City Government - Regular Meeting

Order, please. Order, please. Thank you. Welcome to the Laramie City Council regular meeting for Tuesday, April the 21st, 2026. And if you'd like, please join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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.

City clerk, if you can please call the role. Bowling here. Freed here. Lockheart here. Newman here. Odory here. Shamway here. Behill absent. Richardson here. Cumbi here. That's eight present and one absent, your honor. Thank you, city clerk. Uh, next. Is there any public comment on nonaggenda items? Welcome. And if you can state your name for the record.

Gladly. Mir Ben David. Thanks for giving us the opportunity uh to speak on non-aggenda items and again thank you very much for everything you do for our community. Uh I want to put this on the agenda because I think it's critical uh for us to discuss this. It may seem uh minor but actually it is not. I would like to ask you to make creating a new dog park for Laramie a priority. And the reason is well there are multiple reasons. The main one based on our calculations uh there are more than 23,000 dogs within the city limits. We have two very very small um dog parks currently. One in Optimus and one in Aragon. they are not meeting the needs of the community. Uh and if you compare our resources to other municipalities around us, uh they're ridiculously small and don't allow owners to actually exercise with their dogs. Something that has been shown by research to be uh very uh good for mental and physical health. Uh even the small town of Saratoga, 1,800 people has a dog park uh that is three times larger than uh Optimist. Um we can do better. Uh what I've done is I worked with uh Mr. bulk here uh on creating a survey of what community would like the survey and uh the statement of need. The survey uh impressions from uh dog parks in municipalities surrounding us and a few proposed locations uh uh in a document that I've sent around and anybody who wants document I

am going to post it uh online and have people uh have access to this report. Um, my main reason of being here tonight is to bring it to your attention and ask you for the well-being of Larmy residents, especially those that can't take their dogs uh out of city limits, people with disabilities, people who work a lot, students who work and study. Uh, the dog I meet a lot of people at the dog park because I bring mindsful uh socializing. Um, it's extremely important. If we want to create a healthy community, we should make this a priority. And I know uh Mr. Boke is concerned about funding. My point is we'll raise the money. You help us find a location and support this. We'll raise the money. As an example, uh the Laramie County Animal Shelter had a a what they call the fur ball on Saturday, this past Saturday. And one night there is $213,000 for the renovation of their animal shelter. We can do it. We just need the official backing. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. We'll continue with this conversation going forward. Okay. Thank you, Morav. Uh, any other further public comment on non-aggenda item? Okay, then we will go on to consideration of changes in the agenda. Is there any public request to remove a consent agenda item and place it on the regular agenda? I see none. Vice Mayor, would you like to motion that the agenda be set?

Thank you, Mayor. I move that the agenda be set as submitted. Second. I have a motion by Richardson, second by O. Doy. All in favor? I I oppose. That motion passes. City clerk. We have no proclamations, no public hearings tonight. and we'll go on to uh announcements. Uh, city manager,

honorable mayor, we have four announcements tonight. Two from uh director of community community economic development director Derek Teny and then two on monthly staff recognitions. So, we'll let Derek Teny go first.

Mayor, council, good evening. Um, just a couple quick uh items. First off, uh this Saturday we have the uh Alb County home show that will be at the ICE and Event Center from 9 to 3. It's a free event. Um I'm plugging it here because the code administration division um will be there to answer questions, hand out information on building codes and different requirements. We also have some sweet safety glasses that we got that we'll be handing out along with our pencils that everyone loved last year. So, um, get there early if you want to get one of those, but, um, it's a great time just to kind of sit down and and talk with one of our inspectors. Uh, we'll have different ones there throughout the day. So, uh, if you can attend, um, it's a good event. There's a lot of other community partners there. So, it's a it's a good time to see kind of what's going on in this community, but also to see what also is going on in terms of like building construction and uh options for getting everything done from your roof to a house being built. So, um secondly, uh wanted to let everybody know that the community cleanup days kicked off this last Saturday. Um it was a very well- attended event. Um, I want to thank uh just my staff which included both uh Robin Batty and Ray Sandival there. They were primarily there kind of from my office, but also um Owen and Brennan from the city manager's office there. Owen's here. So, uh I want to thank them too. They kind of man the tables during that Saturday and we're able to check people in on our volunteer software, get them signed up for a t-shirt as well as a location in the community for cleanup. Now, just note Saturday was not your only day to clean up. Um really it's not clean up, it's cleanup days plural. And so we're still doing cleanup days from April 18th to May 4th. Um, if you want

to sign up using our volunteer software, you can do that and we can we'll connect you with a location to do cleanup within our community. Um, if you don't want to do that or you need some help with the software, you can contact our office. Um, you you'll end up talking with Ry and Ry will kind of walk you through the steps. Um 721-5285 is his phone number and he's happy to kind of help you get a place, find a place whether it's you as an individual, your family or an organization within the community. Um I want to point out we did two also have some sponsors this year. Um, I think it's it's great that we've had both the Larmy Beautifification Committee uh help sponsor this AARP of Wyoming as well as our rec center hosting our community cleanup kickoff event this last Saturday and the University of Wyoming slice office. So, the service leadership and community engagement office and so um it's it's a great event. We do this every year. We have so many volunteer hours and it's such a big deal for our community kind of getting us spruced up for summer. So if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me or contact Ray Sandaval um 721-5285. So

Council O'Dhy, I just want to make a comment on the the uh volunteer site. It's very funny like describing the different places to clean up. I don't know who the witty one is if that's uh Anyway, it's not it's Rey. It's very so you know that'll get you inspired because they're they're very witty. We try to keep it a little bit light-hearted. So, but yes. City Manager Feeser.

Thank you, Honorable Mayor, City Council. We have two rockstar announcements tonight because we missed one the last time that we were available. We'll start with uh management analyst Owen Schil. And it's really a pleasure to be here to recognize Owen because I've had a chance to work with him since he came to us as an intern from the Honors College. But uh Owen came to us from Colorado to the University of Wyoming and graduated from the Honors College with a degree in political science and communications. Um for anybody that's worked with Owen, he's creative, he's energetic, he meets the timelines, he gets his stuff done, and he's uh cognizant and compassionate about everything he does, which is really important. Um, when I look back on him, I hope that when I was a young employee of his age that I had those same skills and I believe that it's the same and when I talk to Brandon and Owen especially, um, I let them know that I believe that they're the future of municipal government if they stay with what they're doing doing and learn what they've got going on, I can see these two young men really becoming leaders in whatever community they land in or if they stay with Laramie for a long time. Um Owen uh is got his mom and dad and one sister I believe. Is that correct? And uh he loves things. Uh he loves to go hiking. He's do working on doing the 14ers. Um he likes to go down to Nebraska and he's been to the outdoor volleyball games and football games and basketball games. Um we won't hold where he comes from or where he goes to against him because he's here now. So we sure do love that. But uh one of the best stories I have is I think it was one Halloween and he was doing some gaming and he showed up the next day with a black eye and I'm like what happened? Well, he was going upstairs in his costume and had his hands full and tripped on his costume, his ghost costume and actually hit his eye or his nose right on the stair tread. But uh Owen's a joy to work with. He's a pleasure. He's a great leader. He's improved our communication, our social and digital presence, and he deserves a big round of applause for what he does for us. Would

you like to say anything? What Todd kindly left out of that story about the black eye was that I had the choice to stop myself, but I had a beer and a board game in my hand. Um, so that's where that came from. But the wise men,

thank you guys so much for recognizing me tonight. And um I'd feel remiss if I didn't thank uh Janine Jordan, who's the city manager at Casper now, and Jane Pierce, who's no longer on council, um who actually were on the hiring panel for me as a uh looking at taking me as an intern from the honors college. So that really set me on my trajectory to be where I am now. Um and however much Todd Kids, uh I want to be here for a long time. So I don't plan on going anywhere. Uh, but like I said, thank you for having me tonight. Can we get a photo with you? Come on up.

Not a problem. Congratulations. That's great. So, you just stand and then we'll get around you. We do. All right. Ready? One, two, three. Thank you. Thanks. Good to see you up here. We should photoshop together.

All right. And city manager, I think we have some more rock stars.

We do, mayor. Um, at this time it gives me great pleasure to introduce Aaron Thompson, Tommy Jansen, and Tanner Lee. Um, we received a heartwarming letter of gratitude from somebody that received care from these three gentlemen. And for me, what this exemplifies is the professionalism, the care, and the compassion that folks that are in that first responder industry industry that constantly get hit by seeing all the worst things that they maintain that. And it just means so much that these guys were able to do it. Um I'm going to turn it over to Dan Johnson here and I'll hit a little bit of highlights that you know when you look at the stories of these three gentlemen and how they made it to Larmy. You know, you think about um uh Tanner who lost a bet and ended up in Larmy and then ran into a firefighter and got encouraged to join and then Tommy who had a his father I believe was a firefighter and won a mustache competition and beat another firefighter and decided to come into the firefighting or Aaron who had a terrible cup of coffee with a firefighter named Scoop which is beyond me. I'm not sure who that might have been, but um they're fantastic stories. But you know, these guys, the teamwork, the compassion, the professionalism that they have is really the reason they need to be recognized tonight. And I'll turn it over to Dan Johnson for some more comments.

Chief Johnson, honorable mayor, members of council, uh I want to take uh this opportunity to thank you for taking some time out of your meeting to recognize three of our firefighters tonight. It means a lot. Uh their service and their actions on that day. Uh uh they uh show the dedication. They uh show dedication our whole department has for the public we serve. Uh they serve our community with honor and I'm very very proud of them. So I'd like to invite them and I appreciate their family showing up too. So, so

we have we have uh Tommy and Aaron here and uh Tanner could not make it. So, you want to say thanks for the award.

Um truly just doing our job. So, it was it was I guess I don't know. I don't know what else to say. Um, I'll I'll say this first and foremost. Thank you u ladies and gentlemen of the council. Thank you for your service here as well. Um, it's it's easy to um rise to the occasion for these types of calls when that is the culture of our department. And I would be remissed to not acknowledge Chief Johnson and uh Mr. Gus Stonum uh shift commander Stonem for the culture that they've provided and the leadership that they have provided for the department. Um so it's easy to just follow their uh role model follow them as role models. So thank you very much.

Thank you so much. And would you join us for a photo? I apologize for my I love these recognition ceremonies. That's so heartwarming to see the team that we have that make up uh the city staff. Um councilors, any disclosures and or conflicts? Seeing none, vice mayor, motion to approve the consent agenda.

Thank you, mayor. I move that the consent agenda be approved and that each specific action on the agend consent agenda be approved as indicated. Second. I have a motion from Richardson, second from Newman. City clerk, if you can call the role, please. Bowling, yes. Freed, yes. Lockheart, yes. Newman, yes. Odory, yes. Shamway, yes. Behill, absent. Richardson, yes. Cumbi, yes. That's eight yeses, zero nos, and one absent, your honor.

Thank you, city clerk. Uh, that motion passes. Uh, item 10 is a newly added uh piece called the mayor's announcements. And my announcement for this evening is I would like to remind everybody that we have uh the special uh election for the special purpose excise tax. This will be our six six penny renewal since 1989. And uh this uh tax uh provides uh capital uh projects that help support uh the development uh of our city and the maintenance of our infrastructure. And uh often times some of the monies that we receive through the special purpose tax are used to leverage uh match funds and bring in other monies from grants and things. So that's not necessarily the only amount, but by having that, it allows us to leverage that for grants and to continue to keep our city uh upgraded and uh in good condition. So I would encourage everybody on May the 5th uh to vote. Next, we will move on to the regular agenda. Uh, Director Bourke will Oh, first I need a motion from Newman.

Uh, I move that the city council approve the contract between the city of Laramie, Wyoming, and Fremont Electric, Inc. for electrical services at city-owned facilities and authorize the mayor and city clerk to sign. Second. I have a motion from Newman, second from O. Dhy, Director Bourke, good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Thank you uh for uh being here tonight and and I want to echo everybody else's uh comments of thank you for your service as well. Um the motion before you tonight is uh something that we we have done kind of infrequently uh and I want to start bringing back on our service contracts. We have electrical service, elevator service, plumbing service, HVAC service. Um, and we've had contracts in the past, but it's it's kind of been off and on. So, uh, this first one that's coming before you is for electrical services. Um, we did a a public RFQ process and uh solicited for uh contractors that can provide uh both repairs and emergency uh service, you know, uh for for things uh that pop up around our multiple almost 30 facilities that we've got in the city's inventory. Um we did receive three responses. Uh we considered the first two really nonresponsive based on our needs. one uh was out of Green River um and uh is really too far away to uh to be able to respond quickly um when we have you know something major multiple something's major. Uh the second one was pro we we deemed probably too small for some of our larger projects that that we have uh that pop up um maybe not on a regular basis but but we want consistency and we were looking for a multi-year contract with some of that consistency. Uh so the the last respondent was Fremont Electric. Um they have been uh the the electrical contractor that we have used most regularly uh at least uh in the past several years. Uh they've been very wonderful to work with and so staff recommends that we award the contract to Fremont Electric for an initial three-year term with uh two one-year renewal options uh at the end. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may

have. Thank you, director. Counselors, any questions for Director Bourke? Thank you. Oh, sorry. Uh, Vice Mayor, sorry, Director Bourke, can you point me I'm just realizing I don't have the number amount down? Can Can you point me to what that would be per year? It It's not a a yearly dollar amount. Just on call. It's on call. Call out. Yeah, I just saw that the elevator one was Yeah, the elevator is a fixed uh and we'll get to that one next. But this this one is uh it's an hourly based on uh whether it's normal hours or after hours.

Okay, perfect. Thank you for that clarification. I wanted to make sure I was straight on that. Councelor Bowling. Councelor Bowling. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Director Pork. And that rate is correct, the 130 during hours and 195. Honorable mayor through you. Yes, that is correct. Further questions? All right. Thank you, director. Uh, is there any public comment on this agenda item? All right. Seeing none, back to council for any comments. Oh, councelor Odory.

Um, I just want to say I I'm very comfortable with Fremont Electric. They've been in Laramie a long time and they have a good reputation among contractors. Thank they just did my whole house. Oo, councelor Lockheart. Thank you, Mayor. I want to echo the sentiments. Um, they have a fantastic reputation, do good work, and I'm glad we uh kept it local reason and also because we when we need them, we need them, and I know they'll be there. So, thank you. Good. Any other comments, counselors? City clerk, if you can call the role, please. Newman, yes. Oorty, yes. Shamway,

yes. Bowling, yes. Freed, I. Lockhart, yes. Vill absent. Richardson, yes. Cumbi, yes. That's eight yeses, zero nos, and one absent, your honor. Thank you, city clerk. That motion passes. Councelor Frerieded. Item 11B. Thank you, Mayor. I move that the city council approve the contract between the city of Laramie, Wyoming, and Cone, Inc. for professional services and maintenance of elevators at city city-owned facilities and authorize the mayor and city clerk to sign. Second, I have a motion by Frerieded and a second by Richardson. Director Bourke,

good evening again, mayor and council members. Uh yes, it is KOA. Uh and and very similar to the last uh action that I was asking for, uh we again we put out a public uh uh bid process uh to to receive submissions for uh elevator services for the several elevators that we've got uh within our inventory. And uh we we again had three responses. This one was a little different. We we wound up uh finding all three of them uh able to comply. Um one of them was an outofstate uh company. Um and the other just didn't score as high on on kind of working on similar types of facilities. Um and so staff recommends Kone, Inc. to be uh our elevator repair contractor for for the next sever several years. uh they have been the the company that's been working on our elevators uh at least for the past several years. Uh but the contract had expired about a year ago. Uh so this is really just kind of renewing what we already had had. And so staff recommends Coney Inc. to be the electrical contractor

or sorry ele elevator contractor. Sorry. Thank you. Uh and I I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Councilors, questions for Director Bourke. Uh, councelor O Dorty, can you tell us the locations of the elevators? I thought we just had two. Oh, of course you were going to ask that and I don't have that in front of me. I apologize. The rec center, city hall, annex, the MOC, and fire station 3 annex. Yes. Further questions. Thank you, Director Bor. Thank you.

Is there any public comment on this agenda item? Seeing none, back to councel. Final comments. Councelor Bowling. Thank you, Mayor. I just know that as Con because my cousin has been their Denver sales rep since college. So hopefully that gets her up to Laramie. Further comments? City clerk, if you can please call the role. Freed, yes. Shamway, yes. Odory, yes. Bowling, I. Lockheart, yes. Newman, yes. Vehill, absent. Richardson, I. Cumbi,

I. That's eight yeses, zero nos, and one absent, your honor. Thank you. That motion passes. Item C. Councelor Bowling 11 C. Thank you, mayor. I move to approve original ordinance number 2121 amending multiple sections within Laramese municipal code chapter 15 for the purposes of updating, amending, adding, and deleting select sections of the ICC 2024 code within city code and is recommended by the planning commission on first reading in accordance with finding effect and conclusions of law. Second.

Who was it? Okay. I have a motion from Bowling and a second from Newman. Uh, Director Tiny. Oh. Good evening.

Mayor, council members. Again, uh, thank you for taking your time to hear uh, this text amendment out. As a reminder, I was just going to kind of some of you weren't here, so I was just going to run through real quickly. Back in December, we had a or held a meeting with our local contractors. Uh we invited quite a few of them. We we had a pretty good turnout, I felt like, and uh we went through mostly code changes. Uh we did send out some some prior uh paperwork on if people wanted to submit those code changes or ideas to us uh that they could just so we would have time to go through them. Uh we did have a couple come through um and and we had a work session on this as it was mentioned too that uh we did go to planning commission on this as well. So um without further ado I'll kind of jump into it and uh if you have any questions throughout just please let me know. Okay. Thank you, Lucas. Uh, councelor, uh, questions.

All right.

Uh, first one is section 152410A, which goes through um our residential code specifically on single family and two family and townhouse sprinkler systems. So what we are amending out on this is currently it states that they shall be uh required in those and we have not been doing that for a lot of years. It was one that was um suggested we don't don't follow and we are just going through and uh making those changes. So this would not require you still have the option to that's why we have the may in there. Um you still have the option to to install those in your house if you want. Um, I'm sure our fire department would not be against that if if people want to start installing those in every single house in town. Um, so that's kind of a breakdown of that one. Um, and it's really just a code cleanup for the most part for us. Um, second one goes into um our any exhaust or um ventilation that that goes to the outside. and we had discussed a little bit about um getting rid of that code and it was it was brought to my attention if we had any other options um to to bring those up and I did do the research on those and to be honest I didn't find much on it. So what we've done instead of completely removing it is moving to the largest option which would be a half inch um size on those. So half inch opening on those is kind of what we're moving to. It still stays within code, but it kind of gives us the the biggest um opening that we can. And hopefully what we'll do is is keep an eye on those things. Kind of keep in contact with the contractors and find out from them if if they're running into any of those issues down the road with

um freezing or if we're still having problems. um you know maybe if if we're not getting exhaust out like we should because of that we can we can dive into that further to maybe we can find something a different option for it down the road. U next code section uh talks about uh egress window openings. Um, this was brought up um, more so because we we have a lot lot of rentals in town and um, people installing egress windows. And where we're wanting to make it clear is is if we're taking an existing opening or a new opening and it's going to be you're going to you're going to widen that new that existing opening sorry or create a new one that if it's over 2 feet we would have to require um engineering on that. So, it was brought up in in planning commission that um they felt like maybe existing openings was was one that we shouldn't have to pay for. I just want to make it clear that if it's an existing opening that you're making wider, that would be required. If it's a new opening, that would be required. But if it's an existing opening that's there that you're just maybe lowering, that is not required in there. So, it's just for those specific ones that would be making that opening bigger. Um, that would would require lentils on those. Um, the next one or a couple of

Lucas, your last statement, it would require engineering, correct? Uh, to come in and and check for the structural integrity of what they're going to do. That's that's correct. Yes.

Thank you. Uh the next few have to do with um energy code. The first one has to do with um a section a table out of the um energy code specifically dealing with um mostly new single families. We had discussed in our work session that uh what we're running into is either you have to follow the code prescriptively which means you have to do it to the letter or you can provide u something called a res check. It's a free program, but what we're finding in this res check is as code sections, as we're adopting the new code sections, um it's getting more and more strict and it's getting harder and harder for people to be able to uh follow those without the the cost going, you know, crazy high that's costing them to where they can't can't build the structure. So, what we're offering is an alternative. So, you can still submit the REST check if that's something you choose to do. The alternative is we've created another table that follows um follows the table that they have, but we've made a few changes. The big one is uh in in wall cap, so in wall insulation. So that could be bats, it could be spray foam. And what we've done and what we've seen in the past is with those res checks is what they end up using is an R21 um to still meet the res check requirements. So what we've done is put that as one of our requirements um as an alternative to what what is required is an R30. And and the big piece with that that I brought up before was if you want to put an R30 in a 2x6 wall um you would have to do spray foam and it is it is a costly um fee that a lot of people would

rather avoid. So this is an alternative uh that could give one an option um to avoid the res check and two it would speed up our process in planner view. that that is kind of a contention with our plan view is this res check in the beginning was a pretty simple program. Now it's it's become a lot more involved. People are submitting them incorrectly. We have to request more information from them. So this I feel like is a good um alternative to to use in lie of that.

Councelor Dhy miss insulation. Um, so would would a new homeowner know um like energy is just going to keep getting more expensive? So would a new homeowner know that we went with the lower R value? Um, or they're just going to assume I know there are a lot of houses in town that cost hundreds of dollars a month to heat with electricity. So, I don't know if home Well, they probably don't care, but do they know would would a contractor have to tell them what the R value is, mayor, through you potentially. I mean, it's I'll be honest, it's it's pretty rare that that we get, and maybe this isn't what you're asking, it's pretty rare that we get a homeowner that will submit their own permit for a house. That

mean the buyer? Yes. So the so the contractor when they submit that um they what what happens is when we do a final they they have um a document that states all of the our values in the house at the end. So that's attic walls all of those. That's good. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Continue.

Thank you. Um, so the next one we're going through, uh, talks about another energy code requirement. Um, and this is also more of a cleanup one for us. So, it a couple code cycles, probably four back, uh, it was brought forward to require um, blower door tests. So this is just a a a alternative used where you can uh test how tight your house is for air quality or for air. And we have changed we as far as I know when this was adopted or when it was brought forward it was not adopted. It's just never been in our city code. So we are also similar to the rest check you can still use that as an option um but we are not requiring it. we're changing that to is you may use it. Uh the next one uh has to do with um let me just find myself here. So the next one has to do with even though it's a small code change has to do with fireplaces and u as I brought up before it's it is a requirement now through energy code that a fireplace cannot be operated uh with a pilot light. So now you would have to anytime you want to use your fireplace through energy code you would have to fire that up each time. So, we are uh choosing to remove that. If people want to still have a pilot light, um that is their option. Um from what I've read and done a little digging on, the cost isn't uh worth the headache of of having to fire that up every single time you want to use your fireplace.

So, that was implemented for cost control and not safety. Uh, mayor. No, it was more of an energy usage thing. So, it could it could be cost. Yeah, but it was it was an energy energy efficiency. Okay.

Uh, next one also is has to do with energy. So, this one talks about lighting controls or lighting in general. Um this one is saying that um lighting controls have to be either an automatic timer or have to be um an automatic shut off. So basically if if you go into your house and you're sitting in your living room and the light shut off, that's what the automatic timer automatic shut off would do. Um so we want to a couple things. one, the cost of an automatic dimmer or timer, an automatic shut off is a lot more than just a simple switch. Um, so we feel like for what they're what they're wanting to use, I get the the energy piece of it, right? If if every light shuts off behind your teenage kid, your bill may go down. I understand that. U, but the the cost up front on that is is pretty large. Uh, one I I did skip through was our section on lighting and that has to do with requiring currently energy code requires LED lights um only. So we are um removing that. If you choose to put in LE or if you choose to put in just CFL lighting that is your choice. Again um from what I've read it's an energy thing. I have done a few um deep dives on why and and from what I can see people or jurisdictions that have removed it. Um it seems like in in older communities um or people have with LED lighting can can get migraines. They can get headaches from those high efficacy lights. And this is just giving the the

homeowner the opportunity or the option to choose one or the other. Um, this one has to deal with the next one has to deal with plumbing code. We discussed it previously. We live in a very cold climate even though the winter this year didn't reflect it. We live in a cold climate and um the current plumbing code talks about um showers, shower pans, specifically ones that are built and and it requires those to be water tested. And in the middle of winter, water test is not a good idea, especially because the water after they're done testing it has to go down the drain, which could cause leaks and breaks in the pipe and could be costly. So we are removing that and just strictly going with an air test that we have done in the past. Um this next one is also plumbing. Um it deals with mostly uh the trim part of it. So, the end after your house has been plumbed or you've installed a new sink or you're taking out an old um trap underneath your sink and homeowners or even contractors have chosen to use these corrugated or accordion pipes and the code u requires that all of those interior on those pipes have to be impervious. They have to be smooth and we've seen those to be not. So, we are removing or we are saying that we we would not want to see those used in in our jurisdiction because of we right we get um debris packed in there, it's more than likely sitting in your trap and then it's going to plug up and cause more issues. Um the last one I've got here has to do

with um it's more so a plan review um code that we are we are seeing that could be possibly or has been hangups um in the past for mostly new single families. So, uh, currently code suggests or code says that, um, smoke alarms be installed in each sleeping area and outside of each sleeping area. What we're seeing a lot of new homes come in is not just bedrooms, but they've got dens, they've got um offices, those types of things that what we're saying is if those types of rooms already have an existing egress window to potentially be turned into a bedroom that we would just require those rooms to also be installed with a smoke alarm. That way, if you want to have somebody sleep in there, it's already set up and ready to go. We would just require those and and in our plan review, we wouldn't have the confusion of are you going to use this for a sleeping room? We see that you've got a an egress window in there already. And that way we just know that and we can put in our comments, you know, moving forward. If this passes that this would require smoke alarm, then there's no issues moving forward. That being said, I'm open to any comments or questions.

Thank you, Lucas. Uh councilors, any questions? Thank you. Any public comment on this agenda item? Oh, yes, we have one online. Mayor, we have Brett Glass online. Okay. You are now in the room, Mr. Glass, if you Thank you. Good evening, honorable mayor. Can you hear me? Good evening.

Yes, honorable mayor, members of council. Many of the uh the items here are really good, but I'm concerned about two of them. Uh the first one is an the item which creates an additional expense and requires an expensive engineer to show up before you can uh before you can put an egress window in your basement. Um the council hasn't acted on the recommendations of some of city of city staff regarding uh the requirements for uh for egress windows and making it possible to do things like like use a use a ladder for egress and now is imposing a still greater requirement that's going to make it still more expensive to install one. I'd like you to please consider carefully whether you really want to do this because again, you know, we want we want housing to be affordable and we don't want to we certainly don't want to unduly increase the the expense of of of doing of doing something to improve safety. Um the second item that um that concerns me here um has to do with the plumbing um restrictions that were just mentioned. um there'd be a restriction on using the flexible sort of uh connector or trap that you use to connect a sink drain. Unfortunately, in a lot of existing houses and especially when you do renovations, um those little accordion-shaped pipes, while they're not ideal, are just a godsend because otherwise it's very difficult to to get things connected. Um, also they're already used in a lot of houses and if you've got to replace them, you should be able to. Um, so those two items I'm concerned, you know, while some of the others definitely decrease the, you know, maintenance expenses and eliminate unnecessary restrictions. I'd urge you to look at those and see if you really want to do them because again, they'll increase the cost of housing. They'll increase the difficulty of of uh maintening of of maintaining housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further public comment on this agenda item? Back to council for comments. Uh, councelor Lockheart. Thank you, Mayor. I was able to attend that meeting in December and I appreciate Lucas Wit and the staff putting it together and I hope we see more of those. To me, it just shows that you're listening to the contractors and they're the boots on the ground. So, and it's the comments that they're hearing from their customers. So, thank you very much, Councelor Frerieded.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Mr. wit for the presentation and bringing this back to us and um you know I think there's plenty of things in the code and it's really nice to hear that you guys look at this very often and and you listen to public feedback and um you know new new updates and take that in into consideration and and I think some of these safety things are just super crucial and I appreciate you guys looking into it. So thank you. Councelor Newman, I have a question if that's okay.

Yes, either one. So, the way I read the the code um P2701.1, which is the the plumbing one, it already states in there that the pipes have to be smooth, right? And then we're just clarifying that the accordion style. So, it already says that the pipes have to be smooth. We're just clarifying that we can't use the other one, right? Mayor through you. Yes, that's that's true. Yes. Thank you. Further question, comments? Oh, we got a comment here. Uh, Vice Mayor Richardson,

thank you. I, uh, want to echo all the work that went into this. This looks like quite a lot. Um, and I know that the egress issue has not been dropped, but it sounds as though there are quite a few places in code that it will have to be looked at and uh, updated. And so, um, I appreciate city staff continuing to work on that and continuing to look for solutions, um, even though they're not quite here yet. We just have to be a little more patient as they're working on it. So, thank you. And I just uh Lucas want to thank you and the planning department for all the work you've done to reach out to contractors and to engage and have those discussions and then make these uh changes. And uh I will say that I am in the middle of a massive renovation of my house and have hit on just about all of these. It's uh it's been interesting. My wish list was too long. All right, city clerk, if you can call the role, please. Lockheart,

yes. Bowling, right. Freed, yes. Odory, yes. Newman, yes. Shamway, yes. Vehill, absent. Richardson, yes. Cumbi, yes. That's eight yeses, zero nos, and one absent, your honor. Thank you. That motion passes. Item 11D. Councelor Odory. I move to deny original ordinance number 2122 approving and authorizing the deanexation of approximately 79.82 acres of property located in the city of Laramie on the first reading in accordance with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Second.

I have a motion from O'Dhy, second from Freed. Good evening.

Yes. Good e evening honorable mayor, members of council. The item before you this evening is a request for the deanexation of approximately 80 acres of land located generally north of North View Street and east of 30th Street. Staff is recommending denial of the request and I'll walk you through the key factors supporting that recommendation. So, first of all, um this has pretty recently been annexed into the city. If you remember, city planning or city planning commission um recommended approval of this in October of 2023 to this body that ultimately passed the annexation, the zoning, and the preliminary plat and the comprehensive plan amendment that all went together with this what was known as the West Slope subdivision. So that was December of 2023 that this body um brought this 80 acres into the city. Um so at that time um the city council approved a preliminary plat um with approximately 243 lots of varying sizes, varying housing types. There's even it goes from single family all the way to a multi-ousing or multifamily housing component on that property. Um so it's a nice mix that is approved with the preliminary plat that those do um last 5 years. So at any time you know between now and December of 2028 um the applicant or subsequent developer um could develop according to this preliminary plat which I'll get into a little bit um later as well. So, the applicant's now requesting to reverse that action and return the property to Albany County. So, I just

want to quickly say there is a um figure in the um packet this evening that shows the applicant originally owned the tract of land, the 5 acre piece on 30th Street, which was forcibly annexed because it would have been completely surrounded by that 75 acres um um part of that section that would enclose it. So um the applicant did um buy the property post annexation. So the applicant bought the property when it was city property annexed zoned everything I just mentioned that happened in December 2023. So from a statutory standpoint, uh, state statute is very clear on the procedure to get to this point as far as what the petitioner needs to do, um, what kind of notice needs to be filed, what needs to be done with the county commissioners, which all of that has been done. So they've they've done all they need to get to this point. However, it is this body's discretion to deanex property that is within the municipal boundary. Now, um and that there is a large amount of discretion that is available. There's not a list of five criteria that I can list for you this evening to say it meets this, it meets this. State statute leaves it pretty open-ended. So, what we have to fall back on is preliminary plans that support this area as a higher density residential area that supports it being developed to city standards. Um, and

that's what what my next few points have to do with. Um, with respect to our adopted comprehensive plan and our adopted Laram area growth plan, this property has been clearly identified as appropriate for higher density development. The future land use map was amended when it was annexed to support a mixed of residential densities and the growth area plan specifically identifies this location specifically as suitable for urban expansion due to its proximity to existing development and infrastructure. And I do want to say so the preliminary plat has been passed 243 lots of those they developer had an idea to phase this development. The first phase 109 lots could be supported already with the sanit sanitary sewer system in Reynolds and water is on North View Street already. So th this played a big role with our public works and engineering department's recommend recommendation of approval of this preliminary plat. So 109 of those 243 original lots can be served very readily into um into what's available there. Um the remaining lots would need to go north to what's eventually going to be built, the north outfall line, which is still um being designed and there's easement um there there's easements that still need to be procured to get that project going, but it is anticipated in the next in the near term. Um so approval of a deanexation like this

would remove the property from the city, revert it to county zoning, which um as we all know the the development standards in the county are far less what they are in the city. Um much larger lots could be anticipated. Um septic systems so forth. Uh residential design standards. And if you've been on uh North View Street, um it is a city subdivision through and through. Um and right across the street is what we're talking about here. Um and the housing study, uh the housing study and action plan also identifies the need for, you know, 4,100 housing units. I think we all know this number by heart, but um in passing in approving this annexation in 2023, this was a big point that I think helped this body to approve it was the need for housing, this being close to existing infrastructure um and so forth. Um so yeah the thrive lar plan is another plan that really hammers home the um need for housing availability of different types which this preliminary plat um promises. I just want to talk quickly about the some precedent which came up at our planning commission meeting last week where we did discuss the Fox Run golf course um out on 230 which is a good example of the most most recent we're talking 2013 here the most recent example of a deanexation of this size. It was ultimately deanexed as you all

know. Um, however, we as staff truly believe we're talking apples and oranges here, giving that given that we're a mile and a half from connecting to um, city infrastructure out at Fox Run versus here where phase one is is adjacent to city infrastructure. So, um, just a little history there. We've had two other deanexations, but requests since then. Both were denied, but they were for much smaller. They they were for um a lot on Mchugh um which I believe this body may or may not have been a part of. That was only in 2022, but um less maybe it was five acres, but nothing to this scale. Um um so the the petition itself which is in your um packet states the lack of perceived benefit from inclusion of the city as a reason for deanexation. Um, so I just want to quickly address those concerns because truly under city code, the applicant owning two parcels of land, there's still two separate tracks of land out there, could develop a single family home on both. Um, so it it is still possible. the question of a livestock operation up there also grazing it's also possible under city ordinance given our livestock ordinance uh we do have provisions in there for livestock that is going to be consumed

by the owner so it I could see if they truly wanted to go that route which um I wish Morab was still here to tell if that was adequate grazing land up there. But regardless of that, um they would be able to apply for a variance from that uh personal consumption clause, which then it opens you up to uh we did the math about 300 head that you could run out there with the requirement of a quarter acre per livestock unit. Um, we haven't really talked that. I just wanted to address that. I I believe the applicant may bring that up. Um, so again, denial of the request. So, keeping it within the city does not preclude its development. It's still able to be developed. A single family home is still able to be developed up there to city standards, which means connecting to water and sewer. But a property that size, you don't even need to pave the driveway, right? We have provisions for these giant lots which do help the property owner out as well to establish a rural setting if they have that much land within the setting or within the city. Um so so yeah um I think I've listed a couple of plans but just to summarize quests is not consistent with plans we have adopted and established including the comprehensive plan the housing study and action plan the growth area plan. Um, so in conclusion, while the application is eligible for consideration, staff finds that the request conflicts with plans we have in place, prior approvals,

which happened in 2023, as well as the city's long-term growth strategy. So, planning commission recommended denial of this that this body deny this uh vote of 3 to one at their meeting last week. Um, so I'm glad to answer any questions. Uh, thank you, Philip. Uh, counselor's questions. Councelor Frerieded.

Thank you, mayor, and thank you, Mr. Gabaththuler. Um, a couple questions and maybe I'll just start with one and see if other council members have any, but um, you know, for the applicant of this petition, I think the seven statements or beliefs of why um, this should be deanexed. I'm just curious at number seven and you kind of touched on it, but if you wouldn't mind um maybe touching that a little more. It says the lack of sufficient public infrastructure, city utility services does not coincide with urban growth area. Um you know, just knowing that it's really close to the other city blocks and and the utilities that it could, you know, be a part of. Is that what that's hitting on your perspective? or you know are there significant challenges if this is still within the city limits to connect to all those utilities and services?

Yeah, through you mayor to councelor Frerieded. So a development this size is certainly going to have public improvements that are going to happen on the front end that are going to be a major cost to development. Um, so being adjacent to, you know, existing water on North View, being able to use the Reynolds, the the the main artery of of the sanitary sewer on um Reynolds is certainly going to help, but there there is substantial cost to any developer that's going to pursue this this plan. So, um there there will be a there will certainly be a cost, but um I would it's staff's perspective that um that hasn't been presented in a in a manner that makes sense to us. The applicant has stated it doesn't pencil out. Well, we the $300,000 worth of engineering work went into this according to the the the the original owner who worked with AVI out of Cheyenne. So, I mean, they throw that number around. So, that addresses these connections and what what's required public improvement wise. Um, so we haven't seen anything to the contrary that that truly shows that this does not pencil out. And even if it did, there is an option to redesign th this 80 acres to phase it in a different way, different layout, different densities. Um, that maybe would work. So, I don't I don't think that that's a good argument. Um,

thank you. Thank you. Uh, further questions.

Uh, I guess councelor Oorty, it's a comment. A comment. Okay. Uh, councelor Frerieded. Thank you, mayor. Uh, a couple more, I guess, just about that preliminary platting process. And so if this stays within city limits and the landowner doesn't like how it was platted, there is a process to work with planning commission or the planning department to find a new plan. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thanks, Councelor. Newman, did you have your hand out or you were just stretching?

Uh, I would like to open it up for the applicant to come tell us whatever they have to talk about before I have questions if we could. Good evening. If you could state your name for the record.

Sure. Um, Mayor Cy, members of the council, uh, my name is Carson Inglesburgger and I'm the the owner of these two lots requesting deanexation. Um, if you don't mind, I'd just like to talk a little bit about how we got to this point and some of the challenges we're facing and our thoughts going forward on this. I have a lot of a lot of thoughts, but I'm going to try to keep them concise here for everybody's time. Um, so I guess this all started when we bought two city lots out on the ridge on North View there. Um, wanted to build our dream home. Had them come up and spent a lot of time trying to make that work. Ended up purchasing those two lots. Um, started looking at expenses for building what we wanted there. realized it was it was quite expensive and being in the city had its challenges with expense as well. Um, ironically, behind us was 5 acres in the county. We figured we could build the same house there cheaper and have more options for egg use with barns, shops, things like that. So, at a significant cost, we purchased that 5 acres behind or adjacent to the two lots that we bought up there. Um once we purchased it, we went through uh planning and design, hired an architect, spent money doing that and the time uh septics, well estimates, getting all those things. And then shortly thereafter, we were notified that we were going to be annexed into the city at that point. Um kind of a rough day to be honest with you. Um when you spend that time and money and have those dreams and then you're forcibly annexed into the city. But uh being what it was, we had to go with the flow at that point. So met with the city to talk options. Um it was apparent like we had no options. You will be annexed and that's what's going to happen. And I get it. There's there's things that go with that. But um at that point then we spent more money and we

worked with the engineering firm to try to get favorable conditions for our 5acre lot up there that was going to surround us with uh multifamily R2 R3 housing. Uh at that point having a dream home didn't really seem iconic to us up on the ridge where we had wanted. So tried to at that point make the most of a bad situation in our minds. Um and so we just tried to get some favorable conditions mainly with the zoning um some of the approaches, things like that. They did provide you a letter of support that I signed and so I just want to address that at this point. Um it is a letter of support. It was provided to me in a form letter by the planning um office asking for a letter of support. This is my toned down version that is um significantly less enthusiastic for the annexation than originally presented. I think it's important to note as well that while I sent this back, the body of the email that was this attachment was part of specifically stated I was not fully supportive of this process. And I would wish this to I would wish nobody to have to go through this in their life because it is truly a painstaking and just a horrible process. And again, to to a degree, it's life, but at the same time, um, somebody somebody's a loser on that one, and that was us. So anyway, moving forward, um, this property came up for sale and we had already had the two lots up there. We had our 5acre lot. Now, this came up for sale. Uh, whether it was annexed or DNX, we would have purchased it anyway just to protect our investment up there. We have a significant stake up there. And so, at this point, I don't need more R2, R3, or whatever because, you know, maybe we could build what we wanted to up there and enjoy it in the manner that we wanted to. So, we purchased the land. Um um

I guess looking back to me and and this was kind of discussed earlier, but I think it was a little bit premature on the annexation of everything. There's a lot of city services that aren't there. the sewer line for part of it. It could be accessed through um through North View uh and down through Reynolds, but they had limited the amount and so only a small portion could actually go down through Reynolds because there's there's just not enough capacity in the system there. The requirement for the bulk of the property just given the topography was a multi-million dollar lift station and infrastructure system to be put in by the developer which at that point I mean I don't really know how realistic that is. Um but on top of that you still have I think it's close to four miles to the nearest sewer line on where all that would go that would have to be put in as well. And so significant cost, significant infrastructure lacking for the bulk of the property. Even if you could put in some at the front end, like there's still a lot of time and a lot of resources that need to be devoted to have the rest of it actually be usable um for the development purposes. I think at the same time um it is worth saying that you know um the developer who had sold it to us was one of the biggest philanthropists in the area and also biggest developers in the region here has done a lot in Laramie he couldn't make a pencil out again when we bought the land our goal um and this kind of gets back to to my uh just a little side detour here you know my background is and natural resources, agriculture, uh I work with the Forest Service a lot in past past jobs, Bureau of Land Management, state agencies, stakeholders, doesn't really matter. But, you know, that idea of collaboration and coming together and working together for a common goal or like having the give and take. I'm well

verssed in it. I get it. Kind of one of our hopes was that we could go to the city to say, "Hey, like maybe we have some different ideas. We could do some things here um maybe a little bit differently." We spent a year and a half meeting with the city trying to come up with ideas on what we could do. Um there wasn't really a whole lot of give, we'll put it that way. And so that led us to where we're at today. Um I think um I think it's correct. I mean, there was a lot of work that was done into this uh with the engineering, the design, everything. But at the end of the day, from our standpoint and from the developer prior to us, it it's just not economical for the bulk of the property. So, because we like the property, we wanted it we want to enjoy it in a different manner, more of an agricultural use with livestock, um, barns, things like that. I'll I'll go more into this in a minute, but yes, we are recognizing that we are leaving a significant amount of money on the table with the engineering and work that was done going into this. And that's just, you know, that's probably a win at the end of the day for us if that's all it cost us at this point. Um, so we're asking for to approve it. Uh, our our request for deanexation. Um, just to cut touch on a couple things that were mentioned previously. You know, there's housing plans and ideas and uh things that are identified or supported. um you know that's great but these are non-binding documents and at the end of the day it's more like a wish list like you have to have a plan and I get that but just because my property falls in that area doesn't mean that all of a sudden you know I have to do that like I I guess what I'm saying is like who actually owns this land because when I sit back there and I listen to what is said and how I can't use my land in a certain way and it needs to stay in the even though everything's going to be way more expensive and way more cumbersome,

like that's the best use because in the future, this is where Larry is going to go. To me, that's that just doesn't sit right with me. And um I'm going to keep it at that. But um I guess at the end of the day, that yes, under under the current situation with the city, there's not going to be any development there. I can just tell you that right now. In the future there's potential, but right now like we want to enjoy our land the way that we want and so we were hoping to get cows up there. It's not fenced. It's it specifically states that barbwire is prohibited within the city. So, uh I guess I could probably apply for a variance or whatever that process would be. I could wait my 60 to 90 days and then every time I want to build a loafing shed, I can do the same thing. And if I want to do a barn or shop or riding arena or a house or wells or septic, well, I guess I couldn't do septic, but what I'm saying is like every time I wanted to do something, it's more conducive to being in the county. I have to come here, fill out a form, wait, come to the meetings, pay my fees, do whatever, and at the end of the day, I'm not guaranteed that that's where it's going to go. And so, I'm here asking for the deanexation. We want to use it in a different manner. I I agree that maybe there are some things that could be done, but at this point like we can look at that stuff later, but for right now, like this is how we want to enjoy our property and that's I guess where I'm going to leave us for right now.

Thank you for your testimony. Questions? Uh, Councelor Odory, um, you said you worked for BLM. When I look up how many acres for a cow, it's like no. I I've worked with BLM with the Forest Service.

Anyway, um it doesn't seem like a great place for a cattle operation just along a city street like that just seems and then the wind typically blows from the northwest. So, um blowing all the cattle smell to all of those houses on that street. That doesn't seem compatible. And so if you don't appreciate the city, why a lot that is right adjacent to a city street, which means any development there, chances are you'd want to connect to a city street, you're you using the city from that point. you're not, we've had issues where people build in the county right next to the city and then want to use city streets that were not built for those kinds of things like heavy equipment, farm equipment, things like that. So, um, to me, it's just it's not compatible. I mean, it's the lot is right next to other houses. It seems like if you want to do a cattle operation, you might want to move outside of Laramie rather than right adjacent to the city. I don't think it's going to make you very popular with the neighbors on North View. You know, if you have how many cattle are you talking about, may I ask?

So, it's not a full-blown operation. We have several pieces that we lease and we rotate stuff around and so depending on weather, like we could rotate stuff up there. We also have a horse, you know, focus on this as well. So, those are the kinds of things like I'm not going to take this any further because obviously it's still in the city, but it's not going to be like 800 cattle sitting up there with a feed lot, but just to be clear, I mean, everything has to be accessed from somewhere. So, just being where the lot is, yes, it's on the edge of the city, but like that's just the nature of where it's located. I mean, there are there's a well there, there are corrals already, there's uh feeding areas. I mean, it actually was agricultural and used in that manner prior. And you know, I don't anticipate going above and beyond that, but it would be something similar along those lines. I wouldn't I wouldn't I'm not out to be a bad neighbor. I mean, I would want to make something that was compatible with the area that didn't stand out, but also allowed me to enjoy my my my land in the way that was, you know, within my rights. I guess that makes sense.

Councelor Newman. Questions, I guess. Um the first one is kind of going along with what councelor how many head of cattle are we talking? It's all it's all dependent on the weather like the so it's not like a prime agricultural area for cattle like all year round right and so I raise cattle I understand.

Yeah. So in the spring when we have good grass growth like we could ro rotate stuff up there for a while and use it within reason and then ro rotate off to another pasture. So, it's all within reason, but again, like if if the cattle, you know, if we could keep them down on other pastures, you know, we would be interested in still doing something more with like an equin or like a horse uh focus as well. So, at the end of the day, it it's all more of an agricultural focus. And so, we haven't fleshed that out because I'm not going to get myself let myself get excited again on something that we're not there yet. My second question, if you I think you answered it. Um Oh, sorry, Mayor. Could I ask a followup?

Sorry. Sorry. Um, my second question is, and I think you answered this, I just want to make sure that I understood it. Um, no matter what happens tonight, right? No matter what happens going forward, because we have three readings on this, uh, you're not going to build on this property. Is that correct? The way things stand right now within the city as it's presented right now with the current plat, there's no intention to. Thank you.

I can I follow up on that real quick? down the road if there is, you know, the ability to do something like that, we would be open to exploring things with the city. But again, part of the condition on that would be that it would come out of the city in the first place. And then I would have give us time to rework things down the road if we decided to go that route. So, I'm not saying that we couldn't be part of the city or do things like that in the future, but I'm saying as it's at right now, it it's not going to work. So, sorry. Uh, councelor Shamay.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, just a question through you, Mayor. Um, when you talked about the philanth philanthropist, I'm assuming you're talking about Mr. Samuelson, his uh and his goal at one time was to say that he would develop 45th so that he could develop the lots up there into housing and and whatever else. So, I don't think you're the only one that had the idea to go up there to to put in a home and other other structures. I would guess that plans that include others beside you is going to be to develop this into more residential than it is going to be agricultural. So that's just a thought and if if I've got names wrong or you know the 45th wrong or whatever just let me know.

Thank you. Further questions, counselors. Uh, councelor O'Dy, this is a question for our staff if Excuse me. This is a question for Mr. Gabatuler. Oh, okay. Mr. Gabatuler, a question for you. Thank you. Yep. So I understood you to say that the southern about half of this property already is easily accessible to water and sewer on north view right the southern half of this property

honorable honorable mayor through you. So 109 lots, which isn't quite half of the 2443 lots are able to use Reynold Street. So that's established, right? So they would still need to, you know, build the infrastructure to connect into presumably 30th Street to get down to Reynolds. Um I I I think it's all relative to say it's easily done. I mean that right nothing's easy but it is there and it and it was a condition of any final plat being approved based on this preliminary plat that those improvements would be done. So yes, so so the lower half essentially big picture can be served with existing sewer and existing water and we're not having to rely on the north outfall line which may or may not get built in the near term. It certainly is in the in the works and in design and um easements are trying to be procured, but that's not there yet. Reynolds is and and a percentage of the preliminary plaque can be served. Yes.

Followup. Um I seem to recall a lot of uh infrastructure going in at Cirrus Sky Park. I know I mean I see the big storm drains there. I assume that water and sewer are already installed up there, right? That seems about the same elevation as this lot. So it correct me if I'm wrong on this, but that is the north outfall line is the sanitary sewer. Okay, the that would run along along there. The north tank project is in and that water line runs to Third Street along asphalt.

And then Oh, sorry. Got a question. I'll wait for my question. Go ahead. Okay, you go for it if you've got yours first.

Um, I just kind of wanted to clarify something. So, uh, December 2023, uh, the owner at the time requests annexation. So after we go through that process and do an amendment of the comprehensive plan and then the Laram area growth plan. Did that the potential for that development, that phase one, drive some of the upgrades that were done in sanitary sewer and to increase sewer capacity on Reynold Street? Was that phase one part of the consideration when we did those infrastructure upgrades and improvements that that would be tying into that?

Honorable mayor, um to answer that, I think big picture it is pointing north to new development, right? We have Cirrus Sky, we have, you know, this property. There's also additional phases of Indian Heights. Um, so I think, you know, the Larmy area growth plan highlighted that as well is like that's where we're projected to grow. So I can't say I can't I I wouldn't say that this project in particular drove any of that because it's been in a in the works a lot longer than this project as far as a north outfall line, north tank. Okay.

That's been a long time coming. Yeah. Yeah, but it may have been a component of the whole big picture. I I I don't want to speak for the original developer, but I think in discussions with AVI, with his engineering company, it certainly played a part with the anticipation of the north or the north tank and the outfall line to support the subdivision. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. And this question is for Mr. Engleser. Thank you, sir.

And recognizing that this is your property, but I just want to um understand where you're coming from. Um, so if you could clarify for me, at one point you said you you bought the property, the one that initially got forcibly annexed because you wanted to you had this vision of what you wanted to build and have this out correct cropping and then you bought the uh the newly annexed large uh piece that we're talking about tonight. Looking track two first, right? I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. The first the small track. the small track is the first two that he that were Okay.

Okay. So, um and then you um purchased the other one. I think you had said to be able to ensure that you could um something along the lines of uh make sure that the vision that you had for your house and for that property and how you wanted to kind of live out, you could do it by having kind of that property. Um, so when I hear that, it sounds like you didn't have any plans to develop this. Um, which again it's your property, so that's totally fine. But then it sounds like also, so I guess my question is then were you actively trying to come to solutions for developing that property with the city staff? That's where I guess I don't understand what or or fully understand what happened next. Um, so to clarify, we purchased the land one as to protect what we already had up on the top and then additionally we saw some opportunity as to what we could do there. I think we're not, you know, serial developers by nature. Um, but I think when you buy something like that that had that kind of engineering done, the work, we were familiar with the process, I think it's worth taking a look at at that point. And so by default, you get pulled into that. And so we were open like, hey, let's look at this. maybe we can change some things. We had talked about a couple concepts that we had. Um we had our representatives meet with the city several times and we just couldn't come to terms. So I mean there could be a thousand lots in there but like just because there's a thousand lots doesn't mean that it's actually a feasible um venture I guess is what I'm saying. So

followup followup vice mayor. So, I I this is a little bit I guess of where I'm struggling. Um I'm struggling a lot determining like thinking about all of the things with this, but um that did you have the conversations before you purchased this land with the city? I mean, I I to me it feels like if you were if you just saw that somebody said they couldn't pencil it out and then um but bought the land and then had the conversations or did you have the conversations with the city first and then decide to buy the land?

No. So, we bought the land because we wanted the land like regardless of I don't care about a development going in or not. We wanted that land. So, yeah. Thanks for that clarification. Councilors, other questions? Uh, councelor Oorty,

I'm wondering about the possibility of splitting the difference. Like if um if the north half and the south half were split, I could I would be cool with deanexing the part that isn't directly adjacent to a street, a city street, two city streets that we're paying for. Um, and you know, like if you want to have your country home there, could you have could you split the lot and deanex the top half, the north half? Just throwing it out.

Mayor C, Mayor CI, um, councilors. So, yeah, at the end of the day, like I I want to be level-headed about this. I we we've been in Larmy for a long time. We we have rentals. Our kids go to school here. Um you know, we enjoy the area as much as everyone else here does here. That is why, you know, I am open to the idea of exploring something like that. But at this stage in the game, it needs to be deanexed so that we can have our options open to do this and we can assess on what would make sense if we wanted to pursue that. So, I'm not saying that. I mean, I I I think you have a valid point on what you're saying and I think it makes sense and there's merit there and we would want to explore that, but I'm not going to do it from the position where we have to work with what's there. We already have to go back through and re-engineer things and redo stuff if we wanted to do it. So, I'm not inclined to sit with it in the city. I want to be able to use it how we want to right now and then explore what makes sense for us to bring back in. So that's why I'm I'm open to that, but only if we can DNX first and then explore our options from there. So that's why I'd rather just I mean you guys can rule on the motion however you feel, but that's kind of where we're at and our side of things. So

So could I make a comment as well? Yes.

Mayor Ki through you. So I just want procedurally I we we we couldn't split the difference because it's the legal description has been in the notices and all that. So it would need to be denied and then a new a lot line adjustment would need to be done to possibly create a different configuration. Um, and then just secondly, if just want to be clear on, you know, the three readings, you guys probably already know this, but if you deny it on first, then it doesn't go to three readings. Just to be clear on that. And if on this request it is denied, then we could try to see what we might work out. Another request could be made for DA annexation.

Yes. Is that correct? Correct. I mean that the applicant could adjust the lot boundary because he has two lots. You could change that line and annex it or attempt to a petition at deanexing a different section, different parcel essentially. Councelor Bowling. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Gavin Thuler. Um, correct me. You You might have covered this, but just remind me the infrastructure that runs along asphalt, is that city or county infrastructure?

It is through you, mayor. It is city infrastructure. The the water line from the new tank, the north tank, that water line runs to third. And we're working on designing the sewer, the sanitary sewer essentially up there. And it it is both city it's city infrastructure.

I'm just curious about something. I'm looking at the spaces around this lot. And is there potential that those spaces at some point would annex? I don't I'm not sure what that property is. Warren livestock. Yeah. Honorable mayor. It's own anything. I I mean it petition could be made. It's adjacent to city property now. So absolutely potentially they could get surrounded again.

Um I'm not sure I'm understanding the question. As far as creating an enclave again Yeah. Would it do we have the potential here to create another enclave that by state statute we must it must be so annexed. So the good thing honorable mayor about annexing is there is criteria that prevents that from happening. Okay. So we we follow that as well as we can. are um so so we would not as staff recommend annexing to create another situation like that. Okay. Yeah.

Uh councelor Lart

thank you mayor and this this is for you Philillip. So if this is deanexed and maybe this has been covered and it's just a lot of information to take in. If they did build a home then on that track too, the small portion, would the sewer and all that need to be would they have access to city utilities or would they have to go to county get a get a a well? I mean, what what's the process there? Because it would be county property. Honorable mayor through you. Yes. So, if it is deanexed, then county standards apply. So, they don't need to tie in. They can I I don't believe they're on the overlay the Casper aquifer protection zone there. So they could just they're they could go well in septic. Yeah.

Okay. Any further questions? Comment. Well then let's go to public comment and we'll come back to final comment. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? If you can state your name for the record, sir. Thank you. Uh Sean Moore, 10 Corsel here in Laramie. Um I'm Mr. Englesker's um an honorable mayor, excuse me. And council members, thank you for having us.

Um I've been Mr. Englesker's representative. Uh I sell real estate here in Laramie. I have for 25 years here in Laramie. And I actually helped him acquire this piece. I actually helped him acquire the 5acre piece that he bought first, which was in the county at that time. I also sold him the two lots that were in the city in the Larry Ridge 8th edition. And uh since the Englishers had bought this, they had me work with the city, which Philip would agree. I've been down to see Philip multiple times over the last uh 18 months. the plat that Doug Samuelson um had intended to do and annex that ground. Um it doesn't pencil out. Um I know Philip said there's 109 lots that uh you could have that would they could be serviced by Reynold Street. Um those lots uh uh we couldn't sell those lots to make it profitable and that's why Mr. Samuelson uh abandoned the plans and sold the ground. And so with uh Philip over the last uh 18 months, we've been trying to figure out a way to make it work. And Mr. Englesburgger has allowed me to work with the city to try to get this to work. But the biggest problems that we have is is that north fallout line. Um I know that at the planning and zoning meeting uh last week, uh Mr. uh Phillip because I butcher your last name. Sorry.

But um it's really probably about 8 to 12 acres somewhere in there. Um and the reason is is because the plat would be different. The the the type of plat that I feel that would be successful to to sell and develop these lots aren't the lots that AVI and the city of Larry worked with, which is fine, and that's what their idea was at the time. But um the reason why Mr. Samson sold the land is because it was unfeasible. And so we thought about uh doing a little bit of different uh development which I visited with Philip about for for a while and it really leaves about 10 to 12 acres and so down the road there is a possibility of the rest of this ground being developed. But that north sewer line um until that's in uh it's not feasible at all. And even that north that that sewer line that uh would run down asphalt lane and 3.5 miles to the sewer treatment plant, it's still a quarter mile away from the northwest section of this piece of ground because Mr. Samuelson also owns another 80 acres north of this piece where those uh uh where he had his where he has his sheep down in that low spot. And really the topography of the grounds is what makes it hard because right along North View you can access sewer. Water is not a problem. There's actually water line that goes through this property down where future Inca would go and then down where future cumulus would go. And Mr. Samson gave an easement to the city for that because he had this planned. But the problem is is uh at the very northwest corner you're going to have to put in or the developer or Doug Samson was going to have to put in a sewer lift station which would still be a quarter mile away from wherever the fallout line's going to be um in asphalt. And so it's hard to say we're going to go in and we're going to develop 10 to 12 acres of this because in development a lot of your cost comes in the front end purchasing the land and the engineering. And so if we move

forward with that and even with the revised plat uh if if it's 10 years, 15 years or however many years and and and Mr. Engleser decided to develop this, he's going to be held hostage until he's able to uh until the city puts in that infrastructure where that sewer could go. So at this point, it's just not u it's just not really feasible at this point. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Go. Thank you. Any further public comment? Mayor, we have Brett Glass online. Okay, Mr. Glass.

Good evening,

Mayor. Members of council, good evening. Yes, this is the item that I mainly came here tonight to comment on. You have before you a negative motion, a motion to deny. I'm not sure if you vote this down if it uh equates to a motion to allow the deanexation or not. You may want to you may want to consult your parliamentarian on this. But but but in any case, um I I guess you know to be consistent with council's primary goal, probably its number one goal of creating some affordable housing in town and and encouraging housing development, I would strongly urge you to allow the deanexation of this property. Um, as I've stated before before council, if I were developing any kind of housing in the area, I would develop it outside of the city outside of the city limits. The reason being that the unified development code um, which which if you include everything that's incorporated in it, it has more than a thousand pages to it. Um, is just intractable. It makes affordable housing development very difficult. Um in this case I think we should listen to Henry David Theorough who in his book Walden wrote uh government never facilit never uh um never furthered any enterprise but by the elacrity with which it got out of the way. I I I also think we should respect private property rights here which is something that came up during your previous meeting. Um the uh the owner has some ideas of what to do with the property. I think we should allow him to do it. So, I think in this case, we really should let it go. We should allow the deanexation. And again, I'm not sure if voting this down tonight, uh, given that the motion was to deny would allow that, but uh, ultimately, I think we should, uh, we we should permit the owner to deanex. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Glass. Further public comment on this agenda item. Back to council for comments. Uh, I'll start with councelor Shamay.

Thank you, mayor. I, uh, I'm going to vote in favor of the motion, which is to deny. And let me give you three reasons. First of all, um I I I think that if we develop the 241 lots, which you know could be way way in the future, they have a city water and a city sewer system to it, which means that there's not going to be 240 wells dug. There's not going to be 240 septic systems or 50 septic systems or whatever. I just don't want any more septage whether it's over the Casper aquifer overlay or not. I don't I want to protect our city water as much as we possibly can. And the other thing is if we develop this into a to a go back to the to the county standards and u put you know make it an agricultural uh enterprise. It just what what happens is it takes away the city's opportunity to protect the the uh future growth of the of the city for residential. And u I I I really believe that we have plans that protect the city and the county has plans that protect the county, but I think our plans are stronger.

Thank you, councelor. Councelor Bowling. No, I was appointed. Oh, who over here? Uh, councelor Newman.

And this one's hard. Um, I guess I have a couple couple comments. One comment is we're talking we're talking about building lots, right? 200 whatever how many other lots. We don't own the property. There are no lots. We don't own a lot, right? He the the applicant clearly stated up here he's not building. Right. So that's the problem. That's like that's the problem I'm having right now is he's not building. So I think we can throw that that argument out the window. Right. There is a plan, right? And there was a plan with the old owner, but we have a new owner who doesn't see that plan. And so I don't know. This one's really hard for me. Uh I don't know how I'm going.

Councelor O Dhorty,

I have a comment that people that uh don't see the value of the city. We we have a fire department. If you have a fire on that corner lot that's a county lot, our firefighters that are less than a mile away will go fight that fire. Um, and you know, the the county pays us a couple hundred,000 dollars a year for firefighting, but we go out we because I'm so heroic, our firefighters go out to the county when people have emergencies, if you fall off your horse, if your house burns down, and if the house burning house falls down on our firefighters, that's our responsibility. So, so to say that there's no advantage to me personally to be part of the city, I think that's pretty shortsighted because the city, you know, we have a lot of amenities that people count on that live outside the city that then they don't pay for. So, um, so I think a house that's right on a road, um, benefits from that road. And I and I know we've been sued by the people just to the east um because we didn't want um county county access into roads that were not built they were you know it's a development that's residential they weren't built for heavy equipment and the kind of traffic so in that area near um quarter horse. So, I don't want to have this happen again where a development is built to county standards with county roads and then down the road the uh septic system is no longer I mean the water is no longer portable, the septic system goes bad and they they want to be annexed and then we're stuck with substandard roads. We're stuck with

houses that may not be built to our codes and um so I'm opposed. Thank you. Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I really this I'm with Councelor Newman. This is a tough one. I really feel for like the private property rights piece of that. Like I think people should be able to do what they want to. Um, generally that's like a bit of parameters around that, but broadly, um, and I do feel like if you have this vision of what you want on a piece of property that you bought and thinking about all the processes you have to go through to see if you can get a variance, to see if you can get your shed built, to see if you can do all these things. I get that, too. And then the flip side of that is knowing, you know, that you bought into city property. So you you know that that comes with what you're buying when you buy city property. And so that's where I'm struggling. Um and and and try I mean this is a big old piece of property that there were apparently issues with because the previous owners were selling it. And so I think as the purchaser also there's some risk you took and and so this is where I'm my back and forth is um councelor uh Shamway you brought up a good point with septic with if if it does get developed and again totally up to you not our property um but if there were a lot of septic systems out there if eventually that happens that would um be concerning I think for me And um I just keep thinking about like, well, there's an issue here, right? So we're hearing about how there needs to be a lift station. We're hearing about how the septic is not there. And I think as a city, we need to do more to invest in those things. I mean, it puts them in, yes, it is private development, but 240, 239, I cannot remember the number now because it's three years ago, two years

ago. Um, if those were ready to go and we thought those were ready to go and now they're just poof gone, then we need to be thinking about how can we better support development and what sort of investment as we are coming up to budgeting time and taking a real good look at like what can we do to actually make a difference to make sure that these things get developed. So that's where I am. Councelor Newman, I just have a question for an applicant if that will be okay. Yes, if we approved it on first reading. If we approve the deexation, so voted no on deny. Say no to that.

If we if we did that today, so it moves on to second reading. Um, would there be a possibility for you to sit down with our city staff and have that conversation before the before DNA of that property split? Would there be a possibility for you to kind of better lack of terms meet us in the middle um and sit down with us and say, you know, could we, you know what I mean? Um, uh, I think we have an issue here. Yeah. And I'm sorry to interrupt you, sir. Good.

Um, I don't know what's being suggested here, but it's a little hard. Let me back up. To deanex, you have to pass an ordinance, right? And an ordinance is in front of you. Um, it is I I can't quite picture someone negotiating about an ordinance or changing their entire process to satisfy council. Yeah.

No, that's so I guess that's not what I'm asking. What I'm ask what I'm afraid of is we vote this. No, we never get to build on this property. So I just want to know if if negotiations could happen or if conversations could happen.

They it is not that you can never that this issue can never come before you again. But you're turning it down now. If there are discussions to be had and this gentleman wants to have him with our staff, something else could be uh brought in front of you. I all I'm saying I don't I don't care what you do obviously um is that it's very hard to negotiate uh in this situation where there's a particular petition um where you are limited to passing this ordinance or not that makes sense sir did you have a final comment

could I make one comment so maybe to address some of the concerns So, we we were open to this concept earlier and we tried to do that, okay? And it didn't work. And so, I'm not saying that we're not open to that, but at this point, not well, it's still in the city. So, we would be open to looking at things and there could be lots on here, but if the motions denied, there's not going to be anything right now. So, Okay. Just clear. Thanks,

uh, Councelor Freed. Uh, thank you, mayor, and thanks for everyone who's been working on this a lot longer than than I have. Uh, man, this is complicated, and I feel for you guys, the the property owner who owns this, and you know, you buy a piece of land for a dream home and things change. Um, similar to other council members, I've gone back and forth in this a little bit because I understand the frustrations and the investment that's been put in there, and there's also an investment from the city that needs to be accounted for. Um, I'm concerned for for residents close to this property if if this were to get deanexed and then, you know, that's a that's a piece of county parcel. But I guess negotiating wise, like this person owns a piece of property within the city. They don't have to develop it. They might want to develop it, but they own that. Great. Maybe that doesn't solve our issues for housing, but they have their property. Maybe it doesn't get this property owner exactly what they want, but they own a piece of property in the city. I think if we were to deanex this right now to talk about housing down the line, we don't have any why would this property owner ever come back into the city. Annexation, deanexation, and then annexation again. There's there's no value in them doing that. So for me, there's there's no value from a city's perspective if that's what we're trying to provide here to to deanex this in the hopes of down the line getting a

come back

getting some sort of deal worked out with with the city and the property owner that's now been put into the county because things are easier to build in the county and for reasons that council said a lot some of them they don't adhere to the same safety codes they don't have those requirements but I will say if we do deanex I think you know We should really try to continue with the planning department and try to negotiate if that ever comes to the table. And I can't speak to what's happened in negotiations and the communications in the past, but I do think that this council is is active and would love to try to try to solve that. Whatever that means. Maybe that means that there's never development on here. Maybe there is something that could happen. Maybe we can work with the planning department to see what variances or other things that we can do. But I I I don't see the strategy in deanexing this for the county to then try to find a solution with the city later on. Thanks.

Thank you. Further comment, councelor Bowling.

Thank you, Mayor. Um to echo uh councelor Freed uh just a little bit. It it feels like yeah it it's it's hard for me to wrap my head around the benefit of going uh taking a step backwards with the hope of then taking two step forwards again. Um I do want to echo councelor Richardson's the vice mayor apologies um uh sentiment that you know like something the lift something like a lift and it is prohibitively expensive though it's not something that is not being discussed or planned for. Um and you know we we need to be considering that you know as a priority as we're thinking about the the northern expansion of the city. Um I uh and I I want to be very clear like I I take um the the the the property owners at at their word when they say that they're not currently planning on developing this property whether it's annexed or deanexed or not. Um, but also circumstances change and if this property goes back to a a county designation and then at some point it changes ownership like um and then there is a subdivisional development there that is not under our control but adjacent to it is worrisome to me. So, um, this is tough because I also believe that people should get to do what they want with the land that they own and should be able to, you know, have the things like dream homes as they are investing in them come to realization and fruition. And I just really hope that, you know, if this

property remains inside of the city that there can be like a continued collaborative effort to help this property owner um uh feel like they are agent in that process and not feeling frustrated because what I am also feeling at least from the perspective of the of the landowner is that that they feel like that um that the city process has not and like amendable to that. And I'm not suggesting that that our our staff has done that at all, but that is a perception. So, I just hope that there can be some continued um collaboration, so to speak, for lack of a better word, as we move forward.

Thank you, Councelor Lockhart. Thank you, Mayor. I echoing every single council person's sentiments here. Um, I believe in property owners properties owner's rights, but also the the property was purchased as a city property. And that's where I'm that's where

that's that's that's my challenge here. And so I respect that he owns the property. I'm a property owner. I'd want to do what I want, but it was purchased as city property. I understand uh his argument. I understand everybody's argument. So, this is not a very easy decision for any of us. So, um I didn't know this would be this long of a process, but I'm glad it is because I think it's making us think as a council and also some great recommendations from the mayor as the city needs to work harder to be able to develop property with property owners. Thank you,

Council Derty. Um, I just when four of us I think were on council when or maybe five of us were on council when that other part was annexed and I remembered like breathing a sigh of relief that the other property owners were cool with it. Did I was wondering if if if any of us had gotten a phone call saying you know I signed this thing but I don't really like that I had to do it. We wouldn't have I don't I don't I think that most people would say, "Oh, well, we don't want to force somebody to be annexed that doesn't want to be annexed because if I'd gotten that phone call, I would have said, "Yeah, I don't want to annex because these people don't want to be part of it." didn't you know like I don't understand the disconnect because I really I would not have approved the annexation if I knew that this other property owner was opposed and and I'm wondering about the other council members that were on council in December of 2023 if you didn't you get the same impression that the other property owner it wasn't just like a hostile takeover over

further comments. I have a question for you. Yes, for me. Yeah. Well, so the motion was to deny the annexation. So when we vote, if we say yes, that's denying the annexation. That is true. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page because it's a negative.

Okay. And I just in final comments uh want to say that I was here when those negotiations went on and I did hear uh the current owner's u heartfelt testimony about uh your dreams especially during first reading as we move through. And then I remember when I guess the thought of being surrounded by all that development, well, there goes my dream. So, um, I might as well make some money and do an R3 and build an apartment building. And so, that's kind of where we left it. And then two years go by and you purchase city property without communicating with city people. It was to protect your piece of property. He Mr. Samuels didn't no longer wanted to develop. you now knew there probably wouldn't be 240 houses surrounding that area and that your dream had potential, but yet you purchase city property. And it's like you don't just annex in 2023 and go, "Okay, that's done." It starts an entire working process to write the annex, to amend the comprehensive plans, to work with the reszoning, to work with the platting. It puts a whole process, a two-year process in motion. And

I think there may be other alternatives that we can do through continued discussion. And I think we just need to be clean about it. And I plan to vote yes to deny. And I'm hoping that we can continue a process and put something else on the table that's clean. But right now, I think the cleanest thing in in my mind is to deny and then let's move on and see what we can work out. So, city clerk, if you can please call the role.

Oh, DHY. Yes. Newman. No. Lockhart. Yes. Freed. Yes. Bowling. Yes. Shamway. Yes. Vhill. Absent. Richardson. Yes. Cumbi. Yes. That's seven yeses, one no and one absent, your honor.

Andex deanexation is denied. Is there any any public comment on non-aggenda items? Council, any consideration for future work topics? Yes, sir. Dog parks. There you go. Dog parks. Thanks, Joe. And a second from second. Second.

Second. A third. Fourth. Okay. Put it on the All right. Dog parks. Thank you. Um, councelor O. Dhy. I move we adjourn. This meeting. Uh. Oh. Uh. That's right. We have to vote. I'm always so quick with a hammer. I have a motion from Richardson, a second from Lockart. Oh, not me. Oh, Ody. Second from Lockart. I'm so excited to be finished. Um, if you can please call the role. Oh, we can do voice. All in favor? I

opposed. We are adjourned.