Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I would like to call the June 8th meeting of the governing body to order and ask the clerk to please take the roll.

Mr.

Moody.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Present.

Mr.

White.

Present.

Mr.

Wolf.

Here.

Dr.

Aldrich, present.

Mayor Collins.

Present.

Dr.

Emmons.

Present.

Mr.

Escabel?

Here.

Mr.

Layborne.

Here.

All members are present.

We do have a quorum.

Would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance?

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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 this government body would like to remove from the consent agenda?

Dr.

Aldrich.

All right, is there anybody else?

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.

It's been moved by Mr.

White, seconded by Dr.

Aldridge.

All those in favor of the consent agenda with 27, 28, and 42D removed, please signify by saying aye.

Those opposed.

The consent agenda is approved with 27, 28, and 42D.

They'll be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda.

Number six A.

Public hearing for proposed budgets for the city of Cheyenne and Board of Public Utilities for fiscal year 2027.

All right.

Madam Treasurer, did you have anything you want to say before you open it up to the public?

You don't have to.

Uh no, I do not.

Okay.

We'll open it up to the public and see if anybody here would like to speak to the uh proposal for the budget for the city of Cheyenne or the Board of Public Utilities.

Anybody.

All right.

Jennifer, anybody online?

No.

All right.

Anybody on the governing body?

All right.

The purpose of the public hearing has been met.

Next item, please.

Six B public hearing to determine whether compliance of annexation conditions required by Wyoming Statute 15-1-402 exists for about 2.69 acres of land south of Charles Street, east of Wenandi Avenue, and west of McKinley Avenue.

Alright, before we open it up for a public hearing, we'll get a quick staff report, please.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, Morgan Dennis, planning and development.

This is an annexation for roughly 2.69 acres of land, generally located south of Charles Street, east of Windani Avenue, and west of McKinley Avenue.

The city received a petition to annex this land from the owners, which was filed with the city clerk on April 8th, 2026.

This petition was certified by the city clerk as containing the necessary signatures according to state statute on April 10th, 2026.

This public hearing is being held in accordance with Wyoming State Statute 15-1-402A.

Pursuing pursuant to fulfilling the requirements in the state statute, staff asks the governing body to consider it the following.

The land proposed to be annexed is contiguous to the current city limits, specifically the property is 72% contiguous.

All city services and utilities currently available to residents of the city will be provided to the residents of the annexed land.

Extending watering sewer will increase the health and safety of the residents living in this area of the community.

The area to be annexed is partly inside the urban service boundary, and it's designated as mixed use residential by the future land use map.

This type of development is best supported by being within city limits and by connecting to city services.

A certified mailing was sent to all landowners and utilities within the annexed area, not less than 20 days business days prior to the public hearing.

According to the city's calendar, 20 business days prior to today's hearing was May 12, 2026.

The certified mailing was sent out on May 8, 2026, and the earliest confirmation of receipt was dated May 11, 2026.

Property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were also mailed public notice within the same time period.

This annexation is accompanied by an assigned zoning ordinance.

Alright, Morgan, thank you.

How about anybody in the audience who would like to speak to the uh proposed annexation by the owner of the property?

Um, anybody?

Yes, Jennifer.

Mr.

Brian Pixley, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Ryan, are you there?

Okay, okay.

Can you hear me now?

Can you hear me now?

Yep, if you just tell us your name.

Uh Brian Pixley, how are you guys doing today?

You're probably uh you probably seeing me a lot.

Uh uh through uh all these meetings and everything.

What can we do for you, sir?

Yeah, I just like to, you know, uh, I'm I'm totally against all with all these uh data centers, you know.

Uh I live off of uh uh Happy Jack Road and Mr.

Pixley, we're talking about an annexation.

Are you talking to us about the annexation, sir?

Uh yeah, I just want to you know, just uh I don't support the annexation.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Anybody else, Jennifer?

Nobody else in the audience will close that and ask if anybody on the governing body would like to uh speak to us under this public hearing.

All right, hearing none, we'll take the next item, please.

6C, public hearing to determine whether compliance of annexation conditions required by Wyoming Statute 15-1-402 exist for about 26.29 acres of land located northwest of the intersection of Clear Creek Parkway and Gannett Peak Drive.

Mr.

White.

Mayor and members council, Connor White Planning and Development Department.

The annexation is for roughly 26.29 acres of land, generally located northwest of the intersection of Clear Creek Parkway and Grant and Gannett Peak Drive.

The city received a petition to annex land from the owners, which was filed with the city clerk on April 9th, 2026.

The petition was certified by the city clerk as containing the necessary signatures according to state statute on April 10th, 2026.

The public hearing is being held in accordance with Wyoming State Statute 151402A.

Pursuant to fulfilling the requirements in state statute, staff asks the governing body to uh consider the following.

The land proposed to be annexed is contiguous to current city limits.

Specifically, the property is 53.94 uh percent contiguous.

Uh all city services and utilities currently available to properties within the city will be provided to the annexed land.

Extending water and sewer will increase the health safety, health and safety of individuals living or working uh in this area of the community.

The area to be annexed is inside the urban service boundary and designated with mixed-use employment and a slight tiny little bit of open space by the future land use map.

This type of development is best supported by being within city limits and connecting to city services.

Certified mailing was sent to all landowners, utility and utilities within the annexed area, not less than 20 business days prior to uh the public hearing.

According to the calendar, 20 business days prior to the public hearing was May 12th, and the certified mailing was sent out on May 7th.

The earliest confirmed receipt was dated May 11th, and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were also mailed notice.

Uh this annexation is accompanied by an assigned uh zoning ordinance, and there is a zone change request that encompasses this property proposed for annexation, but it also encompasses a larger area, so it's not just specific to this property on its own.

And with that, I am available for any questions.

Mr.

White, thank you.

Anybody on the governing body have a question for staff?

Dr.

Aldrich.

Mayor Collins, through you.

I'm just wondering if um we have had any comments or anyone call the office to make comments about this annexation.

Mayor, through you.

Um to Dr.

Aldrich, no.

For this annexation, we have not had any phone calls um or anything of that nature for this annexation.

Anyone else?

Thank you, Connor.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to the annexation of these 26.29 acres.

Okay, hearing none.

We'll go back to the governing body.

Anybody last comment on the annexation?

Hearing none, the purpose of the public hearing has been met, and we'll move on to the next item, please.

For about 3,459.99 acres of land located east of South Greeley Highway and south of the sweet grass subdivision.

All right.

Before we uh brought to the public, we'll go for a staff report.

Mr.

White.

Mayor, member, count members of Council Connor White planning and development department.

This annexation is for roughly 3,459.99 acres of land generally located east of South Greeley Highway and south of the sweet Crest subdivision.

The city received petition to annex this land from the owners, which was filed with the city clerk on April 9th.

And the petition was certified by the city clerk as containing the necessary signatures according to state statute on April 10th.

Pursuant to fulfilling the requirements of state statute staff asks the governing body to consider the following.

The land proposed to be annexed is contiguous to current city limits.

Specifically, the property is 45.63% contiguous.

All city services and utilities currently available to properties within the city will be provided to the annexed land.

Extending water and sewer will increase the health, safety, health and safety of individuals living or working in this area of the community.

Significant utility extensions will be required, and those extensions will be the responsibility of the entity developing the land.

Certified mailing was sent to all landowners and utilities within the annexed area, not less than 20 business days prior to the public hearing.

According to the calendar, 20 business days prior to today's hearing was May 12th, and the certified mailing was sent on May 7th.

The earliest confirmed receipt was May 11th, and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were also mailed notice during that time period.

This annexation is accompanied by an assigned zoning.

It is also accompanied by a future land use map amendment, and it is also accompanied by an applicant requested zone change on tonight's agenda, all for introduction.

With that, I am available for any question.

Questions for staff?

Mr.

Moody.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor Through.

Uh thank you, Mr.

White.

Um, can you let the public know what was the uh recommendation from the Cheyenne Planning Commission, please?

Mayor through you.

So for the annexation, annexations do not go to the planning commission.

So there was no discussion on the annexation.

The items that went to planning commission were the assigned zoning, the future land use map amendment, and the zoning map amendment.

Thank you.

Well, yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor Through.

Uh thank you.

Uh, what was what was their recommendation for those uh zoning aspects?

Order.

I agree.

Anybody else?

Yes, Dr.

Aldridge.

Mayor Collins for you.

I am uh wondering if you can tell us if you have heard from anyone regarding this um annexation.

How do communications have you had, Mr.

Uh Mayor through you?

Um so specifically for this, there have been no communications um for the annexation itself.

So there's been no public comment or anything on the annexation.

Mr.

Leyborn, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh Mr.

White, I believe you mentioned the uh mapping question.

Um, are you referring to the action that occurred at the planning commission or the I believe they were making a recommendation about the map?

So your your references to the existing map, not any change in that.

Mr.

White.

Mayor through you.

So at planning commission, they discussed the assigned zoning, the future land use map amendment, and the applicant requested zoning map amendment.

So those were the items that were discussed at planning commission.

The annexation itself of the 3,459.99 acres was not discussed at Planning Commission.

Yes, I think we're all aware of that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Wolf.

Uh uh thank you, Mayor, through you.

Um Mr.

White, um, how many times did you meet with Microsoft uh to discuss this annexation?

Mayor through you, I have not met with Microsoft specifically on this.

If they've met with others in my department, um we had one pre-application meeting that was with AVI for prior to submittal of the application, but there hasn't been a direct meeting that I have been a part of when it's come to meeting with Microsoft for this annexation.

So, Mr.

Mayor, follow up, please.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Bloom might have met with Microsoft or uh Mr.

Lloyd.

You want to ask a question?

I did.

Do you know whether Mr.

Bloom or Mr.

Lloyd met with Microsoft?

Mayor through you.

I'm not aware if they have or haven't.

As a point of order, is this related to the annexation council?

Absolutely.

Council and Aldridge.

Mr.

Bloom, do you want to answer the question?

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

Um, we had one pre-application meeting that I was aware of that staff had attended with this.

There were consultants on board.

I do not know the specifics as to if there's a Microsoft representative on board or if anyone's identified as Microsoft on that call.

It was through consultants.

I do not attend most pre-application meetings, and I have not met with Microsoft on this parcel whatsoever.

Mr.

Wolf?

Mr.

Wolf, Mr.

Mayor, thank you.

Follow-up.

Mr.

Bloom, um in the panoply of annexations that you have been involved with, where does this rank in terms of the number of acres involved?

Mr.

Boom.

Mayor, through you, members of the council, Charles Bloom planning development director.

Um this probably is one of the larger annexations that I have seen here in the city of Cheyenne.

Okay.

Sweetgrass.

Mayor through you, the council sweetgrass was another large one.

Uh, that one I'm not I that predated me by just a little bit.

Um, high plains annexation, which was to the south for the bison business park, that was a large one as well.

I believe this one would comfortably take the lead, but it's hard to know without looking at exact acreages.

Mr.

Wolf.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So when you get a uh gigantic annexation proposed like that, does it trigger any additional thinking processes?

Uh data requests anything special when you're talking about annexing 3,500 acres of land, Mr.

Boom.

Mayor through you to members of the council and councilman Wolf.

Um not necessarily.

I mean, it does it does bring up the question of well, this area will need to have city services, and the developer will ultimately have to provide those public services.

Um, this is again an applicant-initiated one, so we look at it as being a project that they are comfortable in providing those services.

Um, our primary concern is is to look at that annexation area and to see if it's feasible, um, if it's adjacent, um, if it can be served by public utilities.

And this case, it does check up all those boxes.

Mr.

Wolf?

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, do you talk with the developer, Microsoft, about what their plans are for developing this uh proposed annexed land?

Mr.

Boom.

Mayor, through to council and council member Wolf.

Um, we we do chat with um developers on what their potential plans are.

Um, if they do choose disclosures, and this one we do understand was for a uh data center campus.

That was sort of what had been discussed through some of the um meetings as this this was filed, but um we don't get into specifics.

Mr.

Mayor?

Mr.

Wolf.

Well, I mean, did you occur to you that you know you might have talked to them about say, why don't you just annex now a part of this, like 200 acres, 300 acres, and then when Microsoft actually begins to develop this, which may be years from now, that you'd consider or the council then would consider uh annexing the rest of it.

Mr.

Boom, I don't know if you want to answer that question or not, sir.

Mayor, members of the council to Councilman Wolf.

Um, we typically don't uh ask people that are willing and signing a petition to annex to reduce the annexation size.

Um we let that decision be upon them as to what they feel comfortable with the annexation, because we do not know what any specifics of any uh any project details are or what their uh real estate um how that deal may look with the people they're purchasing the land from.

We'll be leave it at the discretion of them as to what area they wish to annex.

Mr.

Mayor, um follow-up, please.

Mr.

Wolf.

Um you're intimately involved uh in um trying to start the process to do an update to the 12-year out-of-date uh uh plan Cheyenne, aren't you?

Sir, mayor, through you and to the members of the council and councilman Wolf.

Um, um yes, we are beginning the update to the comprehensive plan.

It is the last land use element for a comprehensive plan was addressed in 2014.

Comprehensive plans typically have a shelf life that are looking for projecting feature future scenarios for 20 to 30 years.

So it is well within the time frame being relevant.

However, we have had so many different changes in the community that it does warrant a relook.

Um in looking at the proposals we recently received, uh which were uh plenty, we received plenty of complete proposals.

Um we did see a lot of examples of other comprehensive plans that were created for other communities uh nationwide, regionally, and even nationwide.

And those uh plans, a lot of them were updating plans that were 10, 15, 20 years old as well.

So we kind of are following uh the path of how most plans are funded by municipalities because they typically do have a you should be refreshing them every five years, at least the core principles of them.

Um but they usually uh seem to be updated every about 10 to 15 years, or right in the middle of that.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you.

Follow up.

Um, and believe me, I'm not I'm not criticizing you.

In fact, I applaud that that you're starting this word, but as you looked at this giant annexation, and as you looked at all of the hullablue about that we have faced as a city council and your office is faced, did did it occur you all to think maybe this annexation could proceed in a couple steps, but maybe it might even be better off to just be considered in the future, two, three years from now when you in fact updated plan Cheyenne.

Mr.

Wolf, I think I can answer that question, and that is that's not our staff's position to tell people when it's appropriate for them to bring a piece of property.

The uh state law says that if they bring a petition to us, we must look at that petition, and if it meets the criteria, shall by ordinance annex that property.

And so it I don't know that it's staff's uh position to um to censor applications.

That's our job.

Well, Mr.

Mayor, just to Would you not agree with that, sir?

No, I don't agree with that.

Our staff should be able to tell the people when they um when they should be able to bring an annexation that that they're not elected officials, we're the elected officials.

That's our job.

Mr.

Mayor, and and in fact, I've had this discussion with you, and I agree it's your job.

Yeah, it's your job to take a look at something of this magnitude and make a judgment about whether or not it ought to proceed through our regular processes, or in fact, we might think hard about an annexation of this size for a topic of this controversy and treat it in some different kind of manner.

That's my point.

And but to the question about plan Cheyenne, we have this planning process that we're starting right now, and that will take a considerable amount of time.

But if Microsoft isn't going to develop this property for years, why don't we include this annexation or a part of this annexation into the depths of that planning process instead of just saying, you know, we got to take it on in the same way and look at the absolute irony of what we're doing, which is we treat a 2.7-acre annexation with the same processes that we treat 3500.

Mr.

Wolf, I'm I think if you were to poll your colleagues here and say that I have the authority to decide what comes before this governing body, I think you'd lose probably eight to one in that uh in that vote.

Um, you know, I I think the uh the job is we're separate but equal, and when those applications come, we're part of the all of us together are the legislative body of uh of the governing body, and it should be done as a joint decision.

Um if you want to delegate that to me, I'm happy to do that.

But I think your colleagues would would disagree with you, sir.

Um, it's an interesting discussion, Mayor, and um, frankly, looking at today's agenda, I'm not sure I would disagree with.

I'd love to actually delegate to you and to the city clerk and to the president a lot more authority over our agenda.

Um, but that's a separate topic.

But but my point is, and my question to uh Mr.

Bloom, and I'm gonna ask the same questions of Microsoft, which are something of this magnitude, is something that we ought to give lots more careful thought to.

Mr.

Wolf, I think we're conflating the the development action with with uh annexation.

Annexation doesn't do anything but change the color of the map.

What you're concerned about is what happens once it's annexed, and uh that is another process the governing body goes through, and that is when we do the uh zoning for it, when we do the final plat for it, uh, when we do those types of actions.

But you know, if we were to just annex this property and it sits there for a decade or so, it doesn't really change anything, does it honestly?

Well, it may well, it may well change, and and in 10 years, a heck of a lot of things may change.

And and I take some guidance from what our good governor just said to us last week, which is in his executive order on data centers.

You know, he says local authority and community investment were keeping power close to the order.

Are we on annexation or are we on data centers?

Good question.

Madam Councilwoman, you cannot possibly separate them today.

They're separate actions.

It doesn't matter whether the separate actions, it's all combined.

Mr.

Wolf, I don't agree.

We're all we're really doing today is changing the color of the map from being in the county to be in the city, and nothing else is being done at this point.

I'm I appreciate you have a different view, but I don't agree.

Well, Mr.

Mayor, and I've had this discussion with you.

Yes, sir.

What I'm trying to do is encourage you to do exactly what the governor says, which is city councils while encouraging developers to invest in local housing, charity, and infrastructure.

And this is the moment to be thinking about that.

This is the time between now and the finalization of this annexation zoning map change, they're all one.

It's one giant ball.

And we shouldn't kid ourselves that we are in fact looking at just the annexation, because this is the time for this council for this government, for Mr.

Bloom to actually take a hold of these issues and make them reality.

Mr.

Wolf, we have had this discussion, and you know, I I think uh doing a community benefit requirement or asking them to uh do things in order to be annexed, you know, again, feels like almost like extortion to me.

And I don't I just don't agree.

At this point in time, what we're doing is annexing a piece of property.

If in fact the companies want to do some things like we have later on in our agenda, um I think that's well welcomed.

But um, to condition annexation on that, I think is a slippery slope, sir.

And Mr.

Mayor, um, it it's not a slippery slope.

It's in fact the slope that that we are on right now.

It's not extortion.

I'm talking about something that I'm gonna call a mutually beneficial partnership agreement with Microsoft.

Which means you can be annexed if you give us a rec center or something like that.

No, no, my proposal is gonna be three percent of the total cost of the project.

Okay, two rec centers.

Okay, two rec centers, right?

Yeah, sir.

I just I just don't agree.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the governing body?

Yes, sir.

For our staff, right?

Michelle.

Dr.

Aldries, I apologize.

Okay, mayor collins for you.

I um curious about um whether statute, uh Wyoming State statute requires, has any minimal or maximum land acreage or a size um for annexation and uh any uh specialized considerations based on size.

Mr.

Bloom.

Mayor, mayors of the council, there is no size limitation, minimum or maximum with uh annexation.

Mr.

Bloom, would you say that it's important for us to have a um a regulatory process that is consistent when people come to us?

I mean, that's what we're trying to do, right?

We're trying to treat all the annexations similarly so that developers, when they come in to know what our process is.

Mayor, through you to members of the council, that is correct.

And I just like to remind everyone: this is an applicant petition.

Once they sign the application, they cannot withdraw that annexation petition.

One of the benefits of that is once this is annexed, regardless of if the zoning is established that they wish, the land use is established as they wish.

It is under our jurisdiction and subject to our rules and regulations.

We sat for um all just over 40 years with land north of Frontier Mall.

That was an island, and we were lucky that that stayed in the same family, and eventually it was annexed and it's agreeable with the land use plan to develop.

There's a real risk there that that was not annexed in the past.

It could have developed in any way we we would have seen.

We've seen other areas of the community where we extended urban services, water, sewer, and that area has not been annexed, and that is annexed outside of our jurisdiction outside of our regulations.

And there's a couple of different stories that you can look at how things have annexed.

Um so it is important to bring this in.

And again, this is a landowner initiated annexation.

Their petition cannot be withdrawn unless there's consent from the governing ball.

Understood.

Dr.

Emmons, we'll start with you and go to Mr.

Moody.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So um Mr.

Bloom have you said this is an owner-initiated annexation request, correct?

Mr.

Bloom.

Mayor through to the council member Emmons?

Yes, that is correct.

Um follow up.

Yes, ma'am.

Has the uh landowner done all met all the requirements for annexation?

Mayor through Mayor through you to members of the council, Dr.

Emmons?

Yes, they have.

Have we done our I'm sorry?

Yes, ma'am.

Have we done our due diligence on our part for annexation?

Mr.

Bloom?

Mayor through you to members of the council and Dr.

Emmons, yes.

One more.

Yes, ma'am.

Is there any reason not to approve that you found in your due diligence?

Mayor, through the members of the council and Dr.

Edmonds.

No, there's no reason to not approve the annexation.

So each one of us can vote against this if we choose when when the time is right, correct?

Dr.

Emmons, yes.

That's an individual um decision we'll have to make based on the evidence.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Moody, it's a quick question.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you, uh thank you, Mr.

Bloom.

Were any of the uh residents in um Sweetgrass neighborhood notified, especially in the southern part?

Mr.

Bloom, are there any of them within 300 feet?

Mayor, through you, members of the council and and councilman Moody, likely not through direct mailed notice because they are not within 300 feet.

Um there was published notice um that was put out in the newspaper.

Do you have a topographical map that shows the uh the ridge that runs between the two?

Mayor, members of council, we do have a topographical map that we could pull up.

It's on our GIS.

This aerial this aerial does a very good job of detailing it.

You can see the ridge line that runs north westerly of this property.

Um, that ridgeline uh is the high point.

Uh this development area uh falls off the ridgeline, I believe about 10 to 20 feet as it keeps on heading down as you head south.

Thank you, Mr.

Boom.

Mr.

Moody.

Dr.

Emmett, you have another question, ma'am?

Oh, that's Dr.

Aldrich.

Mayor Collins for you.

I'm wondering uh if when we have met when the petitioner has met all of the requirements, we've done our due diligence.

Is there any um precedent in case law about um denying this type of an annexation and any liability um or litigation that has pursued from situations like that?

Mr.

Bloom, do you uh know that answer?

Mayor, members of the council.

I'm I'm not in the third floor legal office, so I don't know if I can actually answer that for Mr.

Holiday and Express.

Uh recently, yes, actually.

But um I've not a I'll pass that on to Mr.

Hopkinson if he has an answer.

David, do you have any?

Um Mr.

Mayor, um, Dr.

Aldrich.

It's the really what the what the council is looking at is whether the elements have been met in within that annexation statute.

If you believe that those elephants, if it's elements have been met, um, then the statute says the city council should approve the annexation.

So it's really more a question of do you believe that the those uh individual elements that are discussed as part of uh the what's uh staff has presented, are they really met or not?

That's the where the real question generally lies.

Mayor, if I just may add there there is uh relevant planning case law that's based on decisions.

If an application meets the review criteria and a governing body arbitrarily denies that application, uh the applicant would have the right to appeal that decision.

Um I could not predict how that would go in a court of law, but there are a lot of cases that understand that if the applicant is the application is denied for arbitrary reasons that it could put us in a in a bad situation.

Mayor that's correct.

Thank you.

All right, anybody else, Mr.

Seagway for staff?

Mr.

Mayor, I just want to follow up.

Did our uh attorneys say that we shall annex if we believe it met the requirements or we can?

151402 says if it meets all the criteria, you shall by ordinance annex the property.

So the exact words.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, actually, uh Mr.

Mayor.

Actually, that citation is in 406.

Um, so no, it's in um 404.

But but it not to not to get we'll have plenty of time over the next month to get into the legal arguments about what we as the council can and can't do with this.

Um and what the legal standards are, because I've I have been looking into those.

Um so we'll spare the audience that discussion today.

It'll be fun when we do.

All right.

Sounds like we're done with the council.

We'll go out to the audience to speak to the uh in this public hearing for the annexation of 3,459.99 acres.

I put my glasses on, it's a lot easier to read.

You're welcome.

Jim Chirrell, uh award one candidate.

I strongly oppose this annexation.

I know where you're going with the whole legal end on it, but what really disappoints me is that with these annexations, especially with the data centers, Microsoft, wherever it is, they always sneak in with the state statutes.

Well, as long as it's continuous, as long as it's uh uh safety and water and all that stuff there, it it goes beyond that.

And through you, Mayor, uh Mr.

Wolf, I totally respect your proactive thoughts on this.

You know, let's let's get the elephant in the room before it gets too big, and that affects a lot of those people, whether that's gonna be ward one or what ward that is, still affects the quality of life for the city uh of Cheyenne residents with that large of an annexation.

So I would uh strongly encourage this governing body not to go and approve this annexation at this time.

Thank you.

Heather, welcome tonight.

Thank you.

Heather Madrid, whoa.

Um I live in Harmony Meadows.

Um I actually kind of have the same question of how it makes sense.

I mean, I know that Mr.

Bloom said that there are no um differences in the law about two acres versus 3500 acres.

Um, but I wonder why it's excusable to continually update this outdated land use map because there's no way that it could have foreseen this kind of unprecedented growth and scale, but it's not appropriate then to also update the regulations around annexation and rezoning, etc.

etc.

Um, it just kind of feels like you guys want it all your way, or you know, it doesn't quite like it's not the math isn't mathing, as they say.

Um, I also wonder how this is protecting the health safety and welfare.

If people don't live there yet, um it's not really protecting anybody.

In fact, I would argue that it's harmful to that area and to this last gentleman's point.

Um with this large of an annexation and what we all know is going to be there, it's going to affect the entire city, not just people within 300 feet.

Um, if there is no plan of what's going to happen over the next 10 years, how is it even possible that the criteria in Wyoming statute 15-1-405 have been met if there is no there isn't even a plan the at the um planning commission they were Microsoft was asked how many buildings they didn't they didn't know so how is that how is it even possible to say that that statute has been met if there is no plan it just um I would ask that all everything needs to be updated not just the land use map so that so that Microsoft can have it their way um everything should be updated and brought to current not not only what benefits global corporate billionaires who are trying to land grab in rural america thank you.

Mr.

Lloyd did you want to speak?

This is mayor setway to the city of Cheyenne Planning and Development Department um I'm probably the only planner here in the office that was here when we did the sweetgrass annexation.

So I just wanted to shed some light on that process that happened back in that day.

And they brought in the land um anticipating a 50 year build out so not all the land is going to be built all at the same time and the main reason they did it all at once is because they wanted a unified development program for the sweet grass development it's one giant PUD.

They've changed it a few times you've changed it probably within the last few months so it it changes yes but they had a long range plan they wanted to kind of get that going and they had that 50 year build-out program so they annexed all of that 3,000 acres um only 2000 of which are really sweetgrass there's another thousand that approximately that it took to get to sweetgrass to annex it.

But they had that long range plan and when the city staff at that day in that day reviewed the program um we had comments from various city agencies and departments saying this is how many more staff members we're gonna have to have in order to take care of this land at full build out we had comments I believe and I'd have to go back to staff report to read them all but I believe we had them from public works and we had them from police and we had them from fire saying this is what it's going to take to service this area with that annexation.

And admittedly that development program was a lot more dense than this is anticipated to be um the single family homes commercial development streets roads very very dense development so it was would be a higher impact upon city services at full build out but that we had the greater standard of review on that larger annexation than we did with say someone annexing single family home to connect to sewer.

So I just want to shed light on what has happened in the past um uh and we've we've had a similar but not exactly the same because it's a different development program but a similar type of annexation historically thank you thank you Ms.

Lee sir did you want to speak?

Sir did you want to speak?

Please come forward.

Did you do me a favor and bring that microphone up so we can hear you and give us your name uh Brant Miller.

Welcome I'm on the Laramie County groundwater control board and um just kind of concerned about how the water's where the water's going to come from how it's going to be used.

If it's all coming from you know the city then is that going to affect the discharge of the Crow Creek because what comes down Crow Creek affects the groundwater and carpenter I represent the carpenter area so just really urge you to think about the water because we're already having trouble with it.

So Mr Miller I wouldn't you know I I guess there's if it develops in the city it'll be on city water with city sewer if it's uh identified in the county then they'll be drilling wells into the the aquifer.

And I don't know if you have an opinion on which way would be better for your control district.

Well it would have to come before us but yeah it's I just would you know ask you to get a hold of the state engineer and have him look at what's going on he's the the state engineer so I just want to you know, bring that to your attention because we're really, you know water's getting hard to come by in carpenter.

So appreciate you being here this evening.

Here and runs that way and to use it before it gets to us, and it's kind of rough.

Yeah.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Hello, Ms.

Christensen, honorable mayor, members of the council, my name is Mark Christensen.

I am with A VIPC um agent for the applicant um so this annexation is an owner-initiated annexation of approximately 3,459 acres of land that is uh approximately 46% contiguous to the city limits.

The current owner at Microsoft has designated this as an area of expansion for the bison business park.

In order to continue evaluation of what can be done on the property, the parties need to know if we are going to be developing in the city or in the county or pursuing development in either of those places and what zone they will be developing under, which is the impetus for the app this application.

So once this is known, uh Microsoft will begin to complete the transportation studies, the cultural studies, environmental studies, drainage, sound power studies, and water and sewer feasibility studies so that we can prove to the reviewing agencies that we meet all of the required rules.

Both parties after the initial consultation with the pre-application meeting that was previously mentioned, determined that it was best to pursue this initial development with the city before pursuing it with the county.

So this is why the annexation is before you.

So the first step in the process is to evaluate the design standards of the property and its potential development.

The land currently borders Microsoft property, the current landowner's property, EOG land, the state of Wyoming on land, and then land plan for a solar farm.

There was an open house for the neighboring property owners and all of the owners of the Grass Hill subdivision to the southeast of the parcel.

Only three members of the public did attend this meeting, but we were able to answer many of their questions.

The Microsoft team might have some more insights on some of those discussions.

But we concur with the staff that this meets the requirements of the annexation as found in state statutes.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, ma'am.

Hello, Rachel Irving, land development and permitting program manager for Microsoft.

Um Good evening, Mayor, members of the council, and members of the public.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

I wanted to briefly address an important question raised during the planning commission last week as to why Highlands is being proposed at this scale, and why an area this large.

Planning comprehensively now allows us to have growth occur thoughtfully and with the city's input and with the public's input over time rather than incrementally and reactively parcel by parcel.

Importantly, this does not mean that all 3,050 acres that Microsoft would own would develop all at once or in the same way.

Complete and full build out of this site would likely be a 10 to 20 year phased development.

The larger planning area provides flexibility to responsibly coordinated infrastructure, transportation, utilities, buffering environmental considerations and future community needs over many years, and in alignment with market demand and infrastructure readiness.

Microsoft has already been a part of the community for approximately 14 years, and our approach has been and will continue to be to consistently focus on long-term partnership, infrastructure investment, and responsible planning.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thanks for being here, Rachel.

Sir, good evening, Mayor, Council members, city staff, and members of the public.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Lucas Downey, and I work on the community affairs team at Microsoft.

I'm new in this role, so for those that I haven't met yet, it's a pleasure to be here.

And for those that I have, it's great to see you again.

Well, I may be new in my role, Microsoft is not new to Cheyenne.

I want to reiterate the statement about Microsoft operating here for more than 14 years.

We've called Cheyenne home since 2012, and from the start, we've tried to be good neighbors.

Not just a company with a footprint here, but a partner invested in this community's future.

That partnership starts with transparency.

On May 28th, we hosted an open house that brought together more than a hundred and fifty community members, neighbors, families, and local leaders to learn about our plans, ask hard questions, and share their concerns.

That conversation mattered to us, and we intend to keep hosting events like this throughout the summer.

We want to keep listening, keep showing up, and keep addressing your feedback directly.

We've also tried to, we've also tried to back up our words with investment.

Since 2018, Microsoft has supported 56 community projects across 28 local organizations, and we've donated 4.7 million dollars to local nonprofits and organizations across Wyoming.

That includes partners many of you know the Boys and Girls Club of Cheyenne, LCC, the Wyoming Women's Business Center rooted in Cheyenne, Habitat for Humanity, Comia Shelter, Climb Wyoming, and Cheyenne Frontier Days, among more than 50 other initiatives.

We're proud to stand behind.

And all this is anchored in our community first commitments.

They mean five things.

We pay the full cost of our power, so our data centers don't raise your electricity bill.

We minimize our water use, and we are committed to being good stewards of the watershed.

We create local jobs, we invest in local training and nonprofits, and we contribute to local taxes.

In 2025, Microsoft was the number one taxpayer in the city of Cheyenne.

We know trust is earned, not announced.

We're committing to earning it this summer and for years to come.

And we're not just proud of the 14 years we've been a part of the community.

We're genuinely excited for the decades that are still to come.

Cheyenne isn't just where we operate, it's where we intend to keep growing, contributing, and building in partnership with the community.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Sir, welcome.

You want to push that button?

Yeah, there you go.

Please identify yourself.

Hi, my name is Brian Napier.

I'm a Cheyenne resident since uh 2010.

Uh and that's why I'm here.

So I wanted to talk to you about Microsoft being here in our community because I've also, in addition to being a Wyoming resident, I've also been a Microsoft employee since 2016.

And in my time with Microsoft, you know, though we've been here for I've been with Microsoft for 10 years, and we've been uh everything I've ever seen with the company has been positive working with the community and trying to be a good neighbor.

And if I didn't believe in that, I wouldn't be standing in front of you here on their behalf today.

So I've started as logistics technician, which is an entry-level role.

I've managed to work my way up through all the managerial ranks.

I'm now the IT operations manager, and I run this department with two other individuals for our entire IT team.

We've hired a hundred people in the last three years.

We're bringing good jobs to this community, bringing great benefits, benefits that actually have given me my family, Microsoft Payne.

What does this have to do with the annexation?

Please continue, sir.

Yeah, I'm a taxpayer.

I just want to say my piece.

Thank you.

Um, I about 10 seconds back on that.

I got you.

Microsoft has paid for my IVF through my family, and they were going to be uh good family planners for the rest of the community.

They have brought in many jobs here, paid a lot of tax, and provided quality of life for many of our teams.

I I don't even want to talk to y'all anymore.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and City Councilors on the annexation that's proposed here for the Highlands earlier today.

I sent you this.

Oh, sorry, Betsy Heal, CEO of Cheyenne Leads.

Uh, earlier today, I sent all of the council members uh this map.

And the reason that I sent this map is I wanted to uh make sure that not only you but also the citizens and the community knew um the adjacent land uses that this site uh is adjacent to, and you can see from this map that to the north of the proposed annexation, you have the gravel pits to the east of the annexation.

You have 5,000 acres of EOG resources, oil and gas fracking wells to the southeast of the project.

You'll have uh 800 megawatt, 900 megawatt solar farm that has been approved by the county with Enbridge.

Uh also south, you'll see some state lands, and then on the uh southwest side, you see the bison business park.

In conversations with the property owners, uh you'll see that there's going to be a planned conservation easement along the bluffs, uh, clear up to the gravel pits.

And I wanted to make sure that you did understand some of the elevation changes that are out here.

Uh, when you get toward the sweet grass site, you'll see that their elevation at the farthest corner, uh, closest to Highlands is about 6,000 um 80 feet uh in elevation.

Uh, the bluffs actually go up as high as 6,100 feet.

So there is uh an incline there with the bluffs.

Then as you come into the Highlands property itself, there's actually a decline in elevation.

So you'll see it go back down into around 6,070, 6,080 feet in through here.

The land does swing up again as you get down towards the state land.

It's about 6200 feet in elevation.

And in the meeting that we had with this county subdivision that's down here next to the state lands just east, we had some really good conversations about that.

The lowest point in that subdivision is right along the cowboy solar property, and that's at 6,080 feet as well.

And so there is quite a bowl out there.

I do think there is something to be said for economies of scale.

If you really do want to do a development agreement of some type that gives big impact, I think the larger that the property is, the ability to work within the community is much easier rather than just more of a patchwork approach.

So I would encourage you to do the annexation in total.

Thank you.

Betsy, Mr.

Mayor.

My apologies.

Go ahead, Mr.

Wolfe.

First of all, the gentleman standing behind you.

I apologize.

I was not at all trying to be rude to you.

What you've jumped into is the middle of a debate between all of us here over the scope of what we're talking about tonight.

Oh, I can understand, but I was gonna I was trying to wrap my point up, which was all coming around the bend before I was cut off.

And I I'm I'm sorry, and I accept that.

I think that that's okay.

Because we're in a bit of an argument amongst ourselves, you're kind of in the middle of it.

Um, and but it's it has nothing to do at all, please.

We have tremendous respect for you and for Microsoft and um and this process.

And um, so thank you.

Thank you for taking your time.

Thank you for working on these things, and and please, I'm I'm sorry.

Yes, I do accept your apology.

That's okay.

I know we're in a that's a it's uh it's a weird spot we're in right now, but the main point I wanted to get across here is the idea behind the annexation is we're gonna do a lot of good for the people in this community.

It brings good jobs, brings amazing health care.

And it's uh it's not something we get everywhere.

This is something that is not something that people get an opportunity to get more than once or twice in them a lifetime, maybe.

We're gonna be bringing hundreds of jobs for people that have this opportunity in their lives to take care of their families.

And it's I have two children that I wouldn't have had otherwise.

Not not one kid.

They've paid Microsoft has paid for my entire IVF process.

I don't know anyone that's ever gone through that.

But you get the option of maybe having 100,000 dollars of debt or a family, and they've paid for my entire stint.

So that's that is what Microsoft brings to the table here.

You should absolutely because and the land, I'm sorry, because it's gonna give people an opportunity to have a a tremendous life.

That's what it's brought to me from the bottom to where I am now.

So thank you.

Thank you for coming back.

Thank you, Betsy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Wolf.

Ums Hales.

Um we just got your handout, which has now become in my mind the sort of 10, 5, 9 handout.

Um let me just ask you a couple questions about that.

I guess the first one is as I understand it that what you're counting in that is buildings.

Is that right?

Mr.

Mayor through you know, sir, that is not correct.

So how a data center is not a data center, is not a data center, and I apologize if I haven't uh prefaced how we count.

We actually count locations, addresses, because if if you have a Microsoft project, you'll see something like data halls, right?

And they're built in phases and over time.

If you work with Meta, it's a much larger building.

So if we were to try to say it's the number of buildings, uh we have some other data centers in town that are a building with four different data centers in them.

So it's very hard to come up with a what would I call it, a metric, if you will, of you know, if if something is a hundred thousand square feet versus if something is eight hundred thousand square feet, is a building a building.

And so by going to an address um uh or a campus, if you will, um, or a location, then we feel like we can say these are the locations where the data centers are, and that's serves how we got to the 10 uh that are operating, and that includes everything from the cogent uh facility, which is right across uh the Viaduct on Central to the Echo Star data center that is associated with the um satellite uplink facility there.

Uh we also have we include the crypto uh miners in that as well.

Um, and so when you when you count to 10, you're counting Microsoft locations.

We have Microsoft locations at North Range, A location, Cheyenne Business Parkway, we have a location, Bison Business Park, we have a location.

So wanting to make sure that we're not saying, okay, over here we have six buildings, but there's only one building on the meta campus.

So do you count six data halls as data centers, or do you count that location because they're all on one property as a data center, just as you would Meta.

So that's where we're going with that.

Uh we spent a lot of time with Black Hills Energy and the Board of Public Utilities.

I mean, you could go to TAPS if you wanted to go to taps, taps would make it sound incredibly large.

So that's where we went, sir.

I hope that helps.

Oh, Mr.

Wolf.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

What are you talking about?

Caps.

Taps, water taps.

Oh, water taps.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

A little bit of dry mouth here.

Yeah.

Um, all right.

Well, Mr.

Mayor, if I might follow up.

Um, so let's take the alumnavi building.

Um, is that have to do with the annexation, Mr.

Wolf?

It has absolutely to do the annexation because this is all part of how we assess data centers.

And this is all part of what Cheyenne Leeds has been trying to tell the community about, which is how many data centers are there?

And there are not surprisingly, a number of ways to figure those.

And I want to know how Leeds has done it because you can't, in fact, replicate there.

Mr.

Wolf, honestly, your council doesn't agree.

We're here to talk about an annexation.

If we want to talk about data centers, there may be another more appropriate place, but I just don't think this is the time.

Mr.

Mayor, you've allowed several people to come in here and talk about data centers already.

You know, I give a little grades to people who weren't part of the data uh part of the governing body, but for us, we have to be held to a higher standard.

Don't you agree?

Oh, I intend to have high hold us all to a high standard, including Ms.

Hales, because she hasn't explained and isn't able to explain yet how this 10, 5, 9 actually is determined.

What I heard her say is that we have 10 campuses where data centers are located, five that are under construction and nine that are in some sort of a planning stage.

Okay, let me ask her one more question, Mr.

Mayor.

Okay, so how do you compare alumnavi at 45,000 square feet and meta at 715,000 square feet?

Exactly.

And that if if you could come up with that, Counselor Wolf, that would be great.

Um it is not something that has been done anywhere well in the country because of this very different a data center is a data center is a data center.

We could certainly say how many square feet of data centers there are.

Um I'm not sure that would be as meaningful to people.

You know, the Lowe's distribution center is the largest building in Wyoming and it's a million square feet.

So it's not a data center at all, but it's a very large building.

And so if you can come up with, and maybe perhaps we can work with the city and the county planners, and we can try to see if there is some uniform form of measurement.

Uh we could certainly work on that.

Thought of one more, Mr.

Mayor.

Well, in fact, guess what?

I asked AI to do that for me.

And they actually came up with a formula, which is most heavily weighted towards the actual power usage of the plants themselves, and they basically rank the if you if you assign a metric to the smallest one, the smallest power usage.

We're we're talking about annexation here, not the size of data centers.

Okay, Mr.

Mr.

Mayor, let me let me just do this as I do it in a courtroom, which is may I make an offer approved?

Uh no, no, you've already done the the Mr.

Wolf.

Actually, I agree.

You know, I think there's a gonna be a better time and place to have this discussion.

We're having a public hearing to talk about this.

We give a little grace to the folks in the audience because they don't know our processes, but I think as members of the governing body we should know them better.

Can I make just one more point?

Then the final point is this that if you use other standards, then you have to consider the meta under this power standard to be 30 data centers.

You have to consider tall grass to be 320 data centers.

The point is made, Mr.

Wolf, thank you.

The point is the point is made, thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you, Counselor Wolf.

Mr.

Mayor, just for clarification, just want everybody to know this is a public hearing, so no vote on this is going to be taken tonight.

It gets referred to committee.

I think it's important that folks remember that as well.

I mean, the purpose of what we're here tonight is to talk about the statutory criteria, uh, to put on the record what those criteria are so that we can make a good decision when it comes to the annexation itself.

Mr.

Swain.

Uh good evening, Mayor, members of the council, Brandon Swain, Ward 3.

Uh, just a few comments on some of the discussion uh within the governing body earlier.

Uh, I don't know that there's a minimum standard for annexation, but I have owner-initiated uh as little as one-third of an acre.

Um, at times as a private developer, and I won't hold you in suspense.

Um I support any annexation that meets the requirements that's owner initiated.

Um uh I think one of the strengths of the planning department, even though sometimes it can be painful as a developer, is consistency and and a clinical attitude.

I've never had a time uh where anyone in the planning department has opined uh or told me to slow things down, or if anything, to ramp it up.

I think their job is to simply enforce the unify, excuse me, unified development code.

They are the planning and development department, so I would assume their disposition is to try and give projects a path forward.

Uh, I've had some extreme scenarios, whether it's hey, what about a nine-story building in Holiday Park and I purchase City Land, or maybe I'll propose a field station at Story and Marshall.

I'm not sure.

Um, but the planning department generally is going to give you just a simple clinical response.

And I think that that's a good thing.

At times it could be painful as a developer when you're not agreeable to what some of the standards are, but I think generally for the public, it's good that someone annexing as little as a third of an acre or nearly 3600 changing zoning on one parcel or a thousand is a consistent process.

And and I really feel for that department.

It's not as if they have 20 staff, it's a very limited amount of folks that are doing some heavy lifting.

So I just wanted to offer some comments to hopefully paint a different narrative that they're arbitrary in some of their enforcement of code.

I found them to be very fair and consistent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brandon.

Jim, you've already spoken.

We'll see if anybody else has not had a chance to do that yet.

Anybody else online or go ahead, Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Mr.

Miller, welcome.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, Mr.

Miller, we can hear you.

Oh great.

Sorry, I uh I actually joined this meeting a little bit late today.

Um so I apologize.

Uh I've just come into it now, but it looks like we are discussing or not discussing the annexation of uh Microsoft.

Uh the is that correct?

What we're doing is having a public hearing to talk about whether the conditions for annexation are met for the uh Microsoft uh annexation of 3459 acres.

Okay, okay.

And so I suppose that the uh floor has kind of been opened up for uh general discussion uh for and against the annexation in regards to how data centers are gonna impact that and everything.

Is that correct?

No, I don't think so.

Well it seems like Mr.

Wolf was just it seems like Mr.

Wolf and Miss Ms.

Hills was were just talking about data centers, and so I assume that uh it's about data centers.

I'm gonna go ahead and uh just jump on now.

Mayor Collins, members of the city council for the permanent administrative record, uh Charles Miller.

I'm issuing a formal constructive notice tonight regarding the proposed hyperscale data center expansions, uh specifically neutralizing the rhetorical alibis presented by Cheyenne Leeds and Microsoft um during the June 1 uh planning commission session.

Uh this governing body is being asked to authorize multi-thousand acre industrial zoning while operating in an absolute state of infinite informational blindness.

First, regarding the administrative shield offered by Cheyenne Leeds, Betsy Hale stood on the public record and attempted to pacify this city by assuring us that the environmental and aesthetic impacts of these mega campuses will be strictly regulated by private conditions, covenants, and restrictions.

Mr.

Miller, I have to agree with the council.

You're talking about things that aren't before us right now.

What's before us is whether the 34 and 59 acres meet the criteria for being annexed.

Um so do you want to get onto that topic?

I'm happy to listen to it.

Um okay, so are you trying to split up the fact that you guys are trying to change this over to uh a different um uh zoning or I guess that that'll be on first reading later on in this meeting and will be talked about in the next few weeks, but it's not on the it's not over on this time.

Okay, okay.

How about this one?

Um, so the uh due to Finn's uh F I N C E N's March 2025 rollback of the corporate transparency act, uh, and this this ties in because uh as far as the annexation is concerned, uh Betsy Hale is indicating uh that the um the environmental and aesthetic impacts of these mega campuses will be strictly regulated by private conditions, covenants, and restrictions.

I apologize, but your time is up, sir.

Thank you.

Anyone else online?

Jim, please.

Jim Chiro, board one candidate, just to recoup my time.

I'm not gonna take a long time on it.

Just as staff had said when you did with the subdivision, that you did a little bit more due diligence on that.

You did a little bit more research on that.

I'm asking that you go and do that before going and send this over to the planning committee.

Uh again, I I highly encourage you not to go to improve this for quality of life.

Technology is gonna go and change.

I remember when, you know, we used to be on dial up with AOL and that, and then what's gonna happen?

We're gonna have all these data centers, we're gonna have we're gonna have a ghost town of warehouses and buildings in that.

Not to mention if I win the lottery and I wanted to put a steel mill in here, but if I go and donate to the boys and girls club, or I go and put in a new recenter or you know, CFD or that, that makes me a good steward.

No, we got to look at the quality of life and not look at that mighty buck on this.

So please take your time on this like you did with the subdivision.

I'm I'm all I'm all for it.

Uh, for you know, if it was for subdivision, that's quality of life.

You're getting affordable housing for folks, not doing 3,400 acres.

If they want to buy some land, I'll sell my 40 acres out of medicine boat.

They'd love to have employment out there.

That's it, mayor.

All right, we're still on the uh public hearing to talk about the annexation.

Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to speak on this public hearing, either online or in public?

Or in process person.

There I'll go.

Nobody else?

All right, we're gonna close that public hearing and open it up to the governing body.

Uh, anybody on the governing body?

Mr.

White, did you want to speak, sir?

I was just gonna ask our city attorney, what is a formal constructive notice?

We we're we've been getting that a lot recently, so from the same person.

So, is that a legal term or what is it?

Should we ask Chat GPT?

I should have done that actually, but I didn't.

Uh Mr.

Mayor Councilman White, as far as the city's proceedings go, it doesn't really mean anything.

That's what I thought.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the governing body?

All right, hearing none.

The purpose of the public hearing.

Oh, Mr.

Leyborn.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um obviously, this is a big big issue.

And in the map we just got handed, you can see that it deals with a number of adjacent or nearby issues that possibly not being taken in consideration tonight, but that are part of the community's interest, and certainly something that I'm very interested in.

One of the things I'd like to point out here is this narrow focus that we have and we've had tonight about point of order and what's appropriate to discuss.

One of the things I'd like to point out, Mr.

Mayor, is the five hours I recently spent here with the planning commission in regard to this overall effort.

And I believe that that's germane to the discussion.

I think it's important that we look at the fact that most of the our guests here from Microsoft were here for that meeting, and they discussed what they were talking about, and it was about the map and about the zoning that will occur.

And Mr.

Mayor and members of the council, I just got to say how proud I was of our planning commission.

They really really did their best.

And you can imagine, and it certainly is that is equally applicable to us.

We don't make decisions like this.

Haven't before.

Certainly not in a such a politically charged atmosphere with so many nearby aspects.

And I don't think we can look at this in that narrow view that's been suggested tonight that we're changing the color on the map.

Mr.

Mayor, we're not changing the color on the map.

We are adopting the rules and regulations of the city.

That's a really serious thing.

And I want to emphasize as well that certainly leads and the many projects that have been developed that I'm aware of have really benefited this city in many ways.

That uh the efforts with Microsoft to this point have certainly not occurred in this type of an atmosphere, but one of the things that can that I'm considering to be serious, Mr.

Mayor, is I can't get the minutes of that planning commission meeting that just happened, five hours, good discussion.

Use of the people that sit on the planning commission, they wanted to understand uh as they do uh these other annexations, big little, they wanted to apply their knowledge to that, and I think they did, and it was uh certainly interesting, but when we don't have the minutes, we don't have a real chance to discuss the action that they took, and that they took several votes.

I I personally uh don't want to call on my recollection.

I think we need to go to the record, and I think that that's a very important part of this, and certainly those uh those minutes can be uh dispersed as draft minutes.

Don't have to wait a month for them to be uh approved by the next meeting of the commission, so there's got to be some middle ground on this.

Um I'm not hearing a lot of it, but this is something we need to discuss and look at, and I think, certainly from my perspective, and I will be having a vote on that annexation action.

We need to consider South Cheyenne that's immediately adjacent here, and all the needs and changes that are going on there because of this project as well as others, and I believe that there's contributions that should be considered to help that neighborhood as well as other issues here in the city.

And I would point out, Mr.

Mayor and members of the council, that on our map, and I was glad to have it pointed out by staff here.

The sweetgrass annexation came with the annexation agreement.

And it was one that we've modified as was pointed out, but it wasn't a blanket approach to what the property owners, and interestingly enough, they happen to be the same property owners.

I don't believe that uh Microsoft has yet purchased the Highlands property, but uh certainly the Womas family is well known, so I think there are some options here we should be considering, and some thoughts that need to be made, and that we really should be careful about allowing broad discussion.

This isn't a narrow uh issue of changing a color on a map.

This is the future of our city in a very complex relationship, and I certainly look forward to continued discussion with uh some of the people that have spoken here.

I appreciated the meeting that I went to at the college, um, I went to the meeting at the uh civic center.

There's just a lot of knowledge we need to get here and a lot of fear that needs to be dissipated.

So I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Um this type of a annexation should speak to our processes, and when we have a process where individuals come down to our planning commission meeting for five hours, discuss these very issues with the members of the planning commission, and we don't have the minutes to refer to, that's kind of up to my opinion, and I don't think that's probably the best way to do it.

This is a formal process, it's very important, and I hope that we can take a look at it in the context of not only this annexation, but the entire process here because this is big, surrounding it is something much, much bigger in the county that we have no say on.

So looking at the whole, I look forward to this discussion, and I hope that tonight we've shown that we, as has been pointed out here, um, I hope Microsoft is going to uh directly look at some of these questions and answer them.

I there I got a lot to learn.

I don't I don't uh deny that.

I think people in the community do as well, but you're coming into an interface between the city and the county that really needs our best efforts so um I look forward to that continuing discussion.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the governing body, Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Seeger.

I'd just like to remind the governing body that the planning commission does not consider annexation.

It's not even a topic on their agenda.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Apler.

Can we not remind each other of things that we know perfectly well?

I understand this process.

I sit on the public service committee.

I understand this process, they go together, and the discussion from the public goes into this process, and I absolutely believe we've got to stop this narrow interpretation and look at the total impact.

Look at the total amount of money.

Look at the good things, but we don't look at it in a in this vacuum with this narrow focus.

Yes, sir.

I am well aware of the fact that the planning commission does not act or make an uh recommendation on annexation.

They make a recommendation on matters directly related to that zoning.

In light of that, that the planning commission mayor does not uh take action on annexation.

I would call a point of order that we need to move on.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

The purpose of the public hearing has been met, and we'll move on to the next item.

Number seven, ordinance, third reading, amending section 13.20.050.

General prohibitions and 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 NPDES and WPDES permit requirements.

Alright, we have before us uh rewrite of our wastewater regulations and some discharge limits, and we'll go out to the audience, see if anybody in the audience wants to speak to that issue.

Hearing none, we'll go to Dr.

Aldrich, please for a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the public services committee is to approve on third and final reading, and I so move.

Second.

Second by Dr.

Emmons.

Comments from the governing body on the ordinance.

Hearing none, yes, yes, since you'd allow me a little attitude.

I see Mr.

Strong or Mr.

Buulow, one of them getting up, but this does deal with waste into the um sanitary sewer.

Would would Mr.

Strong please address what our current policy is in regard to the glycol laden water from data centers?

Mr.

Strong, are you part of that?

Uh is that part of this uh discharge limits?

Um through you, Mayor.

Uh I guess, sorry, to you, Mayor.

No, the discharge limits are I don't think it covers glycol.

But we can't create a conference of this.

This is the local limits of of the stuff that we regularly monitor going into the plant, but to answer uh Dr.

Rennie's question, because of the potential impact of glycol to our wastewater treatment plants, we're actually requiring all the the closed loop data centers that use them to build a separate collection system that drains to a tank and is not directly connected to our our collection system so that it can be evaluated.

If they have a leak and they say, well, there was no glycol, we can test it before it comes to our plant, or if it has a if it's full of glycol, we can say no, you've got to haul it off and have it properly treated in a facility that can handle it.

Thank you.

All right.

Anybody else in the governing body?

Madam Clerk, take the vote, please.

Mr.

Labourne.

Aye.

Mr.

Moody?

Aye.

Dr.

Rennie.

Yes.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Yes.

Mr.

White.

Yes.

Mr.

Wolf.

Aye.

Dr.

Aldrich?

Yes.

Mayor Collins.

Dr.

Emmons?

Yes.

Mr.

Escobel.

Aye.

This ordinance is approved on third and final reading.

Number eight, third and ordinance, third reading, amending and updating the solid waste fee schedule in accordance with section 8.44.010 of the municipal code of the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and repealing ordinance number 4621.

All right, this is our annual review of our solid waste fees.

And I think for most people here, the numbers are going to want to hear is it's a 1% increase in residential, 3% for commercial.

We'll go out to the audience, see if anybody's here to speak to our solid waste fee schedule.

Anybody?

Alright, hearing none.

Mr.

White.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committee is to approve on third final reading, and I so move.

Seconded by Mr.

Wolf.

Comments on the fee schedule by the members of the governing body.

Dr.

Aldridge?

Okay.

Uh hearing none, madam clerk.

Mr.

Esquebell.

Aye.

Mr.

Labourne.

Aye.

Mr.

Moody?

No.

Dr.

Rennie?

Yes.

Mr.

Seagrave?

Yes.

Mr.

White?

Yes.

Mr.

Wolf.

Aye.

Dr.

Aldrich?

Yes.

Mayor Collins.

Dr.

Emmons.

Yes.

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

Moody voting no.

Number nine, ordinance third reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne.

Changing the zoning classification for land located southwest of the intersection of HR Ranch Road and Judy Lee Drive and southeast of HR Ranch Road and Judy Lee Drive from JL Ranch PUD Planned Unit Development to NR2 neighborhood residential medium density.

All right.

This is an older neighborhood that uh was under a PUD, but because of all the work we've done on our housing, actually now fits really well into our current zone districts.

And so we have a zone change to get it to NR2.

Mr.

Swain.

Oh, good evening, Mayor.

Members of the council, Brandon Swain, agent for the applicant.

Just wanted to make myself available for any questions before the final vote this evening.

Thank you.

I don't see any Brandon.

Thank you.

Thank you very anybody else in the audience.

Okay.

We'll go to Dr.

Aldrich for motion.

Mr.

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

And ISOM second.

Second by Dr.

Emmons.

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

Hearing none, Madam Clerk.

Dr.

Emmons?

Yes.

Mr.

Escobel.

Aye.

Mr.

Layborne.

Aye.

Mr.

Moody.

Aye.

Dr.

Rennie.

Mr.

Seagrave?

Yes.

Mr.

White?

Yes.

Mr.

Wolf.

Aye.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Yes.

Mayor Collins.

This ordinance is approved on third and final reading.

Number 10 ordinance third reading appropriating monies for the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming for the various purposes in conducting the municipal government of said city and fixing the amount of general and special taxes as part of the revenue required to meet the said appropriation offer the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2026 and ending June 30th, 2027.

Well, hopefully tonight is the last step in our fiscal 2027 budget process.

It's been going on for a very large number of months.

We're before us now is about an 83 million dollar general fund budget for the city of Cheyenne.

So go out to the audience, see if anybody has any comments or questions about our budget.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Mr.

Miller, we can hear you.

Okay, Mayor Collins, members of the city council for the permanent administrative record, Charles Miller.

Just to verify, this is ordinance item number 10, the appropriation of 232 million dollars, not 232 million nine hundred and fifty-four thousand three hundred and twenty-nine dollars for fiscal year 2027.

Is that correct?

I believe that sounds right.

Okay.

I'm issuing a formal constructive notice regarding ordinance item 10, the appropriation of that 232 million nine hundred and fifty-four thousand three hundred and twenty-nine dollars for fiscal year 2027.

This ordinance is a mathematical fiction.

You are preparing to authorize a ledger that actively socializes corporate liabilities while bleeding general fund reserves for cosmetic optics.

First, let's audit the general fund.

You are appropriating 82,750.

I'm sorry, this is about the the budget.

Go ahead, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Um you are appropriating eighty-two, seven hundred and sixty-five thousand and twenty-six dollars.

Yet section two of this ordinance mathematic mathematically confesses that to balance this fund, you're extracting two million uh seventy-one thousand eight hundred and fifty seven dollars directly from revenue from reserves.

Concurrently, this exact same ledger appropriates nine million six hundred and seventy-six thousand two hundred and twenty-six dollars for community recreation and events.

This is the mathematical definition of capital misallocation.

You are actively draining municipal reserves to fund a nine point six million dollar discretionary aesthetic budget while simultaneously telling taxpayers you lack the funds to repair failing residential roads.

Second, like look at the Board of Public Utilities Revenue Matrix.

The water enterprise Fund explicitly balances its ledger on the back of 20 million dollars in unsecured loan proceeds.

Specifically the state revolving fund debt required to begin fixing the catastrophic toxic lead service line crisis.

You are forcing the existing taxpayer to absorb 20 million dollars in state debt just to drink clean water.

Yet earlier tonight, you authorized the unchecked industrial sprawl of corporate hyperscalers.

You are utilizing the business park loophole to exempt these multi-billion dollar developers from the Wyoming Industrial Sitting Council, citing council legally stripping our county of the socioeconomic impact fees needed to expand this exact infrastructure.

You are socializing the toxic debt and privatizing the corporate profit.

Third, you were appropriating over 22.7 million from the optional one percent sales tax fund as verified on the permanent transcript.

This is the exact fund this administration systematically targets for consent agenda laundering, bearing $384,000 engineering contracts and unbid equipment.

Thank you for calling.

Anybody else in the audience want to speak to the uh budget?

All right, Mr.

Seagrave, may we have a motion, please?

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the committee of the whole is to approve on third and final reading, and I so move.

Second.

It's been seconded by Mr.

White.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend to increase the facilities maintenance division equipment budget line item by 250,000 from general fund reserves to purchase a fleet generator.

Second.

All right, we're gonna go out to the audience on this item.

We have an amendment to add two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to our budget to purchase a generator.

The genesis of this was during our big windstorm when we lost power in Cheyenne, we couldn't pump gasoline for fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars.

And uh, so we're gonna add a generator to our fleet maintenance facility so we can keep our fuel pumps on and also to be able to open the doors and be able to get vehicles in should they need maintenance.

We'll go out to the audience and see if anybody wants to talk about that two hundred and fifty thousand dollar addition to our budget.

Hearing none, how about from the governing body?

All right, all those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

That amendment is approved.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend to increase the special projects division budget parks and recreation projects line item by 750,000 from general fund reserves for pavement improvements at Lyons Park and Cahill Park.

Second.

All right, before us we have an amendment.

We have some of the parking lots around.

I guess the forestry office and the botanic gardens that are in disrepair and also in Cake Hill Park.

And so we want to take a little money from our reserves that we've been adding up over the last few years and do some maintenance on those uh those parking areas.

Uh we'll go out to the audience to see if anybody wants to speak to the $750,000 addition.

Welcome, sir.

It's nice to see you.

Thank you.

Richard Johnson 612 McGovern having ridden my bicycle here uh this evening.

Um, I'd appreciate it if you could add holiday park to that list.

Thank you, Mr.

Johnson.

Anyone else?

Yes, ma'am.

Go ahead, Mr.

Miller.

Can you hear me?

We always can hear you, sir.

Ah, okay.

Um, Mayor Collins, members of the city council for the permanent administrative record, Charles Miller.

I am issuing a formal constructive notice regarding the spontaneous million dollar amendments currently being bolted onto the fiscal year 2027 budget.

What this governing body is executing right now is a due process vacuum.

You are presenting the taxpayers with a static $232 million budget document only to bypass public scrutiny by manually extracting hundreds of thousands of dollars from general fund reserves via live floor amendments.

Let the record reflect the exact math occurring tonight.

In a matter of minutes, you have proposed extracting.

You realize we did this in committee, right?

So this is not the first time this governing body or the public has heard about this.

Well, so these are these uh amendments that you have.

So you're aware of that, correct?

Okay, so the in the matter of minutes.

Are you aware of that?

Uh would you would would I be able to finish my I just asked you a question, sir.

I just was curious.

Were you aware of the fact that this came through the committee process?

So it's already been through one public hearing.

This is the second one.

We didn't spring this on anybody.

I just want to make sure for administrative record or whatever you call it that we have uh we're not trying to spring something at the last minute, sir.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, if possible, um maybe I if you have questions for me, then I would be able to answer them when my uh three minutes is done.

I'll add I'll add a couple times a couple seconds to your time.

I asked you a simple question, sir.

Were you aware of it?

Uh so that's okay.

You don't have to answer.

I think we know the answer.

If you could if you could possibly ask me that my qu the questions you have for me after, then then I would be able to complete my uh public comment and then answer any questions you have after that.

Go ahead, Mr.

Miller.

Um, okay.

So, um, let's see here.

Where was I?

So, in a matter of minutes, you have proposed extracting $750,000 from reserves for park pavement and another $250,000 for a fleet maintenance generator.

You have materialized one million dollars out of thin air.

The administrative contradiction is mathematically absolute.

This is the same governing body that has that repeatedly claims severe fiscal poverty regarding the 100 million dollar un in unfunded liability to replace an unknown number of 28,000 unknown uh toxic led service line uh out of out of 280 28,000 unknown lines.

Uh it is the same administration that forces a new algorithm-based stormwater.

Um, I'm sorry, can just give me a moment here.

Uh you cannot mathematically claim systemic poverty for public health emergencies while utilizing the council floor as an unitomized ATM for a million dollar discretionary amendments, bypassing structured public oversight to alter the finalized municipal ledger by voice vote is an absolute breach of fiduciary duty.

Your fiscal alibis are neutralized on the permanent record.

Thank you.

Alright, anybody else?

All right, hearing none.

Uh we have a motion to uh spend some money to fix the parking lots.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, Mr.

Moody is a no.

That amendment is approved.

Mr.

Seagrave.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend to increase the city attorney division budget by a total of 158,626 to fund an additional attorney position and decrease the city council division general discretionary line item by the same amount.

Second, it's been seconded by Dr.

Aldrich.

The city council set a goal to try to get our uh abandoned buildings and some of our nuisances here in the community cleaned up.

And one of the the facts of that is is in order to do that, it takes quite a bit of law time.

Uh in our attorney's office, which we don't have the bandwidth.

So if we're gonna meet that goal, we need to add another attorney's position, and that's what this motion does.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to that?

All right, above from the governing body.

I already closed public comment.

Mr.

Labourne.

Mr.

Mayor, I I speak strongly in favor of this uh amount and for this purpose.

It's uh something that really is important and is uh bounces around from various departments and really doesn't have that tracking method that we're gonna need to handle these uh complex matters.

So I think this is a real real step in the road.

Well, it'll it's a solid step.

It's gonna give us an opportunity to do something we've wanted to do for a long time.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moody, uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you um, I concur with my colleague from Ward One again as I say, committee, the whole, I look at cities like Los Angeles that have this problem and they're not taking care of it.

We don't want to be like that, so that's why I support it.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the governing body on the attorney?

All right, hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye, those opposed.

All right, that third amendment is approved.

We're back on the main motion, which is the budget, which is a little bit bigger now.

Anybody on the governing body want to speak to that?

Dr.

Emmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, I would just like to uh through you put a plea uh once again for Mr.

Miller, um, to put maybe on his permanent administrative record to please come down and see us.

We would love to have him here in person, that would be great.

And also I want to remind everybody that the budget is public record and it is out there and it is available.

So if you have any questions after listening to all the debate, please take a look at it so that you can get a good clear understanding of what all is in it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moody?

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you, I just want to again thank the treasurer's office, Ms.

Lockman for all the hard work.

Um I don't like every I don't like everything in this budget, however, I will support it because as I made a promise to those that are on the front lines, they did get their raises, which is the reason why I voted no last year, but this year I'm happy you see they are getting those raises.

So that's my uh promise that I made up on his dias going back a couple months.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Uh Mayor Collins through you.

Um, I am going to be in support of this uh budget tonight as well.

Um I recognize it the concern that uh we are taking money out of reserve to do some things that are um quite honestly long overdue, like repairing pavement in some of our local parks starting on that project, being able to get this emergency generator to that can be utilized for uh fuel and at fleet maintenance in uh when the power goes out, as well as adding uh city at an assistant city attorney that will help us to um proceed with hopefully recapturing uh some of the um costs that we invest every time we have to um go and uh abate a property.

Uh what I'd like to remind people of is that when um I came on to this council almost six years ago now, um we had uh not even 70 days in reserve, and we now have over 300 days in reserve.

Um we have been extremely fiscally conservative, we've made sure and we've reviewed things to make sure that fees are covering the expenses um for the expenses that are incurred for each of those items.

Uh we've been conservative, not knowing what our um colleagues at the state legislature were going to do with uh property tax, um, and not knowing what the outcome of the initial the constitutional ballot initiative will be in November.

Um, but it's sometimes you put money away in reserves in order to be able to do some of these long-term projects, just as you would in your own uh financial house, and so for that reason, um I'm going to be yes vote tonight, but I want to I want it to be noted that we have done this completely in the public eye, and that we have been fiscally conservative so that we might be able to begin taking on some of these larger projects, um, which I think our council can be extremely proud of.

Anybody else on the governing body?

I just want to take just a minute on personal level to thank our our uh all of our different divisions.

I see a lot of you guys sitting over in the corner there.

Our chief of staff has worked really hard on these budgets and uh putting those numbers together and then sending them off to our treasurer and her uh department, umber and it's an amazing team, you guys.

Um, the way that they were able to uh to work through those budgets, and uh every time we'd ask a question, um, every time we wanted to make a change, it was just amazing how uh you know how well our team works together.

So I just want to say thank you to everybody that was involved.

This is a six-month process for our our treasurer and uh a little bit longer than that for each of our departments.

And so I just want to say thank you to everybody.

I'm really proud of everybody's work, and I think we have a great budget before us this time.

We took care of some of the things that uh I thought were really important and we really needed to take care of, and I think we're in a great place.

And with that, Madam Clerk, if you take the vote, Mayor Collins.

Heck yes, Dr.

Emmons, yes, Mr.

Escobel, aye, Mr.

Layborn, aye, Mr.

Moody, aye, Dr.

Rennie, yes, Mr.

Seagrave, yes, Mr.

White, yes, Mr.

Wolf?

Aye.

Dr.

Aldrich, yes.

This budget is approved on third and final reading as amended.

Thank you.

Number 11, Ordinance, third reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for land located in Cheyenne Business Park and Campstool Business Park in Eastern Cheyenne along I-80 from L I Light Industrial, H.I.

Heavy Industrial N C B community business to BP Business Park.

Alright, this is a zone change for an existing business park to a new zone district we call business park zoning, and we'll open it up to the audience to see if anybody wants to speak to the zone change on third reading.

Go ahead, Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Hello, Mr.

Miller.

Can you hear me?

We can.

All right.

Give me just a moment here.

Let's see.

This is members of Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, Charles Miller, for the record.

This is the reclassification of land in the Cheyenne Business Park and Camps School Business Park along IAD corridor from light industrial, heavy industrial and community business down to a unified business park designation.

Is that correct?

It is, sir.

All right.

Um I'm submitting, I'm submitting this uh comment to formally request a forensic clarification on the operational and fiscal drivers behind this reclassification.

Shifting established zones, especially heavy industrial into a business park reclassification carry specific long-term infrastructure and tax revenue implications.

Before this is finalized, the public requires transparency on three strategic points.

Preemptive accommodations.

What specific future enterprise developer or infrastructure project is this zone, uh is this rezoning preemptively accommodating?

Zone changes of this scale are rarely executed as mere procedural housekeeping.

Fiscal architecture.

We need to ensure there are no obscured fiscal transfers or concessions being structured beneath this zoning change.

And number three, infrastructure load.

How does this structural shift alter the baseline municipal service requirements specifically regarding utilities, public safety, and traffic load along the I-80 corridor compared to the previous heavy and light industrial designations?

The architectural shift, this zone must be justified by clear publicly accessible data regarding its true intent.

I look forward to your detailed response on the record.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right, I hear none.

Dr.

Aldrich, may we have a motion, please?

Mr.

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

Seconded by Mr.

White.

Comments from the oh, we have a substitute.

Yeah, we do.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend by substitute dated June 1st, 2026.

Second.

Seconded by Dr.

Rennie.

This was just to remove two landowners who did not want to be part of the new zone area.

We'll go out to the audience to see if anybody wants to speak to the substitute before us.

Hearing none, how about from the governing body?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

All right.

We're back on the main motion.

Comments from members of the governing body.

Sir.

Yes.

Mayor Collins for you.

I just wanted to address a couple of comments that were just made by Mr.

Miller.

Um I think it's important to continually remind everyone that this public scrutiny does occur during our committee process, and that um our legislation is not uh done behind closed doors, that there is uh ample opportunities for people to make comments, whether at committee or virtually, virtually or here in person.

Um, this he also referred to a new business park zone that this was a new zone.

Well, it is the newest of our zones, um, until we withholding the one that's on the agenda for tonight, um, this is not something that is being done just for this particular entity or this particular business park.

And he also asked about a structural shift.

Um, when reading the supporting materials and looking at the agenda, uh, which the public has access to on Friday before each of our city council meetings.

Um, it should be noted that this does not result in any structural shift.

Um, there's an assumption that was made that this is being done to benefit one entity or um a proposed entity, and that simply isn't the case.

And I think that every time misinformation goes out during public comment or during a committee meeting um it is brought forward that we need to make sure that we set the record straight.

Um, that seems to be uh an ongoing concern um in our in light of transparency.

Thank you.

All right.

Anybody else on the main motion?

Hearing none, madam clerk.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Yes, Mayor Collins, yes.

Dr.

Emmons, yes, Mr.

Escobel.

I Mr.

Labourne.

I, Mr.

Moody.

No.

Dr.

Rennie.

Yes, Mr.

Seagrave?

Yes, Mr.

White, yes, Mr.

Wolf.

Aye.

All right, the ordinance is approved on third and final reading as amended with Mr.

Moody voting no.

Number 12, ordinance, third reading, approving and establishing revised water and sewer rates, tap in system development fees, administrative fees, service charges, and penalties, and septic and commercial waste dump rates as recommended by the Board of Public Utilities.

All right, this is an annual review, our annual review of the Board of Public Utilities fee schedule.

And if I remember correctly, the numbers that are uh pertinent, I think most of us, a three percent increase in our service fee, five percent on water and sewer.

Mr.

Bowen, did I get that right?

I'm getting a thumbs up.

So uh we'll go out to the audience to see if anybody has a comment on the fee schedule.

Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Mr.

Miller, but I've not been able to hear you.

A couple times uh I felt like I I wanted to be heard and definitely I wasn't.

Right ahead, sir.

Members of the council, Charles Miller for the record.

I'm placing a formal constructive notice of fiduciary misallocation onto the permanent administrative transcript regarding ordinance number 12.

This is this is the ordinance we're on, correct?

Yes, sir.

You're asking the taxpayers of Cheyenne to absorb increased water sewer and system development fees under the guise of necessary municipal maintenance.

Yet a forensic audit of the municipal ledger reveals a severe mathematical contradiction.

Before this governing body votes to extract higher utility rates from vulnerable residents, three documented fiscal realities must be answered for on the public record.

The hidden reserves, you are raising utility and waste fees on citizens while the administration is quietly sitting on over 77.3 million dollars in unassigned reserves from building permit windfalls.

You cannot claim poverty and squeeze the rate payer while hoarding nearly an entire year's worth of operating capital in off-budget accounts.

Number two, the toxic liability deficit.

We have a documented 100 million dollar plus unfunded liability to replace toxic led service lines across the city.

Furthermore, internal BOPU records indicate a 30-foot groundwater decline and a severe TCE toxic plume at the Belbor ranch well field.

Raising rates to balance a budget while ignoring catastrophic environmental liabilities is a failure of fiduciary duty.

Number three, the hypost hyperscale subsidy.

You are forcing residential ratepayers to subsidize a utility system that is buckling under the weight of unmitigated under industrial sprawl.

While you actively rezone thousands of acres for water intensive data centers, you are passing the system expansion cost directly on to the citizens.

A municipal budget operates mathematically as a zero sum ledger.

This rate hike is not a fiscal responsibility, it is an infrastructure bailout funded by the taxpayer.

Also, I had a quick question.

It's it's gone on a couple times in a few different meetings.

Um Dr.

Rennie had indicated the amount of uh of water in uh in the in the reserves.

He had indicated a number in the trillions.

I was wondering if you might be able to uh actually uh correct that on the record because our uh the acre conversion, the acre feet conversion that he had given, it was it was it was wrong by trillions of he said trillions instead of billions.

I was wondering if you guys could clarify that.

I think our firm yield every year is about seven billion gallons of water a year on the record.

And Mr.

Miller, um when uh when developers come to our community, including what you call them large hyperscaled uh developers, the Board of Public Utilities does not put in the infrastructure the developer does.

So the ratepayers in Cheyenne are not subsidizing the uh the development that happens when the school a school is built, the the school foundation puts it together.

When a small business person develops, they pay for the infrastructure.

And when a data center comes, they pay for it.

So, sir, uh while again I appreciate your your calling in, it is fundamentally incorrect.

Anybody else?

Dr.

Emmons.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I would also like to point out that BOPU does go through an audit, and that audit result is probably uh publicly available as well.

It is.

It's on their website for how many years?

I don't know a lot.

Dr.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Uh Mayor Collins for you.

I would also like to point out that um the irony that uh item number one, Mr.

Miller listed was 77.3 million in permit windfalls in reserves.

And then the next item that he noted was that we have a hundred million dollar shortfall in toxic service lines, which um first and foremost, we use reserves for large projects and to anticipate um those projects.

Um we also know that we are um applying for grants and things to help with that toxic service line.

It's not that we're ignoring that or that we have turned a blind eye to that.

Um, it's simply that we are uh waiting for some regulations at the federal level.

We're looking at some grant monies that are available.

We're there we're doing our due diligence.

So um while we're being damned for on one hand for having reserves and damned on the other hand for not spending enough money, I'm not sure how we're gonna make Mr.

Miller happy at this point.

All right, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, Mr.

Crete.

One more item.

I don't know that we've determined uh the amount of cost or the extent of the lead pipe uh situation we have in the city.

Uh the last meeting I attended with the Boku.

Um they were in the process of examining records.

Um, they're they've barely begun if they have begun actually out in the field looking at uh various sites.

So uh while we know we have an issue, we I don't believe we've uh truly established the size of that issue or the cost of that issue.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gabe, I think you're right, they're out potholing now, looking to uh identify uh where those those services are and coming up with the mitigation plan.

Did I get that right, Mr.

Strong?

Thank you.

All right.

Anybody else in the audience want to speak to the Board of Public Utilities um fee schedule for fiscal year 2027?

All right, hearing none.

We'll go to Mr.

White for a motion, please.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committees to approve on third and final reading, and I so move.

Seconded by Mr.

Seagrave comments from members of the governing body on this ordinance.

Dr.

Aldrich.

Mayor Collins for you.

I'm going to uh be a yes vote on this tonight, just like I was on the waste um increase, and that's because um we have worked really hard to make sure that um we are able to um cover the expenses that we have, the infrastructure cost, the cost of um what it takes in order for us to do business and to be responsible and to be fiscally conservative uh rather than putting these uh rate increases off and kicking them down the road so that we end up with a large increase later on.

Um so this is part of our due diligence to make sure that the um what we're charging is covering our expenses and that we're not um kicking it down the road for another council to try and deal with.

So for that reason, I'm going to be a yes vote tonight.

And to follow up on that, Dr.

Aldrich, the Board of Public Utilities does a long-term uh cost of doing business study that then gives them a guideline for uh a number of years on what it will take for them to be able to maintain their system and keep up with inflation and everything.

That's what this is based on, not some guess, but that they actually have a uh a consultant comes in and looks at their system, which is almost a billion dollars to figure out what is it gonna take to uh make sure that we keep our system in good working order.

And I think if we were to look at our friends in Rollins, and you would see when their water system failed, uh, what the consequences to community are.

And so while uh it's never fun to have to change and increase fees, uh, it's a hell of a lot tougher when your system fails and you're uh trying to boil water and uh you can't bring new industry in because you cannot um it can't handle the the load.

So I commend uh both our uh sanitation department and our um board of health utilities for their constant monitoring of uh of what it takes in order to make sure we have a robust system.

All right, let's go to the to a vote, madam clerk.

Mr.

Wolf.

Aye, Dr.

Aldrich, yes, Mayor Collins, Dr.

Emmons, yes, Mr.

Escobel.

Aye, Mr.

Labourne, yes, Mr.

Moody?

No, Dr.

Rennie, Mr.

Seagrave, yes, Mr.

White.

Yes, the ordinance is approved on third and final reading with Mr.

Moody voting no.

Number thirteen, ordinance second reading defining the terms and conditions of employment for sworn officers of the Cheyenne Police Department for July 2026 until the end of fiscal year 2027.

This is our annual terms, and uh this one includes a three percent market adjustment, uh a corporal rank, a new corporal rank, and some updated and specialty pays.

We'll go out to the audience.

There's anybody who wants to speak to the terms and conditions for this year.

Hearing none, Mr.

White.

Mr.

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

Seconded by Mr.

Wolf.

Comments from members of the governing body on the terms and conditions.

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

Okay.

Those opposed, the ordinance is approved on second reading.

Number 14 ordinance, second reading, amending section 1.4.3 and 5.8.8 of the unified development code and creating section 5.8.9 car ports to create definitions and standards for carports.

All right, we have an ordinance um to modify our unified development code to allow corporate carports on the front of a house, and we'll go out to the audience to see if anybody has any comments on allowing carports.

All right, hearing none, Dr.

Aldridge.

Mr.

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

Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend by substitute dated May 28th, 2026.

Seconded by Mr.

Moody.

The first motion was also um made or by Mr.

Moody.

Uh this amendment removes uh in section C one and C3, which was the uh zero setback, it goes back to the uh the regular um uh the five-foot uh setback that was before the planning commission made that change.

We'll go out to the audience.

Does anybody want to talk about the change in C1 and C3?

Hearing none, how about from the governing body?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, Mr.

Dr.

Rennie.

He's a no.

We're on the main motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend section, oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

Uh move to amend section 5.8.9 C1 and C3 to remove the ability for the director to allow through administrative adjustment for a zero foot setback from a current or future sidewalk.

And that what we just voted on.

Well, no, she's saying no.

Mr.

Mayor, the the amendment dated 528, I believe.

I think the attorney's office could give a better explanation.

But it was a uh administrative um correction from the staff.

And then the amendment that Dr.

Aldries just made was the amendment made in committee.

Okay, I got that wrong then.

Um, okay.

That's correct, Mr.

Mayor.

Okay.

So what was the one that we just did that we probably need to go back and discuss then?

Because I'm I incorrectly stated what it was.

And I apologize, Mr.

Mayor.

I was pulling that up as you were going through it, but the the 528 one was just adding uh the section, basically adding it to the headers of what all the sections were.

So it was kind of a just a clerical correction, um, adding the new uh par port section.

So it was uh, okay.

So I think we need to go back and and do that one first, and we'll come back and do the second one.

Um so I apologize for that.

We'll go out to the audience.

We had that 528, which was something just in the entitlement itself that was changed, or was it in the Mr.

White?

Help me out here.

Mayor members of council counterweight planning and development department.

So the first sub basically the substitute itself is to add, I believe it is section six of the ordinance, uh, which basically just adds carports to the basically it adds 5.8.9 to section 5.8 at the beginning of the section in its table of contents.

Um it was just something that was missed in the original ordinance.

It's a clerical error.

Um it's just something we have to have.

So if this does get approved, um the UDC is updated correctly so that as actually listed in the table of contents for that section.

Okay.

So this is adds carports in the table of contents.

That is all the substitute is, and then the amendment was made in committee.

Which is one I thought we were just doing.

All right, I stand corrected.

All right, we'll go out to the audience on this adding to the table of contents.

Anybody?

How about on the governing body?

All right, hearing none.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Now we'll go back to that other one.

Dr.

Aldri, would you say it again, please?

Mayor Collins.

I move to amend section 5.8.9 C1 and C three to remove the ability for the director to allow through administrative adjustments for a zero foot setback from a current or future sidewalk.

Mr.

Moody, you still good with second?

All right.

We have a motion and second.

Again, we'll go back to the audience on this uh uh removing the administrative ability to have a zero setback, making it five feet.

Anybody about from the governing body, all those in favor?

Aye, those opposed, Dr.

Rudy, you're still a no.

Okay.

All right.

Now we're back on the main motion.

Comments from members of the governing body.

Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Moody.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you.

I do urge my colleagues to vote aye.

Uh as we heard the public services committee, there has been a lot of people wanting to put carports in.

There are a lot in not just uh ward three, but throughout the city.

And again, five feet is pretty far back from the sidewalk, 10 feet from the curb, just put a visual perspective on it.

And also to looking from affordable housing perspective, let's say don't want to put in a garage, put in a carport, that would definitely cut down on cost if the developer bill or size do that.

So again, it's just making it easier for our constituents, but also potentially future developers.

Okay, Mr.

Mayor.

Anybody else in the governing body?

Dr.

Aldries, your question.

Uh Mayor Collins, through you, one of the questions that I have is that I don't see as I read through this uh proposed ordinance anything that requires these to be anchored in some way.

And so I'm wondering if we might be able to address that.

Mr.

White.

Mayor to you, Connor White planning a development department.

So the anchoring comes when the building permits required.

Um building code requires carports to be anchored down.

So that that is where the anchoring is.

We don't specifically have it in the zoning code.

If council wants to add that, you add your discretion, you can add that in there that these will be anchored.

Um I don't think it would hurt.

Um it just overlaps with building code, but if council would prefer to have that in there as well as another requirement, that's you can always add that with um an amendment.

So this is only on second reading, so we do still have um basically tonight and then committee and another night.

So if council does want to make that amendment, more than happy to draft up uh that amendment as well.

It sounds like it's handled, but would you prefer to see it handled in committee?

I have a follow-up question.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, when these if a homeowner were to purchase a carport kit um and do the work themselves.

Um we would highly recommend and it's law that they get a public uh permit to do that.

Correct.

We know that a lot of these go up over the weekend or uh on holidays when people are not you know thinking that we're not watching.

Um, and so my real concern is that if they're they don't go through that process and it's not in this, I don't know quite honestly.

I mean, I guess we would have to enforce it somehow when it flies off and you know destroys the next door neighbor's vehicle.

Um yeah, or they'll sue each other, yeah.

That'll be good.

And then um, so I I would like to um see something I think in this ordinance as well.

So I'll I will work on an amendment for uh committee.

Mayor, through you.

I can definitely do that.

I can draft something up and have that ready uh for committee next week.

Great, thank you.

Anybody else in the governing body?

Mr.

Wolf.

Um Mr.

Mayor, through you, thank you.

Um I'm totally perplexed by this proposal.

Uh something that is this significant, and I shouldn't be speaking to the people that are here, I should speak to the people who aren't here.

Um this is gonna allow on people's front of their house 600 square foot carports, 10 by 60.

So you can basically fill up your entire driveway with a carport now under this ordinance.

Uh the current ordinance requires these to be in the backyards.

Now we don't enforce that apparently or can enforce it because we don't have the enforcement uh uh capacity, but this is this is a huge change, and you'd think that more people would be interested in it, but apparently not.

Um, so I've got I've got a uh large concern about that.

And these things, I mean they need to be engineered with the winds that we have.

Um it's they're a danger to all of their neighbors to their own house uh when they start blowing around in 80 mile an hour winds.

Um so I know we're on second reading mayor, uh we've got another shot at this, but uh deep concerns about what we're doing.

Anybody else in the governing body?

All right, we're on second reading.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Those opposed, no, no, no, no, Dr.

Rainey, Mr.

Wolf, Mr.

Seagrave, Mr.

White, Dr.

Aldridge, Mr.

Labourne and myself, the ordinance fails on second reading.

Next item, please.

Number 15 ordinance second reading amending section 1.3.11 nonconformities 1.4.4 definitions, 1.4.5 interpretation of zoning map, 2.2.7 special use approval, 5.1.2 zoning districts established and 5.1.4 use table and creating 5.6.10 regional entertainment RE overlay district and 5.7.13 gaming center development standards and setting an effective day for compliance.

Well, we're pretty blessed that the uh legislature finally changed some rules.

Uh Senate file 45 gives the creation or the location of historic horse racing casinos to the local governance where they are.

Currently, they're approved by the gaming commission, and then sites are approved by uh the county commissioners, and we're bypassed in that process.

And so now that we have that authority, this ordinance creates an overlay district where they can be used by right.

Um it creates a uh a separation of where they need to be um and a bunch of other things that uh kind of limit and regulate where um historic horse racing casinos can go.

Go out to the audience, anybody here to speak to that this evening?

anybody I'm gonna start with a staff report.

Um, Mr.

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

Um, I do have a PowerPoint presentation put together that I could go through if you all do desire, but I just want to give a real quick high-level.

Is it a quick one?

Yeah, probably wouldn't be very quick.

What I do want to know is we have a substitute that we are going to be presenting at the public service committee to address concerns that were brought up at the last public service committee.

Um, one of those is to correct an oversight in the ordinance when it was drafted, where as a special use, that special use should be allowed in the mixed use business MUB zone district that has a direct effect on one of the locations that is in existence today.

Secondly, the other item we've heard is a concern with the modification that the planning commission had made, which changed the separation requirements from being 500 feet from a standalone child care center to a child care center of any uh type.

Those are commercial operations.

So it would include ones that are in retail strip centers.

That was changed to be mandatory.

Um, what we have changed it to, we're going to recommend changing the substitute, is that this not be a zoning standard, but it be a standard that you all can review in conjunction with the special use permit as a new criteria 10 for your 10 findings you would make where that would allow you to look at them by a case-by-case basis.

For example, maybe that child care is actually uh shared with that specific use itself because they want to have the child care operation as part of their complex.

Maybe that child care is um across the street and around a corner and it's not even there.

It'll give you the ability and flexibility to look at those on a case-by-case basis.

So it allows one to look at any of these uh sensitive uses, child cares, churches, recreation centers, uh parks, those types of items.

It lets the governing body consider with their review which one was there first, uh, which one has been there longer.

So it would remove the opportunity for someone to say, I would hope this would not happen, to come in and establish one next door to a proposed center just to get an advantage.

So this would become discretionary.

So that is what we're doing.

Um we're going to move uh that that forward at the committee meeting.

And I'm open for any questions you may have on this.

Well, Ms.

Boom, I was going to challenge you to uh to do that because you know I could see where um someone could create a recreation facility or uh a daycare and uh interfere with the another person's business where the historic horse racing casino was already there and somebody moved in to mess with their business, if you will.

So I appreciate those changes.

They sound like they're they're right.

Did anybody on the governing body have a question for staff?

Mr.

Mayor, uh, we'll start with Dr.

Rennie.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, would Director Bloom go over there, four overlay areas where historic horse racing venues are uh conditional use permit or use by right?

And so could Director Bloom please review where those are Mr.

Bloom.

Mayor, members of the council, I can definitely do that.

Uh this is a GIS map that we have put together.

Um I'm going to turn off a lot of the different layers that are not relevant to the overlay district.

Um, this is downtown Cheyenne right here.

I'm just hovering the mouse around as the tighter grid, the green, the purple.

Um, this is the bridge for interstate 180 that turns into central and warrant right here as you cross over.

Um, the areas that have been identified um as receiving areas for historic horse racing facilities, which are defined as gaming centers under this code amendment, are areas that we're looking at as primary regional entertainment areas.

So it would be areas adjacent to the Reed Rail Corridor, and this is from 23rd uh street on the north, all the way down to 15th Street.

So it's properties that are adjacent to the Reed Rail Corridor.

Um also properties that are adjacent to 15th Street between the Depot Plaza and the rail spur.

Um it would be properties located uh south and east of the alley, so it's areas just fronting the 15th Street area.

And these areas here, this would not require governing body uh approval of the land use.

You still would have to get your approval.

They would still have to get their approval in your sign-off through the licensing provisions, which that can be accomplished outside of ordinance that can be accomplished with the a resolution.

Um the second area is properties within 300 feet of Lincoln Way, West Lincoln Way from Crow Creek heading to the west to city limits.

So this is 300 feet.

Uh most of these line up pretty darn close with property lines, but it would be for areas out here that are easily accessible from interstate 25 and interstate 80.

A lot of this is to try to um encourage redevelopment to encourage investment in this area, and also utilize some of the existing, you know, accommodation infrastructure that we have in the area through the new hotels that have been constructed.

The final area is uh an area along Interstate 25, which is uh designed to really uh capture uh folks from out of state, not necessarily capture them, but to attract them, I should say.

Don't want any more growth concerns, and that's not the best way to grow.

Um, but what this is is it extends three thousand mile or three thousand feet uh north, northerly, and southerly, um parallel to the right-of-way, and it's any uh parcel that is adjacent to Interstate 25 and within 2500 feet of I-25.

Um, what that results in is something that looks like this.

The reason this is so large is because this area down south, this is one large parcel.

So that use only is able to uh be within 2500 feet um of that interstate right-of-way measured perpendicularly.

This is the property line on this property, this is a property line on this property, so is this.

Those green and the purple dashed lines that you see right there, those are major streets on our major street plan.

The purple dashed line that is a collector's street, so that's a smaller volume street.

This green dashed line that is a minor arterial street, that is High Plains Road extension.

So those are the two receiving areas that we have.

And while I'm on the map, I might as well just show you this real quick for the zone districts.

Uh these areas here that are colored that are shown on the map, these are areas that would be eligible for consideration by the governing body as a special use permit, which is an approval process directly to the governing body to make that decision, and then you would be able to account for any potential um uses that could interfere, like child care's churches, those places.

Those are not requirements to be set back from them.

They would be review criterion that you could look at individually with specific applications.

Um none of the um existing facilities would be prohibited from having a new license established um with the substitute being approved at public services on Monday.

So I'm open for any questions you may have.

Dr.

Reed, did you want to start?

No.

Um, as far as clear note, um, I did want the public and my colleagues to understand that as I talked to many of you previously, just to understand that we are allowing the conditional use permit in four overlay districts and outside of those overlay districts.

Permits are allowed, but they will require a special use permit, which can only come from the governing body at this point.

So I have a lot more comments when we actually get to the discussion, but thank you for letting me ask that question, Mr.

Mayor.

Anybody else have a question for staff?

Yes, Mr.

Wolf.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you.

Through you, um this is this has been it's been fascinating to see, and I want to thank uh Director Bloom and his staff and and Dr.

Rinney for working on this.

Um, I think it's a testament to the quality of the work that you've done that we've heard nothing from the people in the industry except uh part of the discussion at the last week's committee meeting that I attended.

Um, and um this is deep zoning planning, as all you have to do is look at the maps and and and see this, and um, so um it's indicative of how how little controversy this is generated because the headline in the newspaper about all of this and the carryover headline in the next page had a headline under child care, um and so which is only this affects these two properties.

So thanks for doing it.

I know we're on second reading, we'll have further opportunity to talk about, and I hope Dr.

Rennie and and you, Director Bloom, have a chance to sort of give us a little deeper background.

Mr.

Seeger.

Mr.

Mayor, through you, um what protections are there for the uh existing um uh providers that were approved by the county.

I just don't I just want to make sure that we're not gonna go in and force someone to move or close their operation, Mr.

Bloom.

Mayor, through the members of the council, council member Seagrave.

Right now there's a state statute or the state statutes are modified, Senate file 45 was approved, and it requires that all existing licensed centers receive city approval by December 31st of 2027.

It also requires that they file that approval by July 1st of 2027.

So they do have a day when all of the ones that presently exist in the city have to come back to the governing body.

Um Dr.

Riddy has a lot more expertise on that.

He can talk more about how that process works.

The way this ordinance is set up is there is a section in the ordinance that basically mirrors the Senate file 45, and it says any previously approved gaming center that we have in the community that requires a special use permit, must come back to the governing body for reapproval.

Um that reapproval is is anticipated to run concurrent with that statutory review authority that we have.

The only one that exists today that would not be subject to the uh special use permit approval would be the one uh located on High Plains Road and I-25, and that is because they are within that overlay district.

All the other ones, they would come back.

We would review them against our 10 criteria and make a decision if they are appropriate at that location, and in addition, they will look at that statutory criteria, which this does not um conflict with that statutory criteria.

Mr.

Secret.

So, Mr.

Mayor, if I understand that so there is no guarantee, all of these existing ones have to come back, and we we will have the opportunity to say yes or no.

We could close them.

Dr.

Raine?

If if I may address my colleagues' question, um through you, Mr.

Mayor.

The rationale for that, the these licenses are granted by the state gaming commission on a one, two, or three-year basis, with three-year being the maximum.

We wrote it into um we wrote it into the ordinance that they would be reviewed every three years by the governing body, um, very similar to how we currently review liquor licenses on an annual basis.

And Mr.

Mayor, the rationale for that was that, and I want to state currently, we have an excellent relationship with all of the HHR providers in Cheyenne.

They have worked well with us, they're very responsible, they work well with our police department.

We do not have an issue, but um many of these started out local.

They were bought up by national corporations, and I guess in the event that one of their venues, um the manager maybe isn't too responsible.

If we have a bad actor, we want to be able to review that license at least within a certain time period.

And as I said, it's very similar to what we currently do with liquor licenses.

Mr.

Cedar.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Yes, sir.

I just have a comment that as you're working through the wording on this.

And having been a former child care center director and being an early childhood educator, we do are caring for children, not for days.

And so if you could make sure that all of our language always refers to child care versus daycare, which is really an inappropriate and degrading term in childcare circles.

Thank you.

I don't see anything more, Mr.

Bloom.

Thank you.

So we'll go out to the audience.

Jennifer, I see your hand up.

Tracy Laycock, you can go ahead.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Tracy Laycock, I serve as general counsel to Wyoming Downs and 307 horse racing.

I do want to first thank the council for letting me appear uh remotely today.

Um I did speak at the committee meeting, and I I do just uh also want to thank the planning department um their availability to talk through this and work with us.

I just really appreciate it.

We you know, we do request that the um current ordinance before you be amended, um specifically related to the child care buffer.

The way it came out of the planning commission, we have two of our facilities right now, Purging and Ridge that would be out of compliance.

Um a couple of things to note, but both facilities of course went through the conditional use process that's currently in place with the planning or excuse me with the board of adjustment.

And um, you know, so we did go through that entire process, which of course required a lot of um upgrades to the outside of our facilities and our parking and and our entrances.

Um the investment of these facilities has been significant.

We've invested more than 20 million dollars in the purging location and over four million dollars in the ridge road location.

Uh to date, these locations have generated a little more than three million dollars in tax revenue to the city of Cheyenne.

Uh the Pershing location, which I know um many of you have been to um operates a successful bowling alley, arcade, laser tag, escape rooms uh for all ages in the same building as the OTB, and we never had any issues.

That O2B is completely separated uh from uh the all-ages portions of our building, and and truly, without that um off-track betting facility and that gaming, the bowling alley arcade, etc.

Economically wouldn't be able to operate independently.

Um, all of our OTBs in the state are 21 and over facilities, and additionally, um, as noted by um uh one of the council members, we have a good working relationship with the Cheyenne police and have no significant issues um to date with our operation.

Um we do um we are proud to have uh some Wyoming ownership um in our companies, and we take pride in being community good community partners.

Um, the way that it's currently drafted, it does create some incongruencies.

Uh, for example, important to note the rich location, of course, operated as a bar and liquor store for many years in that same location.

And if you look at the purging facility, the office bar and grill, which offers a smoking lounge and bar, even closer to that daycare that's within Gold's Gym, um, you know, operates uh today.

Um, we're working through with the planning uh commission staff about the exact wording.

Um, but you know, with these comments, we'd again just request the council um to consider amending this uh zoning change so that we don't have two of our facilities out of compliance.

We've worked very hard uh to make sure that those operate um in a good manner.

Okay, I think we're I heard from our staff we're working on that and hopefully have something for you to see at committee.

Yes, thank you so much, and I appreciate the time.

I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Questions for the operator?

Thanks, Tracy.

Anyone else in the room?

Go ahead.

Jennifer.

Uh Gunnar Malm, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Commissioner.

You have to unmute yourself, Commissioner.

I know we can get that in the city council.

Sometimes it's harder for county commissioners.

How about now?

Oh, there you go, brother.

Welcome.

Um, so if you appreciate it, Mr.

Mayor, through you to grant me a little liberty.

Don't want to speak exactly to the zoning, but wanted to just uh commend uh yourself and Dr.

Rennie on helping us get to today where the city has this ability.

Um I think the county commissioners association and Wyoming Association and municipalities um saw this issue, and it was brought to us all by citizens, and we worked hard on it for a number of years to get to the point where we were actually able to get a statutory change uh that'll allow uh this kind of zone overlay.

And I just wanted to kind of touch on that and and thank yourself and and Dr.

Rennie for your work that you did at the legislature uh to get the residents of Cheyenne um this kind of voice in the game.

So just appreciate it.

Commissioner, I think it was uh a lot of work by a lot of people with the uh county commissioners and the municipalities all working together.

Uh love that we're doing that.

Dr.

Rennie did a lot of good job as Wham's uh leadership um legislative leader.

Um so again, really appreciate everybody working together to uh I think do what's right.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Appreciate your calling in.

Anybody else?

All right, hearing none.

Dr.

Aldridge, I think this is you.

Mr.

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

Second by Mr.

Seagrave.

All right, Dr.

Rennie.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, as Commissioner Mom alluded to this, and as you mentioned earlier at one point, um approvals for horse historic horse racing venues were given through the state gaming commission and then approved by the county commission.

And for almost all of us to set up a on this um dias, um, like a couple years ago when we seem to get, or maybe a little longer, seem to get have several of these open up with around around the city.

We all I think back then that generated most of the emails that we got was like, why are you allowing more of these and why don't you do something about it?

And we had did not have the ability to do anything about it.

Um so that's how I got involved.

I was part of a legislative working group in 2024 that advanced a bill that failed in the legislature and went back and work reworked it in 2025 to where we did get um as commissioner mom alluded to, seven between work for the Wyoming County Commissioners Association and Wham, um got Senophile 45 passed, which now gives us the ability to regulate these.

So with that, I approached Director Bloom probably even before it got through the legislature saying that look we need to regulate this through um zoning as much as we can and with discussion through him and a lot of their work.

They did.

I want to thank our planning department.

They did a tremendous amount of work on this.

Every now and then he touched space with me and and run it by me, and I'd give my suggestions.

But um, as I said, they worked on this obviously for months, and this is the final product.

This does what many of us talked about months ago when I first said I was gonna go to Director Bloom and ask for an ordinance, and it does have the four overlay districts where we think that where we thought we would like to see or spur some economic development in those areas.

Um it does require any place out of those districts to come through us, which is something that all of us at the time said we wanted that ability.

It does, and I address the reason why we're reviewing the licenses periodically.

So it does um almost it does all the things, with the exception of the one thing that came up in the planning commission, and as the Director Bloom said, we had a 500 foot radius from any standalone, one could not be cited within 500 feet from any standalone child care center, and it was changed in um planning commission to all child care centers, which gives some heartburn to two of our existing venues.

Um I want everybody to understand that that will go to public service committee next week.

We will make that change back to the original form, which will be presented to the governing body in two weeks.

So it's an or it's an ordinance amendment on third reading, but I wanted you all to be forewarned, so we're not surprised by that at that point.

So anyway, Mr.

Mayor, there's been a tremendous amount of work put in on this, both WAM, WCCA, and especially by our planning office.

Um it does answer a lot of the concerns that were expressed by all of you, my colleagues when we were going through this a couple of years ago.

So I would hope that you would support it.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the governing body on the ordinance?

I'm hearing none.

We're on second reading.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

All right, this ordinance is approved on second reading.

We'll amend it hopefully during the committee, and we'll see it back here in two weeks.

Number 16, ordinance, second reading, amending chapter 15.20, National Electrical Code adopted, appendix K, International Building Code, Administrative Provisions Adopted of Title 15, Buildings and Construction of the Municipal Code of the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming, updating the incorporated national electrical code provisions as specified.

Alright, we'll go out to the audience.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to the uh ordinance because I understand the law when the state passes the new uh new uh code revisions.

We have 180 days for the city to either adopt them or the state takes primacy back from us.

I get that right, Mr.

Chief Building Official.

Okay.

That's what we're at today.

Anybody in the audience want to speak to the electrical national electrical code provisions?

I hear none, Dr.

Aldridge.

Mr.

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

And seconded by Mr.

White.

Comments from members of the governing body on the uh update to our electrical codes.

Dr.

Rennie, did you have a comment?

No.

Okay.

I see none.

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

Aye.

Those opposed.

This ordinance is approved on second reading.

Number 17, ordinance first reading, annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, land located south of Charles Street, east of Wenandi Avenue, and west of McKinley Avenue.

We're gonna send this item to the public services committee.

Number 18, ordinance first reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, establishing the zoning classification of AR agricultural residential for land and next to the city of Cheyenne, located south of Charles Street, east of Wenandey Avenue, and west of McKinley Avenue.

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

Number 19 ordinance first reading, annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Land northwest of the intersection of Clear Creek Parkway and Gannett Peak Drive.

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

Number 20 ordinance first reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, establishing the zoning classification of LI Light Industrial for land and next to the city of Cheyenne, located northwest of the intersection of Clear Creek Parkway and Gannett Peak Drive.

This one will also go to the public services committee.

Number 21 ordinance first reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for land located north and south of West Wallach Road and west of Interstate 25 from LI Light Industrial CB Community Business and PUD Plan Unit Development to BP Business Park.

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

Number 22, ordinance first reading, annexing to the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, land east of South Greeley Highway and south of Sweet Grass Subdivision.

This one also goes to the Public Services committee.

Number 23, ordinance first reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification of AG Agricultural for land annexed to the city of Cheyenne, located east of South Greatly Highway and south of the sweet grass subdivision.

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

Number 24, ordinance first reading.

Amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for land located east of South Greeley Highway and south of the sweet grass subdivision from AG Agricultural MPUD plan unit development to BP Business Park.

This one also goes to public services.

Number 25, ordinance first reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for land located between I 80 and College Drive, east of Southwest Drive from MUB mixed use business emphasis to LI Light Industrial.

We'll send this one to the Public Services Committee.

Number 26, ordinance first reading, amending the official zoning map of the city of Cheyenne, changing the zoning classification for land located south of I 80, east of College Drive from AG Agricultural to BP Business Park.

Dr.

Alders, that's nine straight items we're sending to your committee.

You uh you become the chairman, and what do we do?

We load you up.

So yes, ma'am.

Next item, please.

Number 27 resolution authorizing the city of Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities to discharge on collectible debts pursuant to Wyoming Statute 16 4-502.

All right, before us are debts that are four years old, uh, that the Board of Public Utilities can no longer collect or have not been able to collect, and by state law, we need to discharge it's $18,317.

Is anybody want to speak to it from the audience?

Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, Mr.

Miller, we can hear you.

All righty, thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, uh, council members for the record, Charles Miller.

I'm speaking on item number 27, the resolution allowing the Board of Public Utilities to discharge uncollectible debts.

Excuse me.

Um, just two weeks ago, this council approved a five percent rate hike on water and sewer and a three percent increase in service fees, forcing Cheyenne's working class residents to bear the burden of BOPU's rising infrastructure costs tonight.

You are quite quietly writing off uncollectible debts because everyday citizens are already failing to keep up with these crushing utility costs.

The math does not work.

You cannot squeeze residential ratepayers with constant rate hikes and write off their bad debt while simultaneously preparing to hand over thousands of acres of our water infrastructure to a trillion-dollar data center developer that refuses to provide a finalized utility master plan.

The bopu's financial model is breaking under the weight of unmitigated industrial sprawl.

I urge this council to stop subsidizing corporate land banking on the backs of Cheyenne's taxpayers.

Thank you.

I don't know how we're supposed to collect debts from people who've passed away, but uh we'll take that under advisement.

Anybody else in the audience?

Hearing none, I believe that goes to Mr.

White.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committees to adopt an ISO move.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Wolf.

Comments from members of the governing body, Dr.

Aldridge.

Sir Mayor Collins, I asked for this to be um pulled from the consent agenda.

Um, this is something that board of public utilities as well as our treasurer's office have been working really hard during my term on council, and I'm sure long before that, in order to try and reduce the amount of write-off that we have, as with any business entity that serves consumers.

Uh there are going to be times when there is debt that can't be collected either because of death or bankruptcy, as some of these were noted on the list that we were provided.

Uh sometimes it's a bank or uh the VA, the Veterans Administration, uh, because somebody has their house has been foreclosed on.

Um, but I think that we've made a really significant dent.

And um I was hoping that uh we might be able to um hear um how much of a dent we've been making in this um effort to uh get all of these bad debts cleaned up.

Uh I know there's been a lot of system changes at Board of Public Utilities over the last couple of years in order to be able to try and reduce the um loss that we have experienced through bad debt.

Mr.

Bowen.

Mr.

Mayor, through you to Councilwoman Aldridge.

I guess that I'll look at it.

I happen to pull the historical statistics as I got into the room today.

Looking back in 2023, our write-offs was 79,185.

That did include about four years in that current year.

In 2024, our write-offs were around 14,000, and our write-offs in 2025 were 26,000.

One thing that I'll kind of note in this is that as a percentage of our revenue, this is roughly 0.03% of the revenue.

It really speaks to the effort and the energy that's been put in by those that work with our consumers and our citizens in areas where they do accumulate debt for our services.

And so really appreciate the hard work by the Board of Public Utilities and by our city treasurer's office to really try and maximize revenue and reduce bad debt.

Mr.

Bowen, I haven't looked, but can you tell me what the total revenues are for the Board of Public Utilities on an average here?

Mr.

Mayor, that is roughly 33 million.

And we have 4,579.31 cents on average for bad debts.

Well done, sir.

Anybody else?

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you.

Through you, um, I just like to remark that this is all part of regular business.

Mr.

Miller's comments have no application here.

Um, even I I would bet that gap accounting requires us to do this at some point to clear these off of our books.

Every business, the business I was in as in a law firm has bad debts, and you have to recognize it and you have to take care of it.

And I really applaud what the Board of Public Utilities has done and working with the city in your office, Mr.

Mayor, to get this regularly attended to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

All right.

We have before us the uh resolution to write off $18,317.24 cents.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Number 28 resolution authorizing the mayor to execute limited site access and due diligence agreements for city-owned property, commonly known as Bellboard Ranch.

All right.

We have uh talked about as a city council maybe doing some development on the northeast part of the ranch.

And uh we have some companies that would like to go out and do some due diligence to see about the uh uh quality of soils and other things like that.

And so this resolution authorizes us to allow people to go out on a temporary basis to do some of those studies.

We'll got to the audience.

Does anybody want to speak to this resolution before us?

Jennifer.

Uh Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Thank you.

Are you happy about this one?

Can you hear me?

Are you happy about this one?

Uh well, I do have some things to say, uh, Mr.

Mayor, uh, council members for the record, Charles Miller.

Um, I'm speaking on item number 28, and I formally request that this uh, well, actually, sorry, um, the that this resolution is not a routine administrative item, it is a blank check for backroom deals.

By passing this, you are granting the mayor unilateral authority to execute site access agreements for the Bellevore Ranch with unnamed corporate developers without bringing those individual agreements back to this council for a public vote.

I want to echo the grave concerns raised by Councilman Wolf during the committee meeting.

The mayor admitted on the record that the city has no intention to charge these companies for access.

You are allowing trillion dollar corporations to conduct free corporate reconnaissance on taxpayer owned land.

Furthermore, excuse me.

Um sorry.

Furthermore, Councilman Wolf correctly warned that there is absolutely no certainty that the city will receive complete environmental, cultural, or wildlife data from these private studies.

This is especially dangerous because internal board of public utilities records already indicate a 30-foot groundwater decline and a severe TCE toxic plume at the Belvore Ranch Wellfield.

Outsourcing the due diligence of a contaminated, highly sensitive public asset to private developers operating under non-disclosure agreements is a dereliction of duty.

I urge this council to vote no on item number 28.

Demand that every single site access agreement for Belvoir Ranch comes before this body for a public vote.

Mandates mandates strict data ownership by the city and charges these developers fair market value for access.

Thank you.

Mr.

Miller, one thing, there are no NDAs sir, and you know that.

We have no NDAs with any of the companies that are looking to come out on the Boba Ranch.

They may have asked for them, but we've chosen not to do that.

So you are on the record, sir, told that, and I hope I'll not hear that from you again.

Um anybody else in the audience about uh and all um Dr.

Aldrich, may we have a motion, please?

Absolutely.

Mr.

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

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Seagrave.

Mr.

Wolf.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, I move to amend by substitute data June 8th, 2026.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Layborn.

Would you explain the substitute, please?

Uh I'd be glad to, Mr.

Mayor, through you.

Um I'm sorry, I raised what are characterizes grave concerns.

I I fully support the resolution.

I fully support the mayor having the powers to do this.

You and I had a very very productive discussion afterwards.

Um and um issues I raised were not in any way intended to undermine this resolution.

In fact, they were just my comments about uh maybe ways to strengthen it.

Um the city attorney's office has uh provided us with a substitute um resolution that in fact addresses the questions that that I raised um involving uh both uh the ability to to charge where appropriate and and where the mayor's office uh who's dealing with these companies um can uh make the decision on that.

Um it deals this the revised substitute um deals with the ownership of um the information.

Um it addresses uh the questions about um excavation uh for geotechnical studies.

Um the um as I wrote to the city attorney uh this morning, these um these changes to it are excellent.

Um I fully support them and would ask the council to support this uh substitute resolution.

All right, we'll go out to the audience.

Um anybody in the audience want to speak to it.

All right, hearing none, we'll go to the city council.

Uh anybody on the governing body.

Yes.

Uh Dr.

Emmons.

Mr.

Could Um my colleague please explain the differences between the original resolution and the amendment.

Or did I just miss it?

I mean the substitution.

Mr.

Wolf, there's not a red line here, so maybe you can just walk through the things that you had added to this uh resolution, please.

Um I'd be glad to thank you, Mr.

Mayor, through you and and thank you, Councilwoman Emmons.

Um there the basically the um additions here are on the if you look on the first page on the next to last and the last rare as clauses.

And um, and then on the first whereas clause on page two, and um the one, two, three, four, five, six whereas clause on page two.

Um, and then um those where clauses are basically turned into the language of the resolution, and they're on um page three, um they're incorporated into the second paragraph, the third paragraph, um, the fifth paragraph, and the sixth paragraph.

Um, and um, I'm totally satisfied with the changes that have been made, and I I think uh this is uh uh this is a great thing for us to be doing, and I really commend uh Councilman President Seagrave for the work that he's put in to the Bellvor along with the mayor in his office.

I think it uh deserves our full support.

Dr.

Emmons, did that answer your question?

Mr.

Mayor through you now.

Um can you give me a snapshot of what did you do different?

I mean, does it boil down to a certain different bent or because I don't I didn't see this till today, and that might be my fault.

Dr.

Emmons, I Dr.

Emmons, I think what it is is that uh it includes uh consideration for charging a fee to access the the uh the ranch.

Uh what was was said was um Mr.

Seagrave uh and I have uh authored letters that we've sent out to companies asking them to come.

And in those circumstances, we didn't really feel like we ought to be charging them to uh to go out and look at the ranch if we were the ones who invited them, but we wouldn't fully intend to charge uh somebody who came to us uh to be able to go do that.

And then on the on the second side of it, uh something that we talked about internally, uh, but we did not have in the in the resolution giving us the authority to do this, was that we would own the information.

So, whatever the information that came out of the environmental, we would own that.

Uh, that wasn't in here, although it was probably not probably it was in the uh access agreements that we had proposed.

We just didn't have it in here.

So this memorializes to make sure that we do that.

So it was just things like that to make sure that we're limiting what they can do when they're on the ranch.

We didn't want them out there digging big holes and they're just out there gonna drill uh a few holes to see what the soils are like, to look for the environmental things, Native American uh type things, TP rings, wetlands, you know, the kind of things that you would typically do uh when you do an environmental.

So it was really just putting belts and suspenders on, making sure we didn't forget things when we put the uh the access agreement out to uh these different companies as they come before us.

So uh so Mr.

Mayor, through you so do or to you, so do you do you feel like this then gives you the ability to do what needs to be done quickly as or does it become too over overburdensome?

Dr.

Emmons, all of the things that were included here are things we would plan on putting into an access agreement anyways, a limited time frame, it's not an open-ended thing, limiting what they can do or making sure we had a list of what they could do, that we would own the information afterwards.

We learned that from the Met uh Met uh information we did with some of the wind providers early.

Uh they did the tow the tests, decided not to uh do uh a development, and we lost a couple of years because we didn't have the information.

We learned that one back in the early 2000s.

So uh all the things that uh that uh Mr.

Wolf is is including are thoughtful and really necessary things to happen in access agreement.

So we're very much in favor of it.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, if I if I might, just one further comment.

Um Councilwoman Emmons, um I had the privilege in my practice to deal with these kinds of of agreements.

Um and so when I read the first draft, there were just some things that I I wanted to encourage the the mayor and the committee to include, and there are around the issues of uh giving the mayor to write the charge if it's appropriate in the circumstances uh for this, um a very common provision, and then how you deal with the information is critical because we obviously want uh to have the results of all of that.

So those are the two main ones.

Uh the other issues are are more minor.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

And Dr.

Emmons, or uh uh one of the things that might be good is uh if somebody wanted to argue with uh the fact that I might have included one of those.

Now I can look back and say, no, it's required.

So it gives us a little little background for that.

Yeah, anybody else?

All right, we have Mr.

White.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Through you, um I didn't get a chance to read this uh until very late today.

Um just between getting off work and coming to the meeting.

Um, and I'm very usually I don't vote in support of amendments that I don't really have time to to read thoroughly and uh do some research on, but I think um from what I was able to get through uh today and the explanations that were just offered, I that I will go ahead and support this.

And because there are some things in here that um provide some guardrails, and um, you know, our former colleague, Mr.

Royble was uh was the champion of this project, and uh we're so close to the finish line, which I think we're we're all excited about.

Uh so to have something in place that provides some guardrails for what can and cannot occur out there.

Um I think uh my former colleague would be supportive of that, and because of that, I'm going to support it as well.

Anybody else on the governing body on this uh I guess we're on a substitute at this time.

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

Aye those opposed.

Are the substitute is adopted or MEC on the main motion?

anybody else?

All right.

Hearing none, all those in favor of the uh the access agreement or the resolution uh authorizing access agreements, please signify by saying aye.

I those opposed.

This resolution is adopted as amended with Mr.

Moody voting no.

Number 29 resolution authorizing the acceptance of a donation for affordable housing purposes and authorizing the mayor to execute a donation agreement.

I'm gonna ask for just a little bit of lenience here because I'd like to tell just a quick story.

Um and I've told it before, but um four or five years ago I started looking at um how can we build more affordable housing in our community.

And um we started looking out into our surrounding states to learn, you know, how are they being successful?

And you look in Colorado and Montana, um Utah and all around us, they were building um affordable housing projects, and they were doing it in a different way.

They were building it with uh low-income housing tax credits using the four percent program.

And uh when you do that, it's uh the federal tax credits help you uh with the funding stack for that.

The people building the project uh help with the funding stack, but there's almost always um a local component to that, uh local dollars that are required in order to be able to build these these projects.

And typically they're much larger than the things we've ever seen here in Cheyenne.

And so um we've been trying to recruit a company to come to Cheyenne and do that.

And we knew that uh we were about three and a half million dollars short.

And I was at a dinner with the CEO of Related Digital, Mr.

Jeff Blow, and um we were just having dinner talking about the next day's ribbon cutting, and he asked what the challenges are that our city faces, and I talked to him about water, and I talked to him about uh how our children leave Cheyenne and uh uh and don't come back and unbelievably an alarming numbers.

And then we talked about housing and related companies, their number one business is housing.

They really understood what we were talking about.

And so the next day at the ribbon cutting, um, for the first time in my adult life, I was speechless when uh Mr.

Blau said that uh uh the company understood the challenge we were facing, that this is their core business, and he pledged to give us $3.5 million to finish the funding stack so that we could build an affordable housing project.

We have the Wastach Group that is a great group out of uh uh Utah who um have have built these kinds of projects all over the Western United States.

Heck, they're building in uh in the Ukraine right now for uh families that have lost their homes there.

They're they're an amazing company who uh who does this kind of work.

And um so before us today we have the acceptance of a donation for affordable housing.

Rated related digital um is giving us 3.5 million dollars that will allow us as a city to buy the 8.3 some acres of property, and um the company will then build 184 unit affordable housing project that will change the lives of 184 people who are living in the uh housing that they can't afford, and um who will be in a position to uh uh get some of that back because they're gonna lease that that land back from us and we'll be able to put this money back into a fund to do another project sometime in the future.

So it's uh one of the greatest blessings I've seen in my 25 years of uh since the time I was elected to the city council, and uh um that's what we're here for today, or that's what item number 29 is is uh this amazing gift from related digital to uh the city of Cheyenne to uh allow us to be able to um finish the funding stock that we spent the last four years trying to do.

And um uh so I'll go out to the audience.

If anybody in the audience wants to speak to this amazing donation, um, love to hear it.

Go ahead, Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Mr.

Miller, we can hear you.

Okay, give me just a moment here.

You're happy about this one, right, Mr.

Miller.

Well, um I don't think my I don't think my uh um emotions are really relevant here.

Um, but um let's see, Mr.

Mayor, uh council members for the record, Charles Miller.

I'm speaking on item 29.

This resolution authorizes the mayor to accept a charitable donation for affordable housing.

The mayor recently bragged about a 184 unit affordable housing project, stating on the record that the city is applying for state grants and begging for federal money just to afford to buy land to fix our housing crisis.

It is the height of a municipal hypocrisy to pass a hat around for affordable housing donations while this exact same council is preparing to eradicate hundreds of acres of master plan residential land for corporate data centers.

Your own planning department stated verbatim in the Reed Land Staff Report that sacrificing our residential zoning for a business park.

What in a border of the first general welfare of the community do not relate to the Mr.

Miller?

I'm sorry, the council doesn't think your comments are relevant, and I agree.

Thank you anyways.

Thank you anyway, sir.

Mr.

Ms.

Madrid, welcome, ma'am.

Another Vadret, Harmony Meadows.

Um, I think this is wonderful donation.

Um, I think it would be great if we could get some community benefit agreements in place before they are allowed to build here that the community has a say in what we need.

Um, and maybe I don't know.

I kind of have no idea what I'm talking about here, but like a community impact fund where a certain percentage of project, you know, investment is donated to a community impact fund where the communities that are gonna be most affected by these data centers get to decide where where it's used.

Um, but additionally, I worry about the affordable housing thing because low-income housing is typically a poverty trap.

Um, if people ever want to better their lives or make more money, they will be evicted.

People just people don't really want to live in low-income housing for the rest of their lives.

I think they would much rather have a home.

Um, and again, while this $3.5 million is a generous donation, I think in today's housing market, that might be like eight houses.

Um, so that's all.

Thank you.

I would just share with you that a large number of our residents that are in that 60% AMI category are living what we call burdened homes where they're paying like half or more of their total income towards rent.

These will be targeted to put them at 30%.

So the whole idea is is that gives them a chance to get stabilized to start saving some money and then to work their way out to uh maybe hopefully buy a home uh sometime in the future.

That was our goal.

But when you're you can't get out of a hole, I when I first got elected mayor, Tim Wilson, he's for the Board of Public Fields told me the first rule of holes is when you're in a hole, you got to quit digging.

And uh when you're uh in a situation where you can't afford where you live, um, you know that that's a challenge.

And that's where we're at over with a lot here in Cheyenne.

So the challenge is if we can get them into a homes that they can afford, that stabilizes their finances, gives them an opportunity to put some money away so they can move into a home of their own sometime down in the future.

And so that's our goal is not to make this a permanent place for them to live, but a place where they can live while they work towards getting themselves out because the numbers of people who are what we call burdened over 30 percent in Cheyenne is it's it's a very high percentage, especially people in this category.

Go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

Um so is this low income housing or am I misunderstanding?

This is this is affordable housing.

It is restricted to people based on their um their wages, and it's basically targeted at 60% of the adjusted median income for the county.

Okay.

So a family of four making ninety-some thousand dollars would actually qualify to live here.

Um, yeah, again, I I mean I don't like to talk about what my background is, but I am a hundred percent supportive of people who are struggling.

I I that's literally what I dedicate my whole life to is helping people who are struggling.

Good for you.

Um, I just worry about the rest of us who don't fall under that, you know, federal poverty guideline or whatever the criteria is to get into these homes because we're all struggling.

Housing is generally unaffordable.

I'm pretty sure more than 30% of my income goes towards housing.

Um, but I don't qualify for any help.

So I would just say that if it I yes to this project, 100% affordable housing, love it.

But let's also have homes that are affordable for general people that kind of fall in the gap of being in poverty and also can't really afford a home either.

I would just appreciate that.

You know, Heather, we did some research and uh and looked at different studies, and there's a thing called the vacancy effect.

And what we found is that when we build houses like this, these people are gonna move out of the houses that they're in that are market rate, and it actually helps stabilize the cost of housing, or maybe in some places even lower the cost of housing for people who are not getting this because it's a supply and demand thing.

And if we can create more affordable housing to get people out of the market rate housing, then it opens up more market rehousing.

And so um, I know it sounds uh it sounds weird, but um uh studies from around the world have actually shown that uh by doing this by adding housing, whether it's either at the market level or at the affordable level, actually does help stabilize housing prices and maybe even make some lower.

So I just I just hate to bring everything back to data centers, but where are we gonna build houses if we don't have any land left?

We're using our land for again.

I am not opposed to affordable housing, but where are there going to be homes built because our land is disappearing rapidly?

And I'm worried about that.

That's all I understood.

Thank you for being here.

Anybody else?

All right, I don't hear anybody.

We'll go to Mr.

White.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committees to adopt, and I still move.

So seconded by Mr.

Seagrave.

Comments from members of the governing body.

I just had one question.

Dr.

Aldridge.

Mayor Collins, uh, my question is you talked about the uh lease that would the land would be leased from the owners of this the structure into an account that the city would be able to reinvest.

And is that in perpetuity or is that only for a set amount of time?

I don't see it on this document.

I think there's another lease agreement, and I think it's 50 years if I remember correctly.

Um David's nodded his head at me, but it's a 50 year lease.

Thank you.

I just didn't see it in this.

Yeah, there's a second document, ma'am.

That's that's coming.

Yeah, anybody else?

All right.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

And those opposed.

Mr.

Moody is a no.

This donation agreement is gratefully accepted.

Appreciate it.

Next item is number 41A on page seven.

Real estate purchase agreement between the city of Cheyenne and KT Land Holdings, LLC for 8.37 acres of land located at lot one block one scenic development eighth filing a portion of section 20 township 14 north, range 66 west of the 6th PM, Laramie County, Wyoming.

All right, we just talked about the donation that we got.

This is a piece of property that we're gonna buy.

It's 8.37 acres.

Uh, it's on the corner of umburst and Carlson.

God, I can never remember crossing.

Thank you, Mr.

Seagrave.

Um, and it will be uh, like I said, 184 unit.

We'll buy this piece of property, and then um I think at our next meeting, we'll have a lease agreement that will come before us to uh have the company lease it back.

Um so if you guys know where the fire was, that unfortunate fire, it's literally kid a corner to that location.

If that gives you a sense of where this would be at.

Um, so anyways, um we'll go out to the audience if anybody wants to speak to this land purchase.

Okay, Jennifer.

Mr.

Miller, you can go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Mr.

Miller, we can hear you.

All right.

Mr.

Miller, just before you start, and I'll would you stop this time, please.

Mr.

Miller, you realize the only way we can spend this money is for affordable housing, right?

We don't have a choice.

Okay, uh Mr.

Mayor.

Do you realize that?

Um, if if possible, I'd like to get my um my piece of Mr.

Mayor if you have questions, and then I I'd love to chat after the initial comment.

Um, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, council members for the record, Charles Miller.

I'm speaking on item number 41A, the real estate purchase agreement for 8.37 acres of land.

Um, you cut my microphone earlier.

Um, but you cannot hide the facts of this housing crisis.

The mayor just admitted on this microphone that he had to rely on a 3.5 million dollar corporate bailout from a tech CEO just to fund this exact housing project.

He has also publicly admitted that he begged Senator Cynthia Lummis for federal money to buy land for housing.

But the ultimate insult to the working class people of Cheyenne is this.

Well, the city begs for charity to buy these eight acres.

Senator Lumis's own family is poised to make an estimated 64 million dollars selling 3,000 acres of land directly to Microsoft for the Highland State Assembly.

I fail to see how and that could have housed thousands of members.

I guess my point is is that you cannot beg CEOs for charity to build 184 units while letting the political elite cash out on 3,000 acres that destroys our residential inventory.

Mr.

Miller, you're off you're off base, sir.

I apologize.

You gotta go.

All right, anybody else in the audience?

All right, hearing none, Mr.

White.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committee is to approve in an amount not to exceed two million six hundred forty-five thousand dollars, and I still move second.

Seconded by Dr.

Aldridge.

Comments for members of the governing body.

Yes, ma'am.

Um Mr.

Mayor, through you, um, I want to, because I wasn't my brain wasn't working fast enough on the last item because it's after nine o'clock.

Yes, I just wanted to say that um I really appreciate Ms.

Madrid's comments because I think we need to keep in mind that this is another piece of the whole puzzle.

This isn't the solution for everything, but hopefully it'll be one piece that will help people be able to be safe and also um be able to move forward with their lives.

So I think that's really important for us to to keep in mind that there's no silver bullet on this, that this is another important piece.

So thank you for that.

It literally comes down to more is better.

And Miss Madrid, I was thinking about it afterwards.

You know, we changed a lot of our uh our regulations in our UDC.

Um, we're seeing homes being built now on smaller lots, a little bit smaller homes.

Reminds me of the 1950s.

You ride through the avenues, you know, 3,000 foot lots, 950,000 square foot homes.

Um, we're we're building a lot of those now.

And uh I think you're gonna start seeing a big difference in uh the amount of homes that become available.

Um, I mean the developers are really seeing it.

I mean the this governing body worked really hard to to make that change, and I think we're gonna start to see more more of those homes.

And the great part about that is we can build three homes where we built one before.

And uh, and I think that's what it's gonna take because the cost of housing has gotten so expensive.

Yeah, all right.

Anybody else in the governing body?

Uh for the record, um Mr.

Miller talked about me begging Cynthia Lemmus.

Um, I did talk to Senator Lumis' office.

Um, if you look at Montana, if you look at Colorado, you look at Utah, the difficult development areas.

Uh qualified census tracts are everywhere.

I mean, their map is colorful.

And then you look at a map of Wyoming, and it's nothing's on there.

I mean, there's a couple little pinprints, and basically what those are is those are tools that um the IRS and HUD and other people have done to make building housing, especially affordable housing, easier.

It basically gives you 30% more tax credits in order to build your projects.

For some reason, Wyoming has been ignored.

And what we've done is taken uh Senator Lumus's office um a little bit to task, not it's her fault, but that she's there to try to lobby for us to have the uh the Census Bureau look at our areas to see if we can get more quality qualified census tracks.

They're just saying there's not enough information.

Well, that's their job to go out and do the studies to make sure the information is here and the difficult to develop areas um are an incredibly powerful tool.

And so we've asked to be treated like Montana, to be treated like Utah, to be treated like Colorado, so we can have those designations and give our residents and our developers the same ability to build housing as our neighbors have.

And so that's and if that's begging, I guess I was begging, Dr.

Aldrich.

Mayor Collins, uh, through you.

Um I have to say that I would be extremely disappointed in you if you were not advocating on behalf of our community and our citizens, and um it's difficult to understand how that could be seen as begging when all we're asking is for a reinvestment in our state and our community with tax dollars that our citizens have paid into the national coffers, and um would like to see some benefit um come back to our state.

So if that it constitutes begging, by all means, um, we need to keep begging.

Thank you, Dr.

Alderson.

All right, anybody else on this real estate agreement?

All right, I hear none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye, those opposed.

This real estate agreement is approved with Mr.

Moody voting no.

Next item is 42D on page nine.

Contract modification number two to contract number 8199 between the city of Cheyenne and HDR Engineering Inc.

for the 18th Street Reconstruction Project.

I had to get on the right page.

All right, we have before us a um a uh contract modification.

We learned that uh what we were doing on our 18th Street uh project would have overwhelmed the creek, and we needed to uh add some additional hydrology work to uh make sure that we didn't hurt the downstream folks from uh the good work we're trying to do to keep the uh uh downtown from flooding.

And so we'll go out to the audience to see if anybody wants to speak to this contract modification on 18th Street.

I hear none of Mr.

White.

Mr.

Mayor, the recommendation of the finance committee is to approve an amount not to exceed 313,197 seconds.

That was seconded by Mr.

Moody.

Comments from members of the governing body, Mr.

Mr.

Mayor, yes, sir, Mr.

Labourne.

This is uh very interesting change order that brings forward a number of uh nearby issues or even on the same site, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, if there's a question about a major drainage project coming through that area, I think we need to really think about what else is planned there and what else might be there, and what else people talk about because I guess we must remember the wetland down at the pump house area is not a detention facility, it is a pass-through.

So, what you're really talking about here is a much bigger flow that uh is outside this contract, I might add, that might someday go on property adjacent to that area that's owned by the UP Railroad, and you also have the consideration of going under the track.

So I think that uh I'd be very interested.

Maybe uh the city engineer can help me with this.

I'd be very interested in some uh as a part of this contract that we do some uh actual uh mapping and look at what's conceived there and what uh might go there so that we can make better decisions.

It uh this is a really significant change going into a very congested uh area with its in some cases owned by the city in some cases not.

And uh so I'm wondering, Mr.

Mayor, if uh the city engineer would commit to uh working with us to take a look at what it might be uh appropriate there and the mapping that would allow everyone to understand this better.

Did you understand the request, Mr.

Cobb?

Mayor, through through you, sir to Councilman Labor.

I don't understand what you mean by mapping, but um if you could clarify that please, I think mapping's a pretty well established uh maybe just where the mapping, Mr.

Mayor, uh and my big concern as you well know uh Mr.

Cobb is the fact that we have planned and uh hope to someday have an underpass uh from the greenway coming down from the uh, perhaps someday uh Reed Avenue corridor, and how that uh concept, which I believe we do have uh schematic design from our consultants on, would interact with this uh major drainage project, and really take a look at where uh that area is owned by the city and where it's not and what the status is of that conversation with the UP Railroad, and I think people need to understand that I don't know why the pump house is cursed as it is, but uh this is a a major drainage project coming in that same immediate vicinity that definitely would affect um whatever we choose to do.

So it would be delineating the spaces, identifying them as to ownership, looking at uh what we have paid for in terms of that design, and really looking at it, and the reason I mention this uh Mr.

Mayor and member of the council, it's just a really uh congested area with the uh state highway, railroad, um property owners, and as well as a long planned uh project immediately uh down gradient.

So um I think that probably for this uh three hundred and thirteen thousand dollars, we could get some maps.

I think I understood what he's saying.

Did you catch it?

Mayor, I think, yes, sir.

I'll through you, sir to Councilman Labor.

So, sir, I've already done that.

So I have a series of three projects that I've laid this already out.

Um, there's three separate projects that are looking at this.

So downstream of this, I've got GLM working on the Clear Creek inline detention facility and Dry Creek Siphon.

I mean, sorry, uh Crow Creek siphon to take water to the south that works in conjunction with this project.

Also, I'm looking at the purchase of the property south of this area in the UP area.

So it's already laid out schematically just like you'd like.

I'd be happy to go through it with my office anytime you want to make an appointment.

We can go through it in more detail.

Thank you.

All right, anybody else in the governing body want to speak to the contract modification?

Mr.

Mayor, yes, Mr.

White.

Uh, through you just pointing out on page six of amendment two of this contract modification, it does say surveying base mapping.

Thank you, Mr.

White.

Anyone else?

Hearing none?

All those in favor of the contract modification, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, this contract modification is approved.

Next item is number 44A voucher report.

All right.

Anybody in the audience or online that would like to speak to the vouchers?

Hearing none, next item.

Other business.

Anybody in the Mr.

Johnson, did you want to speak to us, sir?

Thanks for sitting through our meeting.

We miss you.

I can't say the feelings reciprocal after listening to all this garbage.

So I bring several things forward.

Some of just observations of what took place tonight, but I came down here for other reasons.

So in regard to uh one of uh my neighbors uh recently I made a phone call to the um after hours police department for animal control, and then was called back by the um officer that uh basically wildlife cannot be picked up by animal control.

And so uh they gave me a number for a wildlife individual that will come out and trap them.

What comes with that is the actual cost to this because animal control will only pick up um domestic animals.

So when we were all out there in the neighborhood, instead, because it's not good to discharge a firearm because the bullet might go through the raccoon and into your neighbor's home.

You know, we all joked around that um technically a uh crossbow bolt would actually be quiet and just take care of it and you if you weren't caught, you wouldn't have a fee.

But you know, and then I ran into the director of compliance on Friday and I said, you know, it would be a very interesting uh question to see if uh an individual was to actually get caught for this if they were to go to court and fight this, whether or not their ticket fee would be less than the actual, you know, cost of paying, you know, your ticket versus the cost of pain for the removal.

And so, you know, we talked about that that that was something that animal control really doesn't do anymore as far as the traps, you know, even in regard to that, and I can let Eric, you know, kind of speak on that in regards to what our conversation.

Um, you know, I didn't see a lot.

I I talked with Jason at the last coffee in council about this.

And like I said, I rode through holiday park again tonight.

And so um Jason let me know that with the geese, because I had I couldn't didn't know the name of the new dog since Flo had retired.

That I guess the dog's name is Jill.

But Jill actually goes out, you know, to the parks to clear out the geese, but the geese are actually being nested and catered to by residents that live outside of Holiday Park, and then so therefore he can't really like do any kind of effective measuring, and then there's guidelines under the game and fish that don't allow him to do much more than that.

And so I mean, in just one walk around the park on a lunch break, I saw two different individuals come from inside the or outside the you know, the in the neighborhood into the park that were bringing bread to actually feed the geese, even though this there's you know signs everywhere, but just on my 30-minute walk, I saw two individuals doing this, and so here I am.

You know, I don't feed them, I don't like it.

Wildlife, period.

And so they um, so all of a sudden, you know, I'm getting hissed at and chased by these birds, you know, because people are still feeding me, even though signage, you know, and it's and it's unfortunate Jason's kind of like Richard, my hands are tied and the dog's doing it the best it can, but I said I haven't really seen any PSA on an individual.

You guys really time me on a other business?

It's not even a topic.

Um, wow.

Okay.

So um then the next thing to talk to your uh greenway coordinator um on the underneath the college drive uh greenway corridor.

They've ripped another hole in there so you can get onto the tracks.

So you might want to talk to the greenway coordinator in regards to that.

Um I've almost been hit twice um once.

It's funny because the RV law, you know, went back into effect, you know, on memorial day, and a car jetted out of its driveway and couldn't see me on my bicycle, you know, with the because the RV was now parked on the road.

I hit my brakes, they didn't, and then even downtown today, you know, I was the one that did my breaks and because they didn't pay any attention, you know, there was no RV downtown, but they didn't pay attention.

So I don't know if that's something that you guys can do as far as another bicycle safety, you know, PSA to, you know, make sure that people actually do watch out not only for motorcycles, but also for, you know, uh pedal bikes.

Um I did want to say thank you to Councilman Moody for unblocking a lot of people off of his campaign page.

You know, that kind of fell into the Supreme Court ruling that I'm actually now allowed to see you know political dialogue where previously I was uh blocked.

Just observations on tonight.

Um you guys called more point of orders than I've ever heard in regards to the public under public comment.

I get it that uh Mr.