the property than I've heard since I was at the Planning Commission and the Public Service Commission last Monday.

We seem to be able to get more information every time we come before this body.

And I'm one that really appreciates that.

But I think I still feel that this property should not be annexed.

But in alternative, I think we need to pause on this.

I think we need to give us some time to vote this down or vote to where we can actually sit down and able to address this pro this annexation.

One question I do have is that I know the mayor said the applicant wanted the annexation of the ranch.

But who initiated the annexation on the treatment plant?

Was the the council?

Was it you, Mr.

Mayor?

Was it the planning department?

During the planning commission, it was it was made that said that we had two owners and two applicants.

The applicant for the record under the county assessor is the city clerk for the city water treatment plant.

So was it initiated by the city clerk?

Was it needed by the council?

It wasn't initiated by the goals that this council had for annexation in the in the in the past.

So the qu one question I do have of that.

But I'm adamant about this.

Annexation, when we have annexation, I believe Mr.

Wolf brought up more topics that I appreciate him bringing up.

We actually had representatives of the developer with AVI with Brad at the Planning Commission.

We had no representation of the two law firms.

We had no representation there to give us some input on annexation from the people that want to develop the property, but that seems to be the process.

And I'd like to hold my other comments on what the Planning Commission did with regards to the next item.

But I adamantly, if we cannot vote this down tonight, then I am adamant about this needs to be postponed to a date, somewhat in reflection of what Ms.

uh what Gay Woodhouse said.

And if not, I think this thing needs to be defeated tonight.

Thank you.

Mr.

White, I think when I said that uh this was asked for by the applicant, uh, you're right, there was a small piece of this that is uh uh two pieces of city-owned property that uh I think the Board of Public Utilities owns that wanted to uh to be part of the city.

So thank you.

Sir Mr.

Mayor and Council, I felt like I came unprepared.

I should have brought my uh swimming trunks.

I felt like I just dived into something, and there was so much going on.

Um I just found out about you identify yourself.

Oh, sure.

Um, Barry Meyer at uh over here in Rolling Hills.

And uh anyways, I just wanted to say that I thought that Councilman Wolf, what you had to say was really good about you know what this is going to be like in the future for us.

How is this going to affect us?

You know, the different things that may be out of our hands eventually.

So I appreciate you saying that.

And um I'm just asking that you that everyone would vote with wisdom and look at it the right way, that how we're feeling, how the people are feeling.

I think a lot of us have really just felt like we've been thrown into something, and maybe step back and take a little bit of time and look at this a little more.

And um anyways, um I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Representative, welcome.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I'm Steve Johnson.

I'm a county resident.

And I just want to say that uh we are actually making a pocket out of rolling hills.

We're starting the the surroundment of rolling hills, and in a few years that'll be that'll be the annexation topic that'll be here ten years from now, whatever.

But we are actually starting the the annexation, the surrounding of uh of a pocket now.

One other uh thing is the zoning issue.

These buildings uh data centers are unique.

They make a lot of noise, they have criteria that they're built on that our zoning commission.

We need to have uh zoning regulations for them to protect the people that that live next to them.

So I at this point I don't think the city has the zoning regulations for the unique data centers, the noise ordinances, the water uh requirements, the power requirements.

Um I I think we need to step back and and uh look into the zoning of these Mr.

Johnson, I can share it with you.

We do have those.

We do have noise regulations, both for an LI, which is light industrial, that says you can't have any noise beyond the property line.

Um and then in our business park, uh we have changed that now so that depending on what's next to it, uh there's levels of noise that can go on, and when it's closest to uh uh residential, it's pretty low.

I think if that number is like 50 at night and 60 during the day.

So um so we have those things in place.

Um we do require uh water um, you know, using technology, so they can't use water uh willy-nilly to do that.

Uh we have a tariff that the state of Wyoming has that makes sure that there's do no harm to our residents.

So, sir, I respectfully I would disagree with that what you just said.

We do have all those things in place.

Well now you might not like the answers, but we have them in place.

Uh respectfully, Mr.

Mayor.

I think that if you look at uh other data centers that have been in existence for years and years, these issues have come up.

They've tried to address them, they put chimneys on their on their uh noise centers.

They've done everything they can possible.

That the still these data centers uh uh living next to them is they're inhabitable.

They're they're a pain to the citizens that live next to them.

So I think we need to investigate actually the nose or noise ordinances and maybe make them a little more stringent than what we have now.

Thank you.

Ma'am, welcome.

Um thank you, Mr.

Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Minda Blevins.

I'm a resident of the Rolling Hills um estates west of town.

Uh the proposed annexation rezoning of the 1200 acres west of Rolling Hills neighborhood will irreversibly transform the rural character of the Rolling Hills residents of the neighborhood.

The Rolling Hills residents deliberately chose when purchasing this property in Laramie County.

Families move here for quiet open spaces, scenic views, abundant wildlife.

Converting this land to business use for a data center will destroy the landscape block views and displace or severely limit local wildlife.

The increase in traffic on an already limited road will harm safety and diminish daily life for residents who may rely on this road for school commutes, work, and emergency access.

That assumption misrepresents the situation.

The property is controlled by an estate which is managed out of state in Florida, whose priorities do not align with the interests of Laramie County residents.

I find it a bit ironic.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this room that the trust is saying now that they want a foundation to sell already labeled agriculture land to support FFA by selling it for business use.

I I think I'm I'm definitely not alone in the iron irony there, and I find it uh very miscarriage use of the foundation that they maybe are trying to create.

In fact, I would think that the concerns of the actual citizens of the Rolling Hills neighborhood have just as much, if not more, right to prevent this rezoning from being approved, since we are the people that will live beside this property.

Citizens of Cheyenne and Laramie County have repeatedly voiced serious concerns about the abundance of data centers being built in our community over the last few years and their local impacts.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the community or the committee vote no to rezone this parcel from agriculture to business and to deny the request to annex the land into the city.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Good evening, sir.

How are you guys doing today?

Okay.

Okay, can you guys hear me?

Yep.

Okay, yeah, I'm I'm uh Brian Pixley.

Um I'm uh resident of Berlin Hills.

Uh you know, like happy checking uh round top, you know.

And uh I I I live out in that industrial area where I hear the like what what the what these people are saying like the coin uh coin bay things, then not that, but you uh we got that uh uh that uh computer supercomputer center over there, the Walmart disappeared center and all that, all that industrial.

I hear that every day, every day.

Not on the uh on on that on my uh security cameras every night.

Because my alert then I I have audio recorded and that I hear that, you know, like the coin coin base or the Walmart or some kind of industrial thing, you know.

And only that, but I'm totally against this, you know.

Against the annexation of all this, you know.

Uh not only that, but I I I personally uh came up with uh uh thing called uh my dot, you know, did uh the water uh water uh drought thing.

That's that's Wyoming.

That's us.

We're almost in the superior drought right now.

And and if you guys build this dentist center, what else?

You know?

How are we gonna get water?

You know, we can't get called out more Colorado water, or we can't get California water or anything else, so you know.

So my my thing is no.

End of story.

Thank you.

Good evening, ma'am.

Good evening.

My name is Janet Tolman, and I'm a resident of the city of Cheyenne and living in Indian Hills, so I'm not I still feel I'm directly affected by what is going on here.

One of the concerns I had was someone talking about the bald eagles and all the extinct things that are reaching extinction here.

And when we annex that into the city, where's that gonna go?

In the past, it just disappears.

And you know, I think of Wyoming as the land of the free and the home of the brain.

I grew up singing that song, you know, uh going to school here.

Um having a great appreciation for that.

Growing up and see how things expanded, growing up and seeing how Boeing was here and how Boeing left and took a lot of the residents.

You know, um, are they gonna come in and then decide that it's something that they don't want to have here?

And then they move out and we've already destroyed everything.

That's one of my questions.

The other question is, as a resident of Cheyenne, will I have water?

Um my other concern is for the cattle, not just the owners of the cattle, but the cattle.

Because if you do a study on noise, they have a greater intensity for hearing noise than people do.

And if they're surrounded by ranches, this industrial complex is going to be surrounded by ranches.

I think that it's gonna greatly impact the productivity of the cattle.

Um, I guess that's just my question.

We are known for our cattle, we are known for our bald eagles and all that.

If we say that's okay, we don't need them.

That's okay.

We don't need residents who've been here over a hundred years.

What are we saying?

My other question is why are these people coming from out of state and wanting to build a data center here?

Why don't they build it in their own state?

Maybe you can answer that question.

Thank you.

Sir, did you want to speak?

Okay, just holding the wall up.

Appreciate you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Jennifer.

Uh Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can um Mayor Collins, members of the city council, and specifically city attorney John Brody.

Um, today is a day of ground truth.

We are not here to witness growth.

We are here to witness the managed decline of Cheyenne's sovereignty.

For too long, the people of this county have been treated as an afterthought in their own city's backrooms.

Tonight we are stripping the camouflage off this industrial machine.

The establishment likes to say that growth is inevitable, but I am here to audit that narrative against your own laws.

Your master plan Cheyenne mandates managed growth.

It mandates the protection of rural character and existing neighborhoods.

You are not following the plan, you are sabotaging it.

To leapfrog over city infrastructure to annex 1200 acres of historic ranch land is not a lot, is not logical expansion.

It is it is a predatory land grab that violates the very spirit of the planning documents you swore to uphold.

Mayor Collins, you told the public these data centers use the water of eight homes.

This is a state of technical fraud.

Industry telemetry for hyperscale facilities reveals that on high heat days, they can consume up to five million gallons per day.

That is the equivalent of 16,666 households.

To frame a 16,000 home load as an eight home impact is a betrayal of the public trust.

Mr.

Miller.

Mr.

Miller in an extreme drought.

Mr.

Miller.

Our state monitoring shows our aquifer is in crisis.

Yet your own agent, Brad Emmons admitted tonight, I don't have those water numbers.

You are liquidating our future in a data vacuum while the BOPU admits they failed the statutory notice for a 911% lead increase in Crow Creek.

You are poisoning the filter and draining the well at the same time.

But an Air Force missile launch officer, a man who actually operated this tech just gave you the ground truth.

These systems fail repeatedly.

We're not going to gamble our survival on a developer's brochure when our military experts say it's a failure.

And we won't ignore the weekend drillers who are already exploiting this land while city inspectors are asleep.

Let's talk about the map, the actual legal ordinance.

Attorney Gay Woodhouse admitted tonight the maps are actually false.

They are missing permanent easements that won't be surveyed until August.

To vote on an inaccurate map is an ultraviolet act.

You're legislating a cloud on the title.

You are legislating an inverse condemnation claim.

Finally, we see the truth behind the curtain.

The FRFP is out.

The deal is contingent on your vote.

You are acting as the sole as the closing agents for a Florida trust while you fund 161,826 MUSCO video trailers to film your own PR sizzle reels.

And when a citizen brings up the data, when the audit becomes too precise, Councilman Wolf calls them a go uh chat G.

Mr.

Miller, your time's up.

Thank you.

Chris, you can go ahead and unmute yourself.

Hello, my name is uh Chris Colson.

I am a resident of um Cheyenne.

Um I just have a couple questions.

Um Mayor, you made a statement, and I just want a clarification, make sure I heard you correctly.

And uh you you talked about you you heard from someone that it was the Olympic size swimming pool of how much water that they use, and then you gave a figure for that Olympic size swimming pool.

Um I just want to make sure I I heard you correctly.

Can you repeat your statement on whom you spoke to about the water usage of a data center?

Yeah, we have a new data center being built in the eastern part of town, and during their ribbon cutting, they talked about the uh the the use of their water, and they they talked about the use of uh approximately an Olympic size swimming pool as being the amount of water they use in a closed loop system, and after they they charge that system and make it work, then after that the uh the water use would be more domestic use of in the the restrooms, the irrigation, uh hand washing, things like that.

Um, so they don't um they don't use water like Mr.

Miller was talking about some of the old style um data centers that um used an evaporative cooling system.

Understood.

So I just want to make sure Olympic size swimming pool holds about 660,000 gallons of water.

And I just want to make sure we were on the same page talking of what that was because it sounded like they were under representing how much water that actually is.

Yeah, I think when what they when I talked to them about it, um they have they have two systems, one that I think they call the technology loop that has water and glycol glycol in it.

I think I got that right.

Um, and that has about 90 to 100,000 gallons in it, and then they have the facility pool that has around 500,000 gallons in it.

So you know, around 600,000, 700,000 gallons of water to charge that system.

And then after that it just uh recycles.

Understood.

And I understand that that you want to talk about the annexation and not the data center.

One is directly in result of the other.

Um, you know, I do hear what other people are talking about.

You know, things keep happening with these data centers, they keep popping up, popping up faster than you guys can make a plan for.

Um, and that's why I think people get so fixated on data centers and the cause and effect of them.

Um, for example, with all the the data centers that are happening already, there's an extreme um semi-crisis on skilled workers.

I know a number of businesses that are electrician businesses that are losing all of their employees because they're getting paid by the union to work on these data centers, which means they can't service residential without raising their price two to three times because they have to raise their prices.

So there is a lot of cause and effect that's happening within these um data centers that are popping up.

The other thing that I did want to mention was I don't know if Jack O'Neill is still there, but in Wyoming Tribune last week, he made a statement that said even if you guys vote no, then they'll just go to the county.

That was kind of a abrupt statement that was being made.

If you guys vote no on the annexation, then they'll just go and still continue trying to build a data center, but through the county.

Which then brings up, you know why it's almost like you are asking mom, and if mom says no, then you're gonna go to dad for your ultimate.

That's not how we operate typically here in Wyoming.

Um I would love if he were there to address that comment that was made last week when they actually voted not to recommend.

Chris, I'll tell you now in my life, it's my grandkids' last grandma and then come ask me.

So I I've graduated from the kids, but uh I appreciate the comment.

Jennifer uh Kathy Sigliano, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Hello, um, good evening, Kathy Sigliano.

Um first I wanted to assure everyone in the room that I am not an AI chat bot, as some have assumed of other callers.

Constantly telling us to not mention the data centers, even though this annexation is for a data center is absolutely ridiculous.

Transparency is key here, and a lot of the people don't feel that you have been.

At the committee meeting last week, it was mentioned that notice was given to the properties, and I think it was within a 300 feet radius, which seemed like an a joke.

A lot of people in the room voiced that no one even lives within that range.

You're literally just ignoring the constituents that you represent.

And we ask that you do better, or we will find people who can.

You keep telling us about closed loop systems as if it is a perfect script that they have given you to read to us.

Do you do any research on this?

Have you looked at other cities and what has happened there?

Or do you just take what they are saying to you as like a word of God?

We as a community are asking you to slow down, and you just confirmed about 20 of these data centers currently.

One of them I believe is going to be the largest in the world.

What is that really going to do to our community?

One lady just spoke about asking what they're going to do for our community.

Are they going to put in any kind of parks, a greenway?

Um, I say ask them for a rec center.

We keep seeing that on a lot of community pages asking why we don't have a giant rec center.

I came here 12 years ago from North Dakota, where a lot of the oil field companies gave funding to the city of Williston for one of the most amazing rec centers that I have seen for our community.

So I asked the these developers, Meta, Google, whoever's coming here, um, give us a rec center.

If you want to impede on our community, give us something that we are actually going to benefit from.

So again, I will ask, what are these really doing for our community?

What are they doing for a positive?

What are they doing negatively?

And I ask that the city council really, really just thinks about this and listens to the community members that are going to be living next to this.

Thank you.

You know, Kathy, I would share with you, you I think you asked a really good question.

Are we doing research?

And you know, when we look back in the history of data centers, we recognize that uh data centers uh caused electric utility rates in communities to go up, that they use a lot of water.

Um, that was impactful.

Um, and so you know, we have I think maybe an advantage of coming in later because we've seen what has gone wrong in some of those other communities and were able to uh put together um uh I don't call them rules, regulations, requirements uh so that uh data centers, if they were to choose to come to Wyoming would do it differently.

And uh I can tell you that when I sit down with the data centers, we do talk about that.

We talk about what water being a precious resource in the Colorado River and our concerns for that and the fact that if they're gonna come, they've got to use water wisely.

Um we make sure that they're understanding the uh uh the tariff system, and if they're not going to use that, uh we're not interested in them coming here.

We would say no.

Um so we are uh understanding exactly what you just said.

We're learning from the the mistakes other communities have made, and we're doing our very best to try to not not repeat those and to use our our presses resources wisely.

And um, so I think we are doing that.

Thank you.

Jennifer, do you have anybody else?

Reba Epler, you should be able to unmute yourself.

I'm sorry.

Hi, my name is Reba Epler.

Welcome.

I'm an thank you.

I'm an attorney in Wyoming, and I have experience with the Cox French because my family leased it for about 10 years before I went to law school, and um we still ended up not leasing it about my the end of my law school career.

I spent quite a bit of time with Mrs.

Cox and with their hired man, Claudio.

I even went down to Argentina to spend time with Claudio when he was um older, and there was a veterinarian from Cheyenne named Dr.

Fox, and and we went together um at different times to spend time with this hired man.

I'd like to make some points about the Cox Ranch, how historic and important it is for the history of Cheyenne.

It's mentioned numerous times in uh various books about Cheyenne Frontier Days.

They were uh very successful in their raising of horses, they raised three Kentucky Derby winners.

One of those winners was very famous.

They um were one of the first Angus ranches of the state of Wyoming.

I believe the ranch is 130 years old.

And in my time on that ranch, I have observed numerous cultural uh indigenous cultural sites ranging from teepee rings, numerous teepee rings, to what I believe are graves and other significant sites.

Um there's also a tremendous amount of water resources that are on that ranch.

There's surface water, there's creeks, and in the in the um creeks, there's also nesting birds.

I observed different plants that are endangered or um threatened, one being the Colorado butterfly plant, and the other being the uh Utes Ladies Trust.

Um, in my work in Waterlaw, I've found cases or I'm sorry, um studies that demonstrate that even back as far as 1967, the Cheyenne well field was affecting Crow Creek and drying it up.

And I can provide the city council with that study.

It's provided by the United States Geological Service.

And I'm very concerned about this annexation.

It doesn't make sense for this area, it will dramatically negatively affect the health, well-being of the area.

And I think it's very coincidental that the heirs of Mrs.

Cox are not benefiting from this whatsoever.

However, there are two attorneys that are going to benefit from it, and I find that to be objectionable that the people that did this are going to benefit, whereas the family members themselves are not going to benefit.

That's why I've heard so much discussion of this foundation, and I find it to be objectionable too.

I don't think that there's an ingenuous reason behind this.

So for all these reasons, I think that the city of Cheyenne and the community will lose a tremendous resource if this is developed into a data center.

It should be kept and preserved as a ranch, it should be fixed up, it should be um cherished by the area, and it already is, but it needs a lot of work.

And I think that what's being proposed is tragic, and um I don't I don't approve of this.

So I I hope that there is a no vote on the annexation.

Thank you.

Jennifer uh Maj, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Hi, Mandy Shaddick, resident of Rowling Hill.

I want to thank the mayor and the counselors for being here today, and I want to again give great prop to my community for stepping up for something that they really feel passionate about because this is the essence of civic engagement.

The question I have is how big does the city of Cheyenne actually want to be?

And when we say the city of Cheyenne, are we talking about the esoteric sort of entity that exists through government or the actual people?

We do have a choice.

We've had choices a long time, and it's been complicated.

I think we've grown bigger than we can handle in more ways than one.

Wyoming and Cheyenne specifically has historically been a boom or buff town, whether by minerals or tourism.

Agriculture and the everyday man and woman and child have sustained it.

Our tourism is largely fueled by some sort of lost identity.

One that we didn't capture for our side, but we put off in flash reels or whatever they call it.

We have systematically, to certain degrees, created our building identity on other places.

We have taken other cities, other buildings, and simply cut and paste them into the landscape.

And they're always guys as good for the people.

And sometimes they are.

But we embrace agriculture as our heritage.

And there are ways to update our agricultural systems because Wyoming has them at the forefront with hagging animals to raise prices of beef on a worldwide market.

What we can do with land that is already agricultural and technological can be blended, and we'll still use water.

So we can eat the return.

We can see what we're doing, and we can have tangible output of where our work goes.

We can teach people more about agriculture if we keep things agricultural.

I have a problem with the fast tracking of the building department portal.

This obviously allows people to come in to put in pull out.

Kind of like a closed system where there isn't a lot of input, but there's always a constant.

Even if we build data centers and all of this stuff, we live in a drought area, and it's not just about water, but there are heat islands, and we are seeing climate change.

So how big do we want to be, Cheyenne?

Because you're the citizenry and you have a choice.

We have a choice.

How much of it do you want to keep wild?

And if you want to protect a legend, a legend is just a story, but what we have is tangible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you have any more, Jennifer?

Okay.

Anyone else in the room?

Mr.

Kessler.

Mr.

Mayor, last time I promise.

So what rather than repeat what others have covered, I want to take a different approach.

One rooted in who we are and where we come from.

Like the Cox family and others, I come from a pioneer Wyoming family.

My father's family, homestead north of Hillsdale, and my mother's father served in the cavalry at Fort D.A.

Russell.

Generations of my family, like many of yours helped build this region long before there were paved roads, zoning maps, or committee hearings.

They endured the wind, the winters, and the uncertainty because they believed Wyoming was a place worth investing in.

A place where land meant something, a place where community meant something.

That heritage heritage isn't just a story we tell.

It's a responsibility we carry.

When we talk about a proposal like this one, we're not just talking about parcels on a map.

We're talking about the character of the land our families settled.

We're talking about the views they woke up to, the quiet they depended on, and the open space that shaped their lives and ours.

Growth is a part of Wyoming's story.

It always has been, but growth has to respect the people who are already here.

It has to honor the history that made this community possible.

And it has to reflect the values that brought our families to this land in the first place.

Independence, stewardship, and a deep respect for the land itself.

This proposal, as it stands, asks asks along established neighborhoods to absorb impacts they did not create and cannot control.

It has families who have lived here for generations to accept changes that would permanently alter the landscape they've cared for.

And it does so without demonstrating that the benefits outweigh the costs to the people who call this place home.

We owe it to our ancestors and to our children to make decisions that strengthen our community rather than the fracture it.

Decisions that preserve the character of this land rather than erase it.

Decisions that reflect not just what is possible, but was what is right.

I ask you today to consider not only the technical details, but the legacy we are shaping.

Let's choose a path that honors the people who built this place, protects the families who live here now, and preserves the Wyoming we are we are all proud to call home.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hearing nobody else, we're going to close public comment and we'll go over to uh Dr.

Emmons and see what the motion is.

Mr.

Mayor, the motion to approve failed at the public service committee.

Therefore, there is no recommendation.

However, for the sake of discussion, I move to approve on second reading.

Second.

It's been seconded by Mr.

Seagrave.

Dr.

Emmons, did you have an amendment for the ownership?

Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend by substitute dated April 15th, 2026.

Second.

So we have a motion to amend, seconded by Mr.

Seagrave.

And just make sure I understand from staffing to give me a head raise.

The difference is we're just updating some of the ownership on the application, right?

So nothing's changed inside the document, just the ownership.

All right.

Well, hopefully we don't have to talk about that as a group here.

We're just going to change the ownership on the uh there's a scripters here, I believe, on that.

So is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak to that?

How about from the governing body?

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

Aye.

Those opposed?

So the uh uh substitute is amended.

We have changed the ownership to the correct ownership.

Um back to the governing body.

Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Seagrave.

I'm I move to refer the ordinance to the public services committee.

And the committee be instructed to report at the June 8th, 2026 council meeting.

Second.

I would like to amend the amendment.

Hang on just a second.

I gotta motion to uh refer this to the public service committee effectively.

What that does is it uh postpones this item until June 8th.

Um did you want to make a motion?

Yes, sir.

I would like to amend the amendment uh to change the date from June 8th to the uh second Monday in September.

Which is what the um attorney for the Cox family had asked for.

It was for August, and so if we go to the second Monday in September, that would be give them sufficient time.

Second.

Okay.

So we have a motion to basically postpone and now we have another motion to make that the second Monday in September.

Do we have a date on that?

Thank you.

I will go out to the audience.

Anybody want to talk about the postponement until now it looks like the first amendment would be September 14th.

Hearing not how about from the governing body?

Mr.

Mayor.

Dr.

Emmons.

I would like some um guidance on how much that does that cause problems with the process.

I don't know who to ask.

How about the the Mr.

White?

Mayor, members of Council Counterway Planning and Development Department.

Should the postponement pass, you will need to you need you will need to postpone the next two items to the same date certain.

Um I believe it's item number 24 that's also on the agenda that is being basically it was on consent that goes to public service committee next week.

Basically, out of the next council meeting, we're also gonna have to postpone that item, which we might have to postpone even further.

Uh, because technically that item should not even be considered or voted on until the property is annexed into the city limits.

Um that one we would end up having to postpone further, but for tonight, you would have to postpone the next two items.

We can get everything lined up with the postponements, but for tonight you would have to postpone this and the next two to keep everything together and on track.

Thank you, Mr.

White.

Mr.

O'Neill, what does this do to uh uh your deal with the uh trust and uh Ms.

Delaney?

Hello there.

Um we we could that would honestly give ample time I think to help uh the Cox family and the seller reach a resolution and uh we would be absolutely amenable to that to again help catalyze what is a hopefully a solution to a sensitive situation.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, there's no concerns from the trust with that.

Okay, thank you guys.

Jennifer.

Mr.

Mayor, I'm sorry I missed Mr.

Miller's hand raised when you went by a public comment.

Um we've kind of moved on from that, thank you.

What do you want to talk about?

Uh Jennifer, do you know?

Is it the postponement?

Can you hear me?

We can.

Uh Mayor Collins, members of the city council, and specifically City Attorney John Brody.

Uh for the record, my name is Charles Miller.

I was in the Zoom queue with my hand raised for item eleven and I was skipped, or for the amendment.

Um you told the public there was no comment while uh um while I was waiting to s to speak.

Um that is viewpoint discrimination.

You can try to try to some grace, Mr.

Miller.

I apologize we missed you.

I really do.

Um I asked, I asked for comments and just give us some grace, okay?

Um, tonight the camouflage has been stripped away.

You are moving to postpone this until September.

Why?

Because the telemetry doesn't lie.

You have finally admitted what I entered into the record.

Your maps are factually false.

Your surveys won't exist until August.

And you are legally incapable of making a finding of an accurate boundary tonight.

Moving this to September is not a standard procedure.

It is a strategic retreat.

It is a formal admission that the paper reality you tried to push tonight was a legal house of cards.

Let's talk about the swimming pool.

Mayor, you said that these used the water of eight homes.

This is technical fraud.

Industry data shows that on a hot July day, these facilities switch to evaporative cooling and pull the water of 16,000 Cheyenne homes.

You are asking to liquidate our aquifer in an extreme drought.

They are calling you out of order for um not following what the amendment is, and I agree.

Um thank you.

Jennifer, is there anybody else?

Okay.

All right, we're on the postponement.

Um date of September 14th.

Umbody else in the audience?

How about from the governing body?

All right, hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

I guess there's really no reason we we postponed uh we amended an amendment.

David, do we need to uh vote on it a second time because it w we had an amendment.

We uh uh we adjusted the amendment.

I guess we have to vote on it a second time, do we not?

Yes.

Okay.

So now we're back on the uh uh the uh amendment made by Mr.

Seagrave and seconded by Dr.

Emmons to uh postpone but or instead it'll be to September 14th uh from the governing body.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye and those opposed.

All right.

So this ordinance is effectively postponed until the September 14th meeting of the governing body.

Mr.

Mayor.

And yes, sir.

I just want to clarify that during the uh every other week public service committee.

This will not be a topic on the agenda.

The committee will study, but they will not be reporting or taking testimony.

Right.

And we'll make a make a real effort as if there's going to be any action to uh I'm not sure who your your spokesperson is, but we'll make sure we get the information out to everybody so that you can participate in any uh public meetings that we might have on this subject.

And why don't we take a five-minute break um while everybody clears out, use the restroom, and then we'll get back to the rest of our agenda.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call the meeting back to order.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call this meeting back to order.

Thank you.

All right, Madam Clerk, item 12, please.

Number 12, ordinance, second reading, amending the official map of the city of Cheyenne, establishing the zoning classification of AG agricultural and P public for land annexed to the city of Cheyenne, located west of Roundtop Road and adjacent to Happy Jack Road.

All right, I don't see anybody left in the audience, but uh is anybody in the audience want to speak to us?

All right, hearing none.

Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

Mayor, the motion to approve failed at the public service committee.

Therefore, there is no recommendation.

However, for the sake of discussion, I move to approve on second reading.

Second.

Second by Mr.

Seagrave.

I'd move to postpone to September.

Let's do the amendment on the ownership if you don't mind first.

So Dr.

Emmons?

Um Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend by substitute dated April 15th, 2026.

Second.

Say that again.

I move to amend by substitute dated April 15th, 2026.

April 15th, okay.

I just I didn't catch that date.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Seagrave.

And again for the audience, that just changes the ownership on the ordinance, nothing changes.

Um anybody in the audience?

How about from the governing body?

Hearing on all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

Okay.

The says substitute is approved.

Mr.

Seagret.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to refer the ordinance to the public services committee, and the committee be instructed to report at the September 14th, 2026 council meeting.

Second.

September 14th.

Yes.

And that was seconded by Dr.

Aldridge.

Gotta get on my notes here.

All right.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to the effort to uh basically postpone this until September 14th.

Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Can you hear me?

Mr.

Miller, are you on the effort to postpone?

Yeah, yes.

Uh Mayor Collins, City Attorney Brody for the record, Charles Miller.

I'm speaking now because the procedural integrity of this entire session has been permanently compromised.

Uh before we advance any further into tonight's agenda, I'm entering a formal notice of procedural content.

What does this have to do with the uh delay?

Second.

Um the answer there for you.

I find you out of order, Mr.

Miller.

The the le Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Miller.

Mr.

Miller.

Um sorry, Mr.

Mayor, through you, Charles Miller for the record.

Uh the legal authority of this council to execute item 12 is directly tied to its adherence to due process of the First Amendment because you actively engaged in viewpoint discrimination prior to the recent.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

Um we have a motion to postpone until September 14th.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

All right, we're going to sign this to the public service committee and have them uh work this until September 14th.

Um that will be Dr.

Rainey voting no.

Oh, yeah.

No, I don't think we had a motion to postpone it.

Should be done, right?

Yep.

Item number 13, please.

You know, I apologize.

Would you like to discuss it?

Yeah, I just I want to explain my notebook.

I don't uh I mean we talked briefly.

I understand postponing the annexation and and referring that to public service committee and the public service committee is supposed to work that out and sort it.

And um kind of monitor the negotiations between the parties involved.

But I don't think that was the question was the annexation.

To me, the um zoning is an entirely different matter, and I'm not sure that it is the purpose it was the intent for the public service committee to sort out the zoning as well.

So I just think it should be handled differently if we either um postpone it every two weeks, like is our normal routine, or we kill it and bring it back shortly before the September date.

So I just don't think how we're handling it in the case of zoning is appropriate.

Thank you, Dr.

Rainey.

Madam Clerk Number 13 ordinance second reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for land located west of Round Top Road and adjacent to Happy Jack Road from AG Agricultural to BP Business Park.

All right.

We'll go out to the audience and see if anybody wants to talk about the zoning.

Um is that Mr.

Miller again?

Okay.

Mr.

Miller.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

If you're on the zoning, uh we're we're here for you, sir.

Uh Mayor Collins, City Council and City Attorney Brody for the record, Charles Miller.

We're on uh number 13.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Um I'm speaking directly to item 13, the amendment to the official zoning map.

Um what this council is attempting to do right now is the definition of a legal project segmentation.

Just moments ago, you were forced into a September retreat on the annexation because your own applicant council admitted the boundary maps are factually false and will not be surveyed until August.

I want the city attorney to put this on the record.

How can this council legally vote to change the zoning classification of a boundary that you have just admitted does not legally exist yet?

You are attempting to zone a phantom map.

Dr.

Rennie just pointed out this exact procedural absurdity.

You cannot sever the zoning from the annexation when the foundational geography of the project is currently illegally void.

Pushing a business park zoning designation forward while the actual land capture is trapped in a 130-day technical audit is an ultraviolet virus act.

Zoning this land for hyperscale industrial.

So we're not voting on it.

We're not voting on it tonight.

We're just we're it's the first step in the process.

And again, sir, I we're what where did we say that we are our maps were incorrect?

Um, can you can you can you share with me where where our maps are incorrect?

I'm gonna uh go ahead and continue here.

Mr.

Miller is a good thing.

Mr.

Miller, I'm asking you a question, sir.

Can you tell me because you just made an accusation that our maps are incorrect?

And I sat here for the last three hours, I took notes on everything.

I did not write down once that our maps were incorrect.

Where did you find that?

Uh can you hear me?

I can hear you, sir.

And I'm asking a question, asking looking for your answer.

You said that our maps are incorrect, our boundaries are incorrect.

Um yes, Mr.

Mayor.

I will share exactly where earlier in my in this very session it was admitted on the record by the applicants representatives that the final boundary surveys will not be completed until August.

By definition, if the land is not fully surveyed until August, the map sitting in front of you tonight is legally incomplete and factually inaccurate.

So that is not accurate.

Mr.

Miller, that is not accurate.

What he said was that they are going to work on trying to address the mausoleum uh challenge that's going forward, and they wouldn't be able to get that done until August.

But the boundaries of the annexation are in fact accurate, and we can move forward on that.

Mr.

Mr.

Mayor, you asked me a question and I am answering it.

You know, I'm telling you you're wrong, sir.

Survey data.

You don't have the August survey data, therefore your map is incomplete.

No, sir, it's not.

I I claim my time.

Please do.

Jennifer, is there anybody else?

Um anybody else in the audience want to speak.

Sir Jim Churrell uh Ward 1, just in support of the governing body.

My understanding was to postpone this to September to give the attorney the times that they could do that research for that.

So I agree with you that uh Mr.

Miller has been uh quite a bit out of order on this.

I don't agree with the uh changing of it, but that all be taken care of in September.

But as a member of the audience, I understood it to be the postponement to give the Cox family time to go and uh deal with the laws of lead.

Thank you, Jim.

Appreciate that.

Is that what you wanted to say, sir?

Mayor through you counterway planning development department.

I just wanted to clarify that we do have a legal boundary for everything for the annexation.

Uh what was being discussed by the applicant is after the annexation, then they can survey it.

But there is a legal boundary description, and that is what is in the ordinance, and that is what is on the survey map.

So we have a legal boundary to annex um this area.

Understood.

Thank you, Mr.

White.

All right, hearing nothing more from the uh from the audience.

Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

Mayor, the motion to approve died due to a lack of a second at the public service committee.

Therefore, there is no recommendation.

However, for the sake of discussion, I move to approve on second reading.

Seconded by Dr.

Aldridge.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to refer the ordinance to the public services committee and the committee to be instructed to report at the September 14th 2026 council meeting.

Second.

All right.

It's been moved by Mr.

Seagrave, seconded by Dr.

Aldridge to move this to September 14th.

We'll go out to the audience.

And if Mr.

Dr.

Rennie would like to address that, or if anybody else would like to address it.

No?

Uh Mr.

Mayor, I will vote no for the same reasons.

And I think the fact that we all know that, you know, first of all, we know it has to be assigned an ag zone on the last action.

So because that matches what it currently is, so there's really no question on that on that one.

And actually that one probably should have been voted down.

This one at least, I suppose we have the options, even though we know the request is going to be for a business park zone, we probably would have the option to give it LI or something else.

But I'll still be a no for the same reasons.

Thank you, Dr.

Rennie.

Jennifer.

Oh boy.

Mr.

Miller, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Can you hear me?

Mr.

Miller, are you on the postponement?

Yes.

Okay, go ahead.

Um Mayor Collins, City Council for the record, Charles Miller.

I want the audio record to immediately reflect reflect the profound admission just made by Councilman Rennie.

He just correctly stated that this land must be assigned an AG zone because in his exact words, that matches what it currently is.

He is acknowledging the ground truth.

This is 1200 acres of historic Wyoming ranch land.

It is not in an industrial park, and you cannot arbitrarily zone it into one while ignoring the physical limitations of our aquifer.

When your own council members are looking at this proceeding and stating that one probably should have that that one probably should have been voted down, it proves the internal technical review has completely fractured.

You are attempting to override a functioning agricultural ecosystem with a hyperscale industrial zoning designation that carries a verifiable 16,000 home water deficit in an extreme drought.

D three.

Dr.

Rainey is exactly right.

The zoning must reflect physical reality, not a developer's.

My whole council is saying point of order, Mr.

Miller.

You're not on the postponement.

You need to tell Chat GBT you got to get focused on what we're talking about here.

Mr.

Miller.

Mr.

Mayor.

I'm sorry.

Hello?

Hello, we're here.

We're on the postponement.

You have to stay focused on that.

That was classic.

You cannot point of order a physical reality, whether we are on an amendment in that annexation or a zoning change, the foundational legal requirements second.

Remains the same.

Mr.

Miller, again that we're going to call you out of order, and I agree.

Sir, you're out of order.

You're not following our procedures.

And I'm sorry, I cut a cough to call you out of order again.

If you want to talk about the postponement, I'm I'm hoping to it.

But if you want to assault the city council or or to talk about other issues, this is not the time or place for it.

I formally object to the second arbitrary point of order used to silence my testimony tonight.

Um let the record reflect that the administration immediately cut my microphone the second I pointed out that Councilman Rimi publicly validated my audit regard regarding the ag zone.

You cannot use parliamentary procedure to suppress the ground truth of that the land is agricultural.

The water deficit is 16,000 homes.

The map was factually false.

Again, Mr.

Miller, you are out of order.

Let's go on to the next person, please.

Jennifer, who else do you have?

Chris, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Welcome, Chris.

Hello.

Um I'm sorry, guys.

But maybe it might make a little sense if maybe this previous person that was speaking doesn't understand why they're out of order.

He did seem to bring up a good point.

Um I don't know if you know this is the first time I've ever attended one of these.

I do not know if uh this is not a discussion of the first point that he made can't be discussed.

Which one which was that, Chris?

I'm sorry.

Chris, which point was it that he made that you thought was appropriate?

Um he mentioned that the current land is zone agricultural.

And I I just uh maybe if that could be answered, maybe he could stop asking that question.

Well, it does it says it right in the uh um the entitlement.

It says an amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification west of Roundtop Road and adjacent from agricultural AB AG agriculture to business park.

We recognize that when we first read it into the record.

We know that it's agricultural today, and the motion that this item has would be to change that to a business park.

Um and Robertsul's of order talks about we have to follow whatever the motion is.

And right now the motion is to postpone this to September 14th.

So anything not related to a postponement is out of order.

And I I we're trying to help him understand that, but he's not he's not following the rules of order.

Does that make sense, Chris?

No, it definitely does, and it's perhaps maybe he now understands.

Like I said, maybe he's new like I am.

I didn't I don't know any of the rules for anything.

Chris, I I can tell you Mr.

Miller calls all the time.

He understands the rules.

Um, or or he just is just not following them, and that's just disappointing.

Gotcha.

So asking any questions about zoning would be out of order, correct?

I don't want to waste anyone's time and ask questions that will not help anything.

Chris, that would be right because we we opened it up for discussion on the main motion.

Nobody uh spoke about it.

Um, and then we had a motion to uh amend, and now we're now we're we're focused on the motion to amend, which is the September 14th date.

So I appreciate that you are new, but uh um the first opportunity was there, and and that's been exhausted.

Completely understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jennifer, anybody else?

All right.

Hearing none, um, we have a motion and a second, those on the governing body to talk about postponing until September 14th.

Mr.

White, did you have a comment, sir?

No.

Anybody else?

All right.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

We have unanimous mo we had I had an unanimous Dr.

Rainey is a no.

We have uh uh an approval to postpone until September 14th, 2026.

Number 14, ordinance first reading, amending enforcement and permitting requirements related to oversized vehicles and making conforming amendments.

We'll send this one to the finance committee.

Number 15 resolution approving a proposition to impose the one percent specific purpose sales and use tax in Laramie County, State of Wyoming, for the exclusive purpose of funding specific purposes for specific amounts, the propositions to be voted on at the election to be held on August 18th, 2026.

All right.

This is an opportunity for anybody in the community to talk about the countywide resolution to uh uh create the ballot that'll go before the voters.

Anyone in the audience hearing none.

Uh Mr.

Escobel.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the Finance Committee is to adopt an ISO move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

White.

Comments from members of the governing body.

I said point information.

Mr.

Mayor?

Yes, sir.

Yep.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you just a point of information so the uh public understands.

So this language uh we're gonna approve tonight, this will be the ballot language in August.

That is correct, sir.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Laybord.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um the reason I asked this to be called off the consent agenda is that it is not a routine item as the consent agenda is uh alleged to be.

This you couldn't have anything more important than this.

This is our lifeblood.

This is our future.

And I really think that that some of the discussion that's happened here tonight and some of the attitudes that have been displayed really take us away from the really important and worthwhile efforts that we put into making this ballot and making sure that people understand it and hopefully support it.

So I I really Mr.

Mayor, I just believe that the way this meeting is gone and some of the things that have been said really don't reflect the professionalism and the attitude that we need to display to the public so that they understand what we're doing here and why we're doing it, and how important it is that we get out and really communicate about this all important ballot.

So that's the reason I asked to have it pulled off the consent agenda.

It is not a written never was, never could be a routine item.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the governing body?

Hearing none.

All those in favor of the six-penny language, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

And those opposed, the resolution is adopted.

Number 18 resolution approving an increase of the budget of the Cheyenne Downtown Development Authority for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 2026.

All right.

We have a motion or a resolution to uh change the budget for the downtown development authority.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to that?

Sophia.

Good evening, Sophia Mays, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority.

There are no changes from my presentation to Finance Committee.

This is simply a an increase in the overall budget.

We were gotten a lot more things done than we had planned on when we first started this.

I did want to clarify that after the Finance Committee, I had clarification from the City Treasurer and attorney that my uh interpretation of every time we amend our budget it would be taken to the governing body, but in fact, that's only material amendments, such as an increase to the budget.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Oh, I have a question.

Hey, Sophia, don't run away.

I think a couple of people might want to talk to you.

At least I'm I'm hearing that.

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um so since we have or since we are in the process of expanding the borders of the DDA, does that also mean there will be more revenue brought in to your budget?

Ms.

Mays.

Mr.

Mayor, through you.

That would increase um the mill levy, whatever the assessed value is of that property that's being included.

Dr.

Emmons, if I remember correctly, those those property owners pay 20 mills more than an average uh business downtown would be.

And so the next time they pay property taxes, there will probably be an increase.

And that was my next question is when would that actually be realized?

Madam Treasurer, do you know it will it hit the next it's done by December, right?

It it it's effective on the next year.

It will be the next year.

Yep.

Thank you.

Dr.

Aldridge?

Yes, Mayor Collins, through you.

I I want to make sure that I understood this correctly.

My understanding was that the we were being asked to approve an increase of the budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, which was last year through June 30th of 2026.

And it was primarily because of a communication plan that we did not previously approve.

Ms.

Mays.

Mayor, through you.

The communications plan line item was on the budget that the governing body did approve.

We were we had not appropriately assessed how much that would be.

And uh with the proposals that we received, we decided, or the board decided that we wanted a much more comprehensive communications plan versus a simple website update or or whatnot.

Um that we were planning to stay within our budget for the fiscal year, um, but we did want to increase in order to be able to uh provide more grants and and whatnot for the community.

So as a follow-up, Mayor?

Yes, ma'am.

Um through you.

So the uh the amount that was expended for the communication plan, um that amount, if I am understanding correctly, exceeded what the amount was that was budgeted.

And uh we that's correct.

Mr.

Mayor, through you, that is correct.

So Sophie is the the bid you got back or the desi what you desire to do was more expensive than what you originally budgeted, and so you're looking for more revenues to cover the cost of this enhanced program.

That's correct, ma'am.

Okay.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Yeah, as a follow-up, Mayor.

So my understanding is that this is basically retroactive because the money has been obligated by the DDA.

And so I was at a meeting uh this week.

Oh my gosh, maybe it was last it was last week.

It's they all run together after a while.

It was last week with downtown business owners who are basically a group that has started and is doing a communications plan uh actually relatively inexpensively through their membership and through their board.

It seems to be a duplicated effort.

And so for that reason, I'm going to be a no vote tonight because I really believe that um this is not um was the people who are paying this um extra 20 mills asked did not want the communication plan that has been done by the DDA uh to the extent that it was done, and they've gone out now and done something on the at their own.

So for that reason, I'm going to be a no vote tonight.

Sophia, can you explain to us the difference between what the foundation is doing and what you guys are doing?

Mayor, my understanding we're not in a lot of communications with that group, unfortunately.

So that was news to us at that meeting that they were duplicating efforts.

However, the Downtown First, as they're calling themselves, they were formerly the Downtown Development Foundation.

They have a board member that has a marketing firm that's giving in-kind contribution for that communications.

I'm not familiar to the extent that their communications, what their communications plan will be.

What that includes is a communication strategy of how we talk to different target audiences, such as the council, such as investor property owners, business owners, and then the general public about what the DDA is doing as well as what the what's going on in the downtown district.

And then that will also include a downtown promotional video with drone footage, things like that.

That West Edge the firm that's doing our communications plan is very good at.

But we believe as a board that this was this was something that we heard over and over again from this group specifically.

And so that's why, in my opinion, why it was believed to do something so comprehensive to provide what they were asking for from the Millaby funds.

I would just like to point out that the downtown first group, as you pointed out, has a board member that is in marketing and is willing to do this in kind.

And uh West Edge is also one of your board members, in fact, your board uh president, correct?

No.

Mayor, through you.

Uh yes, David Tubner is our board president.

He's with Warehouse 21.

Okay, so it is a different entity than what he is currently involved with.

Thank you.

Sophia, would you also say that one of the communication thing you're trying to do is communication to the members of the district?

Uh Mayor, uh, we do not have members.

Um we're not a membership organization, but we do have stakeholders.

And that was the word I was looking for.

Thank you.

Uh yes.

So we that is a huge effort on our part.