(1) That we will never lie to you, attempt to manipulate you or use our voice as a means for achieving any hidden ambitions, desires or agendas;
(2) That we will always strive to be open and honest in the presentation of our news, just and rational in our opinion, and fair and forthright in all of our dealings with you, our readers. And our ultimate goal? To have you say that you know it’s true, because you read it in the Torch.
Tatooine Dumping Leaded Glass Into Local Landfills Illegally, Workers Say
By Bradley Harrington
CHEYENNE, WYO. - Local waste management facility Tatooine Electronics is littering at least two local landfills with tons of leaded glass, the leftover remains from the scrapping of CRT-style computer monitors and TVs, in a gross violation of EPA and Wyoming DEQ disposal standards, former employees charge.
“That stuff is everywhere,” said the first former Tatooine employee of three interviewed. All three remain anonymous due to what the first former employee said was an actual “fear for my life and the lives of my family.”
Jeff Stumpf, owner/CEO of Tatooine, has a criminal history and prison record of violations regarding arson, burglary, illegal weapons possession, and explosives construction and detonation, according to Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals document 938 F.2d 172 regarding Case No. 90-8043. The first former employee said all of Stumpf’s employees were aware of his background. In the light of that record, the employees have always considered Stumpf as a highly dangerous individual, and they took his repeated verbal threats to them seriously.
“Several different times when I complained about and argued against the illegality of our leaded glass disposal operations,” the first former employee said, “I was told there were worse things that could happen to somebody besides just losing their job.”
Therefore, when ordered to dispose of the hazardous wastes as outlined by Stumpf, he complied. “Per company policy, do it or die, I dumped the glass,” the former employee said.
Tatooine engaged in two types of disposal operations, the former employee said: Dumps to the local Eastern Laramie County Landfill located to the northeast of Burns, and dumps made into the City-owned roll-offs placed onsite at Tatooine’s 6520 Hinesley Road location.
Regarding the first, Stumpf’s orders were clear and unequivocal, the former employee said: “‘The gaylords are on the truck. Take the truck to the Burns landfill and dump it.’ So, under duress and threats, we did what we were told; we did our job.” A “gaylord,” as shown in the pictures above, is a large, extremely strong cardboard box with the dimensions of a pallet. When filled with leaded glass, weights vary between 2,500 and 4,700 lbs., or between 1.25 and 2.35 tons.
Tatooine, along with its offices and yards located on Hinesley, also has another, larger, 100-acre facility on the I-80 Service Road about three miles to the east of the TA Truck Stop off the Hillsdale Exit 377 of the I-80 Freeway.
The Eastern Laramie County Landfill dumps, the first former employee said, were engaged in by him personally on at least four occasions, with landfill runs occurring at various times throughout 2011.
“We’d have dozens of these gaylords of glass,” the first former employee said, “that by permit were supposed to have been disposed of in a certain way. At periodic intervals, those gaylords were snuck onto the truck, two or three at a time, along with other standard trash, and we drove them out to the Burns landfill and dumped them.”
When the former employee resisted such measures, he said, he was threatened as outlined above, and told by Stumpf: “‘When I give you an order, you act as if it’s the word of God. Get it done!’”
The push to dispose of the scrapped CRTs in such a fashion, said former Crew Supervisor Barbie Harrington, would have come from the economics of the situation: As a hazardous waste that Tatooine was not equipped to deal with directly on its own, it would normally have shipped such glass to an outside facility for proper processing - at a net expense to Tatooine.
“The company we used for such disposals while I was still employed at Tatooine,” Harrington said, “was Luminous Recycling of Denver, Colorado. We would load a semi-truck with about 12-15 gaylords full of CRTs and take it down to Luminous, which would cost Tatooine about $3,000-$3,500 to dispose of.”
Luminous’s website, at www.luminousrecycling.com, in its “The CRT problem” section, describes the threats and dangers of such wastes to the environment: “Of all the components in the electronic waste stream, Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) present the greatest challenge and post the most significant danger.”
Regarding the specific threats involved with such wastes, the website continues, “Five Toxic Metals are used in CRT’s including Mercury, Cadmium, Hexavalent Chromium and Brominated Flame Retardants, and roughly four pounds of lead - the most dangerous and damaging of the toxic metals in CRTs.”
Nor can it be argued that Stumpf, himself, as the CEO of an EPA- and DEQ-approved facility, could have been ignorant of the dangers posed by such wastes. Indeed, in a Wyoming Tribune Eagle story seven years ago, he is quoted as saying: “‘As it sits in our house, a TV is absolutely harmless,’ said Jeff Stumpf, Tatooine’s proprietor. ‘But when it sits in the landfill, it’s not harmless.’” (“Meet the unmakers,” Jan. 24, 2005.)
For proper disposal of CRTs, Harrington said, and with the gaylord numbers and costs associated with a semi-truck full of such wastes, each gaylord full of CRTs had a disposal cost of about $200-$300.
“Even when I was still working there, however,” Harrington said, “Jeff never had the money to dispose of the CRTs properly, so they continued to pile up at both yards.”
EPA and DEQ permits, however, Harrington said, are extremely strict in just exactly how many pounds of such wastes can sit onsite; the licensed facility is expected to periodically handle such disposals before weight limits are reached.
Regarding the ultimate disposition of the contents of a City-owned roll-off container, said Jim Elias, Public Works Director, it would vary as to whether the contents would end up at the City’s Happy Jack landfill or be hauled down to Ault, Colorado instead. “It all depends on what’s in the roll-off,” Elias said. “If it’s full of construction demo debris, we take it to our own landfill. If people throw trash into them, garbage-style trash, we take it to the Transfer Station and then we haul it to Ault.”
When loads are mixed, it poses a problem, because the Happy Jack Landfill no longer accepts “straight” garbage. “If the loads are mixed, we have to take them to the Transfer Station as well, and then on down to Ault,” Elias said.
Since the exact contents of the various Tatooine roll-offs over the periods in question are unknown, it cannot be determined whether the leaded-glass shards ended up in the City’s Happy Jack Landfill or were hauled to Ault. “I think most of it ended up in Happy Jack, myself,” the former employee said, “but I can’t say that for sure.”
“I’ve dumped glass from our building [Hinesley location] into the trash, and dumped glass from the other building [I-80 location] out at the Burns landfill as well,” a second former employee said. “I think those roll-offs ended up in Colorado, but who really knows? I know for sure where the stuff ended up in Burns, because we dumped it there ourselves. Those guys never checked our trucks coming in.”
“I was extremely angry about all of it,” the second former employee said. “The only reason I stayed and did that for as long as I did, was because I needed my job; but it was eating me up inside.”
The two former employees quoted so far, Harrington said, had come to her last year to tell her about the actions that had been taking place since she was laid off. “‘I can’t do anything about it unless we can document it,’” Harrington said she told them both. “I told them, ‘You’ve got to get me some documentation.’”
The second former employee was the one who began documenting the illegal operations. “Jeff never cared about the laws, or anybody’s welfare, or any of it,” he said. “All he ever cared about was what he wanted to do, and how he wanted to do it. Other people’s lives? None of that ever mattered to him.”
“I’m almost sure those roll-offs ended up in Happy Jack,” a third former employee said. “And I know those things were being filled with leaded glass because I saw it myself.”
When contacted by the Torch regarding the former employee allegations, Wyoming DEQ Natural Resource Analyst Joel Frost, Inspector in charge of the southeastern section of the Wyoming DEQ district encompassing Albany, Carbon, Goshen, Platte and Laramie counties, said that he had not heard anything about the illegal glass dumping at the Burns landfill. However, he did say he did not think the employees there were aware of it. “I don’t think anybody at that location was knowingly taking part in any illegal activities,” Frost said.
Regarding DEQ rules that govern disposal of hazardous wastes, Frost said, “the state’s rules almost exactly mirror what the fed’s [EPA] rules say, but we put them in state format with state numbers.” When questioned further on those rules, and the allegations being made against Tatooine by its former employees, Frost referred the Torch to his supervisor, Bob Breuer, Program Manager for Wyoming’s Solid Waste and Hazardous Division, who works out of Casper. “This situation needs to be handled by managers instead of by me,” Frost said.
Breuer, in turn, specified that the relevant DEQ rules and regulations could be found on DEQ’s website.
“Most, but not all, leaded glass,” Breuer said, “would be considered as hazardous due to the high concentration of that substance existing above the 5.0 mg/L threshold.” Those threshold specifications for a variety of solid-waste substances, Breuer said, are found in the “Hazardous Waste Management” section, Chapter 2, “Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste,” Table 1, “Maximum Concentration of Contaminants for the Toxicity Characteristic” on pages 2-37 and 2-38.
DEQ rules governing such wastes once they are determined to be hazardous, Breuer said, are found in Chapter 8, “Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste.”
Discharge Of AC Coolants Into Atmosphere Documented By Former Tatooine Employee
By Bradley Harrington
CHEYENNE, WYO. - Discharging AC refrigerants directly into the atmosphere is an illegal activity per EPA regulations, but one former Tatooine Electronics Systems employee has documented such discharges through videos, and all three former employees who spoke with the Torch, on condition of anonymity, have testified this was common practice at both the waste disposal facility’s locations.
The videos, taken at several different times throughout 2011, clearly show the use of a pick to punch holes into multiple AC units in order to vent the refrigerants contained within.
“This is how we dispose of Freon out of air conditioners and fridges here at Tatooine,” one former employee said as he videoed himself axing holes into multiple AC units to discharge the pressurized contents.
“I was forcing myself to go through this BS,” the former employee said, “because I needed to feed my family. It was completely against my scruples, but I had to have a job.”
“We were ordered by CEO Jeff Stumpf, under threats to our jobs - and worse - to poke holes in the units and then scrap them,” another former employee said. “We knew we were never going to have a proper vacuum system because we never had the money.”
Ian Stumpf, Jeff Stumpf’s cousin and a Tatooine yard manager, also ordered workers to engage in such scrapping, the former employee said.
“Ian would ask, ‘Why aren’t those AC units scrapped yet?’”
“‘Because we don’t have a venting system,’ we’d reply.”
“‘Help me get it done!’ Ian would yell at us while he started scrapping some of the units himself. ‘Get it done NOW or you’ll be talking to Jeff!’ he’d scream at us,” the former employee said. “So we scrapped them. Dozens of them.”
“I wasn’t nearly as involved as the other two,” a third former employee said, “but I can definitely tell you that we were ordered by Jeff to cut the units open, let them spew out, then scrap them, and I witnessed those operations at least twice.”
When contacted by regarding what regulations would cover the legal disposal of such refrigerants, Wyoming DEQ Natural Resource Analyst Joel Frost, Inspector in charge of the southeastern Wyoming DEQ district encompassing Albany, Carbon, Goshen, Platte and Laramie counties, said, “That’s actually an air quality issue. It’s not state, it’s federal, so you’ll have to go to the EPA on that.”
According to Frost, Wyoming’s sole involvement regarding the disposal of such refrigerants is limited to insuring that such recycling facilities be licensed. “They do have to be licensed,” Frost said, “but the feds have their own set of rules about the rest of it.” The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) covers EPA rules regarding the proper methods for refrigerant disposal, according to Alexas Gilbert, Clean Air Act Inspector for the EPA. Gilbert works at the agency’s Denver office.
The applicable codes of the CFR are covered by CFR Title 40, Part 82.154: “Prohibitions: (a)(1) Effective June 13, 2005, no person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or otherwise release into the environment any refrigerant or substitute from such appliances, with the exception of the following substitutes in the following end-uses: (i) Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in absorption units; (ii) Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of hydrocarbons); (iii) Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of chlorine and chlorine compounds); (iv) Carbon dioxide in any application; (v) Nitrogen in any application; or (vi) Water in any application.
“(2) The knowing release of a refrigerant or non-exempt substitute subsequent to its recovery from an appliance shall be considered a violation of this prohibition.”
Gilbert confirmed that since none of the above-listed exemptions apply to the activities in question, such activities would definitely be considered as illegal by the EPA. “I would absolutely be interested in any information you have regarding AC units and venting,” Gilbert said.
The quoted CFR codes are from the year 2011, the year of the alleged violations, and large volumes of other CFR regulations (also under Part 82) govern the proper disposal methods for such substances.
MPO’s Contract Overruns Torpedoed When Citizens, Council Take Umbrage With Plan
Study Sought To Install Median On South Greeley Highway
By Bradley Harrington
CHEYENNE, WYO. - An additional funding request for a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) study that included a raised median on South Greeley Highway as its preferred method of traffic control was shot down by the City Council at its March 26 meeting after it received an earful of negative public comment from irate residents and business owners.
The additional cost overruns request of $20,050, an amendment to Professional Services Agreement/Contract No. 5613 between the MPO and out-of-state contractor Felsberg, Holt & Ullevig, based in Centennial, Colo., would have come on top of the original $87,950 already paid for the initial agreement, which went into effect on Nov. 10, 2010. The amendment offered the statement that the “planning work for [the] South Greeley Highway Corridor Plan has required supplemental work to be conducted outside the original Scope of Work to complete the corridor study” as its justification for asking for a 22.8 percent hike in funding.
The South Greeley Highway Corridor Plan, developed by the MPO as a result of perceived and estimated corridor traffic increases, was started originally “to help determine what transportation safety principles and infrastructure solutions will apply to the corridor, the locations of these solutions, and what levels of enhancements are desired and appropriate.” The plan called for a raised median running up and down South Greeley Highway from Fox Farm Road to the north and Julianna Road to the south, a stretch of approximately three miles.
Local residents and business owners, however, weren’t buying into that idea at all. Pat Crank, legal representative for Maury Brown, the owner of the Town & Country retail complex on S. Greeley, stated that such a median would cause many problems for local business owners who can currently have their properties accessed continuously from either direction of travel by the center-turn lane that now runs up and down most of the length of the highway.
“Mr. Brown and other business owners,” Crank said, “are deeply concerned that the type of highway control structures presently envisioned by the South Greeley Highway plan will have a serious and dramatic effect on their customers’ ability to readily access their businesses.”
That feedback, Crank said, was given to the MPO during a series of stakeholder meetings conducted as a part of the plan to garner public opinion.
“In response to complaints by both Mr. Brown and other business owners on South Greeley Highway regarding those raised medians and the limited access they are going to cause to their businesses,” Crank said, “a new set of plans was put out. What the MPO and their Colorado design firm came up with was, they would condemn and build roads along the backsides of South Greeley Highway. They would maintain a raised median but allow folks to exit off the highway down some east-west thoroughfare, and then have them drive along these newly-to-be-created roads along the backside of the businesses.”
The layout of the proposed access roads, however, Crank said, was less than optimal. “One plan actually had a road running between two of Mr. Brown’s buildings. Their idea was to condemn a road through that, and build access there.”
Nor did the raised-median concept disappear by the time the MPO held its final stakeholder meeting on Nov. 30, 2011, Crank said. “Despite all of the repeated complaints and public comment, the plans once again clearly showed a raised median.”
In discussing the breakdown of costs represented by the MPO study’s cost overruns adjustment request [Page 3 of the amendment agreement - Ed.], Crank noted that the amendment only called for an additional 26 hours of possible project re-design to the updated plan of Nov. 30.
“It doesn’t appear to me that there is a serious commitment to go back and listen to the residents and businesses of South Cheyenne and design a plan that works for them,” Crank said. “And unless that plan takes those kinds of comments and complaints into account, it’s really not much of a plan. There has to be some other alternative rather than building that median down the center of South Greeley Highway.”
Nor was Mark Shubert, owner of Action Automotive, another business on South Greeley Highway, any happier with either the current MPO plan or its cost overruns request.
“To my knowledge, no business owner has ever been contacted,” Shubert said. “I know Maury Brown wasn’t, and I was never contacted prior to the first stakeholder meeting... We were totally left out, from the very beginning, until that first stakeholder meeting. By then the MPO had come through with their plan, and we were supposed to blindly approve it.”
But the plan, Shubert said, “made no sense. Many of the businesspeople out there consider this whole process as a total waste of time and taxpayer dollars. The median plan was totally ridiculous. South Greeley Highway is not South College Drive in Fort Collins. So, I begin to wonder what was achieved by going through this process? Nothing whatsoever. This plan is seriously flawed.”
As a state highway, South Greeley Highway would normally fall under the control of the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), Shubert said.
“But I’ve spoken with WYDOT, and WYDOT tells me that this plan... Is not even on their radar screen, and it’s not even on their future planning agenda,” Shubert said. “They haven’t even given it any thought. MPO’s out there all by themselves, making all these plans, when WYDOT isn’t even considering it.”
Regarding MPO’s additional funding request, Shubert had questions as to its purpose. “Why are we continuing to spend more money, this $20,000 you’re supposed to approve tonight? What are we achieving by continuing to spend more money? Whose jobs are we continuing to fund? ... We should put this entire plan to bed tonight. Don’t give them any more funds.”
City employee John Palmer was next to provide comment. “It sounds to me as if the people behind the study and the MPO have a preconceived notion of what they want down this road,” Palmer said, “and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to matter how much more money we spend on study after study - they're just going to continue to not talk to people, to continue to not listen to anybody, and they’re going to continue to come back with the same plan, as they’ve been doing all along.”
Regarding the public hearings, Palmer said, “they are just a vehicle to show that ‘Yeah, we were listening.’ And then they keep coming back with the same plan anyway. So, I would say, let’s not throw away another $20,000 so that we can get another study that says the same thing, and doesn’t listen to anybody any more this time than it did last time.”
At that point, Tom Mason, MPO Director, voiced some opinions of his own. “This project was identified by the City, County, and State, the people who are involved with the MPO, to look at the corridor, because it does have issues,” Mason said. “When you talk to some of the rest of the general public, people do have issues with this corridor... And we’re trying to address these problems. We’ve had additional meetings with the property owners along the corridor, and have taken their points and considerations to heart.”
Indeed, Mason said, the additional funding request by the contractor was largely due to the inordinate amount of time the project planners spent collecting public opinion. “Because of the time that we have spent, going above and beyond the call, visiting with the people that work and live up and down the corridor,” Mason said, “we have expended the contract, which is why we are looking for a contract amendment... To finalize their work and provide a plan to the City, County and WYDOT.”
Mason acknowledged that not everybody would be pleased with the projected results. “There might be parts of the plan that aren’t acceptable to some people,” Mason said, “but we’re looking out for the overall good for the corridor.”
Next, Councilwoman Amber Ash asked Mason, “Do the proposed revisions still have medians in the middle of the road?”
“Medians are a solution, a traffic safety solution, for any corridor,” Mason said, and launched into a discussion of corridor access points, traffic patterns and the need for the City and County to plat north-south roads between Avenue C and Walterscheid Blvd.
The plan, Mason said, “is not just about building medians; it provides a whole variety of things.”
Regarding the proposed north-south feeder roads, Councilman Jimmy Valdez asked: “So, you’re going to be forcing people to give up their property to build these service roads?”
“I don’t foresee any condemnation processes,” Mason said. “Again, it’s a state highway. If it comes to that, where the transportation department needs to get additional right of way because the traffic demand requires it, then that’s something that WYDOT would be dealing with. Hopefully, we don’t get to that. We don’t want to get to that.”
“It sounds to me like that’s what we’re leading into,” Valdez said. “Six months ago, you showed us a map, and they [the feeder roads] were going right through the backsides of South Greeley Highway, on both sides. Is that still what you’re planning?”
“As I’ve explained,” Mason said, “We need to... Have a policy in place that says that when we can, we need to get additional roads so that we can have circulation between blocks that doesn’t currently exist. We did have a map that showed... Ideas... As to what that could look like. Well, people took exception to a map showing these ideas, so I think we’re taking that map out - we’re going to provide a policy statement instead that says we should do that.”
Next, Councilman Patrick Collins had the floor. “I’m still not sure how I’m going to vote on this,” Collins said. “I heard a simple question asked by Miss Ash, ‘Are you still planning on having medians?’ and I never heard an answer. So, I don’t know how to vote. If you’re going to do medians, and we’re not going to make any changes, then why are we spending another $20,000? If you’re going to lay out a plan, and that’s the plan, then why would we spend $20,000 more? ... So, I’m going to ask that simple question again: What are we going to do? What is your plan?”
“I can’t say completely that we’re going to take medians out of the plan,” Mason said. “It is a traffic solution... So the discussion of medians will be in the plan, but it’s reduced in importance in what we’re showing, demonstrating and talking about.”
“If we don’t approve this contract,” Collins said, “do we still owe them any additional money?”
“They’ve - ” Mason said.
“- It’s a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer,” Collins said. “Do we owe them any more money?”
“We would not be providing them any more money,” Mason said.
“So, if we don’t approve this contract,” Collins said, “they have not done any work above and beyond the original $87,000? And we don’t owe them any more money?”
“That’s correct,” Mason said.
Next, Shubert had more public comment to offer. “This reminds me of the old saying about ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you,’” Shubert said. “When, behind the scenes, they’re going to kill your business. This plan does not present us with any alternatives. We didn’t consider speed limits. We didn’t consider stoplights... We didn’t consider siphoning traffic off on College at the intersection of College Drive and South Greeley Highway... And you want to spend more money on these guys? As a private businessman, I sure as heck wouldn’t; it’s a complete waste of taxpayer money... Too many things have been left undone for professionals. If I were one of these gentlemen, I’d be embarrassed.”
Bob McCue, an employee of Brown, had words to offer as well. “Mr. Mason was telling us what great, professional consultants we hired,” McCue said, “but to ask for an additional $20,000 on a contract for work you already agreed to do for $87,000 is crazy... I’d hold the consultants’ feet to the fire and say, ‘You were going to provide this report, this is what your proposal was, we told you what the deliverable was, so don’t come back at the 11th hour and say, Gee, we need more money.’”
After public discussion was complete Councilman Jim Brown - proceeding forward as Chairman of the Finance Committee and based on that committee’s “Yes” recommendation at its March 19 meeting - made a motion to approve the contract amendment. With no second to be had from any of the rest of the Governing Body members, however, the motion failed, and killed any further funding expenditure on the contract.
LCSD1 “Bullying Hurts” Contract Now Expired
Board Set To Eventually Decide On
Continuation Of Contract In Executive Session,
A Violation Of Wyoming State Statutes
By Bradley Harrington
CHEYENNE, WYO. - The Laramie County School District #1’s (LCSD1) 30-day contract for bullying ombudsman services with Marvin and Darlene Nash’s “Bullying Hurts” organization has expired as of Feb. 24, and no immediate plans appear to be afoot to renew it.
The contract was initially set up by LCSD1 Superintendent Dr. Mark Stock in the aftermath of 13-year-old Carey Junior High student Alexander Frye’s bullying suicide on Jan. 1, and was announced at a Cheyenne bullying town hall action meeting on Jan. 31. The contract was implemented to provide “Bullying Hurts” services as a third-party resource for parents and students, with reports on any incidents liaisoned back to the district.
“As of this time, there isn’t any contract,” said Marvin Nash. “It was over on Feb. 24. I met with Dr. Stock on Feb. 23, and he told me that any potential contract renewal is now an issue for the district board to decide in an executive session.
“He also told me,” Nash said, “that some of the board members didn’t like getting a large number of letters of endorsement - that they felt like they were being bullied themselves. I guess a number of residents have been writing the board telling them that they thought our program was a good program and a good process. I responded that I didn’t know anything about anybody writing any letters, and that it was certainly nothing we instigated. If independent citizens want to write letters, that’s their business.”
The problem with contract renewal discussions in executive, closed-to-the-public sessions, however, said Jim Angell, Director of the Wyoming Press Association, is that only certain portions of those discussions are legally considered to be permissible for executive sessions under Wyoming State Statutes.
“Some aspects of such discussions fall within the exceptions granted by statute, whereas others do not,” Angell said. “To simply discuss whether or not to renew a contract, which is not actually a negotiating session, must be done in a public meeting; the board cannot simply decide on whether or not to renew a contract in executive session.”
The Wyoming statutes covering public meetings are: “All meetings of a governing body of an agency are public meetings, open to the public at all times, except as otherwise provided.” (Wyoming Title 16-4-403 (a).)
“This statute establishes the overall parameters that any Wyoming governing body must operate under,” said Angell. “All meetings must be public, except for some very narrowly-defined exceptions, and those exceptions are covered by Section 405.”
That statute, Wyoming Title 16-4-405 (a), states that “A governing body of an agency may hold executive sessions not open to the public,” with the second exemption, (ii), being: “To consider the appointment, employment, right to practice or dismissal of a public officer, professional person or employee, or to hear complaints or charges brought against an employee, professional person or officer, unless the employee, professional person or officer requests a public hearing. The governing body may exclude from any public or private hearing during the examination of a witness, any or all other witnesses in the matter being investigated. Following the hearing or executive session, the governing body may deliberate on its decision in executive sessions.”
“What this means,” Angell said, “is that the board can talk, in that session, about Nash’s qualifications, his performance, etc., etc. They can ‘consider’ it - but, once having done so, they have to at that point come out of executive session, and that gets back to the main point of the law, and consider the decision on the contract renewal itself in a public forum.”
Regarding the question of whether Nash is still working with LCSD1 parents and students, Nash said, “Of course, and I told Dr. Stock that. I’m going to take care of the kids, I don’t care whether I have a contract or not. I told him it’s certainly not going to look very professional if I get a call and I say, ‘You know what, I don’t work for the district anymore, so you just need to call Dr. Stock instead.’ Dr. Stock acknowledged that was true, and asked me that if I could continue to act as an advocate while this gets worked out, that would be great.”
The Nashes said that throughout the term of the contract, they had received anywhere from two to five calls daily from either parents or students in regard to bullying issues, and said those calls have continued since the contract expired. “We continue to work on those calls in order to help both the parents and the students,” Nash said. “Just last night [Feb. 29], I received a very critical call from a parent, whose child had told them they had heard another student in school say that they were considering suicide over a conflict with a third student.
“After talking with that parent,” Nash said, “I immediately made four phone calls, two of which were to the school and the police. One of those calls led to contact with the parent of the potentially-suicidal child who made the comment, and within 45 minutes, the first two parts of our three-part program - ‘notify, identify and rectify’ - were in place.
“It’s in regard to the third part - rectification - where we really need to start changing the dynamics,” Nash said. “The rectifying is ongoing, and it ultimately goes back to the parents on knowing how to deal with these issues, even though this situation actually started at the school. What mechanism do we have to now help the parents deal with a child that, at some point in time, made that kind of a comment?
“I’m a child advocate,” said Nash, “but I really think this is an area where all parents need to become child advocates. This particular incident - which occurred at one of our junior high schools - happened to come through Darlene and I, but maybe the next time someone might just call 911. A lot of people, however, especially the kids themselves, are reluctant to do that; they want to stay anonymous, and that’s where the ombudsman program is so effective.
“We often find, additionally,” said Nash, “that with a lot of our notification systems, you just don’t have our kind of follow-up, that ‘human’ involvement. Take a look at the shooting that just happened in Chardon, Ohio. That kid wrote stuff; people saw stuff; people knew things; but nobody took that next step.”
“One of the problems we have here,” said Nash, “is that educators tend to talk education, and parents tend to talk parent talk. We really need an extra component of communication here - and that, too, is where the ombudsman program comes in.”
Regarding the dollar amount of the contract, Nash said that it had been stipulated at $10,000. “We also came in about $500-$600 under budget,” Nash said.
As for the expiration of the contract, Superintendent Stock said, “We are evaluating the results of the ombudsman program right now. It was a short-term contract, and was really a kind of ‘pilot’ thing, where we were trying to look at this idea of a third-party ombudsman as a means of working through and trying to resolve some of the issues. It had a lot of good comments - and it also had some of the issues and concerns we would consider to be normal in evaluating a new program.
“If we do anything beyond what we’ve done so far,” Stock said, “we would have to go through an ‘RFP’ [Request For Proposal] process, legally, and put it out to other agencies and see if there’s anyone interested in competing for a contract like that. The board hasn’t made any decisions on what to do with that yet, but it certainly will be discussed at some point in time.
“Right now the program is completed,” Stock said, “and Marvin is finishing up with a family he’s been working with; after that, we’ll see where it goes.
“Under Wyoming statute,” Stock said, “if the district hires a vendor to provide any kind of product or service of $25,000 or greater, that’s a process that has to be put out to RFP in order to provide competitive bidding in our capitalist environment. That allows other agencies or individuals, who think they have something to offer, an opportunity to put together a bid proposal and a price structure. After that, a committee of people goes through the proposals and tries to see which one is the most effective and efficient in meeting the need. It then goes to the school board for a decision, and that’s the process we are required to go through whether its architects, attorneys, or whatever.
“Once a contract has been approved by the board,” Stock said, “ the board has the ability to renew it if there aren’t any changes. It’s not necessary, at that point, to return to the RFP process year after year, but you do have to do it when you first put out an initial contract.
“Any contract that is under $10,000, however,” Stock said, “doesn’t even have to get quotes. In other words, if I’m looking for a product or service, and I find someone that can do this for me, and they can come in and do it and it’s under $10,000, it doesn’t require anything other than sitting down and signing the paper with that person.
“At this point,” Stock said, “the board hasn’t made any decision on whether they wish to use the remaining $15,000 and continue that ombudsman process, or whether they just want to wait to see how things go.”
In regard to any scheduled meeting on making a decision on renewing the ombudsman contract to use that remaining $15,000, which would not require any RFP, Stock said no specific date had been set. “It is a contract, however, and the district is in the middle of several other contract negotiations at this time, so if the board members wish to get into it we may end up discussing it in executive session Monday night [March 5].
“We’re haven’t really finished getting our feedback yet,” Stock said. “We’ve gotten comments from parents here and there, but we haven’t really sat down with principals and talked about pros and cons and that kind of thing yet.”
“I don’t really think it’s a question of ‘needing feedback,’ Nash said. “The results of what we’ve accomplished in this last month are clearly there for all to see, no matter what the principals might have to say about it. The board has the power to act to continue this process and move forward, and the fact that they’ve chosen not to do so says a lot. I understand completely about the need for an RFP for anything $25,000 or over, I do understand the need for proper channels, but there’s enough money left in that non-RFP budget item to fund the ombudsman program for another 45 days. It’s almost like the district is saying, OK, we ‘did something’ when community pressure was being applied, but now that the community outrage over Alexander’s death has died down, we’re going to continue to ignore the ongoing problem.
“The problem is,” Nash said, “how do we protect our kids tonight, tomorrow night, or the next night, while the district board figures out what process they want to go for?
“The thing the district’s missing,” said Darlene Nash, “is: What’s going to happen the next time something like Alexander’s suicide happens again? The district jumped into action when the community was up-in-arms about Alexander’s death, but now that things have gotten calmer they’re slipping back into the mode of thinking no further action is needed. What the district’s not seeing is that what happened just yesterday - which we handled out of contract - could have been the next Alexander Frye.”
“What happened there,” said Marvin Nash, “was that because of community awareness - because of articles like you’re publishing in the paper, and radio shows like Dave Chaffin’s ‘Morning Zone’ - a mother took it upon herself to get engaged.”
“People are doing exactly what they should be doing,” said Darlene Nash. “That little boy who told his mother yesterday what he’d overheard, showed more courage than most of the adults in this town. He did what every one of us in this community should be doing, and that’s looking out for each other.”
“The bottom line for us,” said Marvin Nash, speaking of himself and his wife Darlene, “is that there’s work that needs to be done, and we’ll just keep doing it, whether we have a contract in place or not. This is not a dollars and cents issue; it’s about providing the best that we possibly can for these kids.”
City Council's Sixth Penny Prioritization
Procedures Stir Controversy, Questions
CHEYENNE, WYO. - Current events regarding the approval path of the Sixth Penny project list have been embroiled in controversy as of late, to the point where at least one Governing Body member, Councilman Jack Spiker of Ward 2, has questioned the legality of the prioritization process, and tempers appear to be fraying a bit in many directions.
The project list has been winding its way through the approval process for several months now, with several special meetings having been held throughout December and January for the Governing Body to acquire public comment and input regarding what items should be on the list, and the list will ultimately be slated for Laramie-County-wide voter consideration on the Sixth Penny ballot during the Primary election of Aug. 21.
At its Jan. 9th meeting, the Governing Body made the decision by a 6-4 vote to reject prioritization of any of the items on the Sixth Penny project list, acting instead to move to place the entire list before the voters to sort out come Aug. 21.
That list, coming in at a total of $96,531,157, consisted of the following: “Lower Capitol Basin Life-Safety Public Improvements” ($4.8 million); “Landfill Equipment” ($3 million); “Public Safety Building” ($25 million); “Christensen Overpass” ($1.5 million); “Aerial Fire Truck Grant Match” ($600,000); “Municipal Pool Repair and Renovation” ($5 million); “Greenway Construction” ($2.8 million); “Botanic Gardens Construction (New Conservatory)” ($15 million); “Recreation Center” ($33 million); “Airport Terminal” ($4,831,157); and “17th Street Pedestrian Lighting and Beautification” ($1 million).
The next step of the process was a Jan. 19 meeting of the Laramie County Specific Purpose Sales Tax Committee (comprised of representatives from all five of Laramie County’s government bodies of Laramie County, Cheyenne, Pine Bluffs, Burns and Albin), at which it was determined that, overall, the five government bodies in question would submit Sixth Penny ballot measures for: Laramie County, $70,096,850; Cheyenne, $96,531,157; Pine Bluffs, just over $10 million; Burns, just over $5 million; and Albin, $3.2 million, for a grand total of $185 million. The overall consensus at the meeting was that even though the magnitude of the costs of all of these projects put Sixth Penny collection procedures out at 10 years or more, raising issues of bonding and inflationary costs, it should be left up to the voters to decide what projects should be approved and which denied.
Prior to the Sales Tax Committee’s meeting, previous caps on Sixth Penny expenditures had been placed at around $90-$100 million, keeping tax collection boundaries within five years, and Albin was the lone dissenting vote in raising project list costs past this amount. “We are voted in by the people to do what is best,” Albin Mayor Kelly Krakow said at the meeting. “I think this sends a bad signal that we don’t care about the economy and the value of money. I think we’re putting the vote in jeopardy.”
And, indeed, the following week, at its Jan. 26 meeting, the Sales Tax Committee abruptly reversed its previous position and decided to cap its project list at $105 million after all, limiting Cheyenne to a total of $57 million to spend on Sixth Penny projects - a reduction of nearly 50 percent.
In the wake of that decision, and with the next Sales Tax Committee meeting scheduled for Feb. 7, this left Cheyenne’s Governing Body in the position of having to scramble quickly to prioritize its Sixth Penny project list in a hurry, and that’s where the controversies started to heat up.
At that point, early in the morning of Jan. 27 after the Sales Tax Committee Meeting of the night before, Council President Patrick Collins sent out the following email to all members of the Governing Body:
“Council Members: The 6th penny sales tax committee met tonight. The committee decided that $185,000,000 was too large. The cost of interest or inflation on construction would result in years of tax collection that would just go to pay interest. The committee decided to limit the tax to $100,000,000 to be split between the five governing bodies, and $5,000,000 for the airport board that will be sponsored by all five governing bodies. The dollars will be split by historic percentages, Albin 2 percent, Burns 3 percent, Pine Bluffs 5 percent, Laramie County 33 percent, and Cheyenne 57 percent. That gives us $57,000,000 to place on the ballot.
“We have learned that we cannot rotate the ballot propositions as the software won’t allow tax propositions to be rotated,” Collins’ email continued. “We have decided to pull the propositions out of a hat to determine order on the ballot. The committee is going to meet on Feb. 7 to finalize the ballot. This means I will need your priority list by Monday. I will average all the propositions and let you know how they turn out.
“Next question would be if we need to have a COW [“Committee of the Whole” meeting - Ed.] and Council meeting to discuss the results, or are we going to go with highest-ranked projects. If we are going to have special meetings, that decision should be made right away so we can give proper public notice. The drop dead dates are: The Commissioners need to start their process by March 28th, so the cities can introduce the resolutions on the 9th of April; committee on the week of the 16th; and finalized at the Governing Body on April 23rd. By law, the language must be finished and presented to the public by May 1st.”
In submitting their lists through email back to Collins, a few Councilors had some issues. Councilor Don Pierson said, “I do not agree with the joint committee’s decision to reduce our projects as I think several projects are going to be eliminated from the ballot and upset a lot of voters. That could have a very negative impact on the overall outcome of the final ballot. I still believe that the citizens would’ve taken care of keeping the projects in the $100 to $125 million range with their votes while still being able to select the projects they wanted, not what 10 of us think should be their priorities.”
Spiker, in initially submitting his list on Jan. 27, said, “I feel uncomfortable putting this list together without public involvement. I hope we ultimately have a resolution that can be debated and shared with the public.”
By Jan. 29, Collins had his priority list assembled and emailed out to the rest of the Governing Body: “The following is how the priority list turned out. We each rated the projects from 1 to 11, with the highest ranked project getting 1 point, second highest getting 2 and so on. I totaled up the points for each project and put them in the order that they finished from top to bottom.
“Public Safety Building, 26, $25 million; Capitol Basin Flood Control, 33, $4,800,000; Botanic Gardens, 39, $16,000,000; Police Radios, 46, $1,000,000; Landfill Equipment, 59, $3,000,000; Municipal Pool, 67, $5,000,000; Christensen Overpass Planning, 68, $1,500,000; Recreation Center, 68, $33,000,000; Aerial Fire Truck, 84, $600,000; 17th Street Lighting, 84, $1,900,000; Greenway, 86, $2,800,000.
“The total dollar amount through the municipal pool is $54,800,000,” Collins’ email said. “The Christensen Overpass and Recreation Center tied with 68 points. With $2,200,000 left in our allocation, we can fully fund the overpass project, and would still have $700,000. The next project on the list is a tie between the Aerial Fire Truck and 17th Street Lighting. We could fully fund the Fire Truck, or a block of the 17th Street Lighting Project, or spend $700,000 on the Recreation Center. I will need your feedback on how to allocate the money after the municipal pool.
“It is the consensus from the feedback I have received,” concludes Collins’ email, “that we have had enough meetings on the 6th penny. Once we have decided how to spend the remaining dollars, I will forward our priorities to the county- wide committee.”
By that time, Spiker’s position against the prioritization process had reached the point where he said, “I don't know how we can go from adopting a resolution in public (6-4) to now deciding these critical issues behind our computers. I don't know how most of you voted and there is no public input in this final process. I believe a vote in public would have had different results. I'm not going down this road anymore.”
Pierson, too, by that time, was uncomfortable with the open-to-each-other nature of the prioritization process, recognizing that it gave leverage to Councilors who hadn’t developed their lists yet to know what the priorities were of those who had: “Hi Patrick. Obviously I have been dreading reading this email from you because I knew what was happening with the number system and that two or three 10’s and 11’s votes were going to kill a certain project. So be it. We are upsetting a lot of people who all vote and I feel we will see repercussions from our actions.”
By the morning of Jan. 30, Spiker said he called City Attorney Dan White to inform him of the prioritization proceedings over the weekend, and asked him for his legal opinion on the legal validity of the process. By that afternoon, the City had issued the following media release:
“There will be a special Meeting of the Cheyenne City Council’s Committee of the Whole on Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012 beginning at 6 p.m. to review and provide a recommendation on the following Resolution: A Resolution repealing Resolution No. 5349 and determining and prioritizing projects to be proposed to the 1% Specific Purpose Sales Tax Committee for potential inclusion on the 1% Specific Purpose ballot proposition to be presented to qualified electors of Laramie County during the Aug. 21, 2012 primary election.
“A Special Meeting of the Governing Body (Mayor and City Council members) of the City of Cheyenne,” the release said, “will be held on Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012 beginning at 7 p.m. (or following adjournment of the special meeting of the City Council’s Committee of the Whole) to consider adoption of the Resolution.”
On Jan. 31, Collins emailed the Governing Body: “I still need to hear from a few of you in regards to how to allocate the remaining $700,000. The 17th Street Lighting Project and the Aerial Fire Truck had the same priority rating. Mr. White is putting together the resolution for the meeting on Thursday evening, and I would like to give him guidance on which project should be included. Please let me know your thoughts on how to allocate the remaining dollars.”
On Feb. 1, White issued his legal opinion which, after citing the parameters of the prioritization process situation and reviewing applicable case law, drew the following conclusion: “In summary, the events which occurred over the weekend were nothing more than informal discussions and did not result in any official action. Even if those discussions were deemed to constitute official action, a new consideration of the prioritized 6th penny list is going to occur at the special meeting this week. The special meeting and public consideration of the matter will cure violations of the Public Meetings Act, if any occurred.”
When asked for his opinion on White’s position on the alleged illegality of the handling of the prioritization process, Spiker said, “Because the City’s chosen to hold a special meeting afterwards, I guess that means they aren’t violating any laws - but it doesn’t change the manner in which the original process occurred, with no intention at that time of rectifying such actions when the prioritization process was being conducted.”
When asked about Spiker’s initial position on the illegality of the priority list procedures, Collins said, “In past administrations, we never had as much public input as we had on this Sixth Penny process; and I think we went out of our way to expand the project list. It was determined at the county-wide committee, however, that a list of that magnitude would involve tremendously large interest payments - and, as stewards of the taxpayers’ money, we didn’t feel it would be appropriate to spend $60 million or $70 million on interest. So, that forced us back to the situation where we had to come back and prioritize those projects.”
“At that point,” Collins said, “everyone rated their projects. I think that process was a fair process, and that what a lot of people are upset about is that their project didn’t make it. There was never any intent on my part to have an ‘illegal’ meeting and keep the public out of the process here - but I needed to write a resolution, and how am I supposed to do that if I don’t have feedback from the members? By acquiring that feedback, I was able to write the resolution, and it will be placed before the Governing Body this evening.” [Thursday, Feb. 2nd, at press time. -Ed.]
True to the predictions of the Councilors who made them, a number of people were upset with the prioritization process, Rec Center supporters in particular. In an email to the Governing Body and County Commissioners, Rec Center support Wallace Ericson said, “I am extremely disappointed in the list of priorities apparently put forth by the city council as referenced in the newspaper this morning. This 6th penny process from the beginning appears to have been designed to keep the rec center off the ballot. Even the vote on prioritization via email was not held out in the open.”
Rec Center supporter Brian Tyrrell, owner of Tyrell-Doyle Honda, said, “I’m disappointed that the City would allow a vote dealing with the tax issues on which we pay. If Mr. Collins doesn’t want the public to have input, we shouldn’t pay the tax. Personally, I think there were some underhanded things going on here, and we ought to just start all over from ground zero. Let all the projects come back to life and let the voters decide. Has democracy finally died in Laramie County?”
Rec Center supporter Matthew Pope, President of First Interstate Bank, said, “I’m really frustrated with this whole process. We spent months in preparation, and then to have it all come down to a weekend of emails? This was extremely disappointing, and it wouldn’t be too strong to say it was a major letdown.”
Menards Land Sale Clears City Council
With All Title Issues Resolved, It’s A Done Deal
At $7.38 Million
By Bradley Harrington
CHEYENNE, WYO. - After several months of start-and-stop negotiations, property title hurdles, postponements and pro-con disagreements among City Council members, Cheyenne’s Governing Body voted 7-3 at its Nov. 28 meeting to finalize the sale of 23.87 acres of city park land to Menards, Inc. for a total package price of $7.38 million.
The sale package includes $5,353,999 for the land itself, situated on the southeast corner of Dell Range Boulevard and Windmill Road, along with an additional $2,028,800 for public infrastructure developments.
City Planning Director Matt Ashby said those development agreements would include: “A parking lot at Cahill park; construction of Moran Ave. from Dell Range Blvd. to Rock Springs St., including an eight-foot multi-use trail on the east side; the construction of Rock Springs St. from Windmill Rd. to Moran Ave.; the extension of public water and sewer to the southeast corner of the lot; the installation of a traffic signal at Moran Ave. and Dell Range Blvd.; and the construction of a Greenway underpass at that Moran Ave. extension.”
Total project value, Ashby said, “is estimated at $8 million. Additionally, the pad site potential development along the frontage of the property is estimated at approximately $6 million. Potential employment at the Menards store is estimated at between 200-250 jobs, and the front pad retail sites’ estimated employment is 150-200 jobs. There has been discussion of a potential distribution center by Menards representatives as well, valued at $35 million to $60 million, and estimated at 250 jobs.”
Menards Real Estate Representative Scott Nuttelman, additionally, made the points that the construction project, set to begin in the spring of 2012 at a cost of $10 million, would also provide construction jobs during the building period; bring in further tax revenue for the City; stop the outflow of at least $1 million per year to the Menards stores in Casper and Scotts Bluff, Neb.; and save the City millions by having water and sewer services brought closer to the proposed recreation center site.
“I think we have a package that has a lot to offer,” Nuttelman said, “and if you’re willing to approve the sale of this land to Menards, we’re going to be partners for the long term.”
Title problems for the land sale were the biggest hurdle to leap in the last few months, due to a co-investment on the parcel of land by both the City and Laramie County. Originally purchased from the Veteran’s Administration in the 1930s’ with a $4,000 investment on the part of the City and a $5,000 investment on the part of the County, the County Commissioners asserted a five-ninths claim to the property back in August, effectively freezing all negotiations, which had been authorized for Mayor Rick Kaysen to pursue by the City Council back in July.
On Sept. 6th the County Commissioners ceded the land to the City, provided that any proceeds from the sale were to be used for Parks and Recreation, but the Laramie County Abstract and Title Company had taken the position, according to City Attorney Dan White, that “the County’s potential claims against the property constitute an exception to insurable title.”
At the meeting, however, White was able to state that those issues had been cleared up: “The County Commissioners, last week, executed an unconditional quit-claim deed conveying to the City all of the County’s right, title and interest in Section 28, which is the entire section given by the V.A. Hospital to the City of Cheyenne in 1948, to be used for public purposes.”
“The City now has unconditional title for the entirety of Section 28, including this particular parcel,” White said. “We provided a copy of that deed to the title insurance company, and they have cleared that matter from their title insurance commitments. So, at this point, the City has the ability to clear full and marketable title to Menards should this sale go forward.”
Another bone of contention over the last few months for the sale of the property has been the estimated value of the land. Last appraised in 2006 at $6 to $7 per square foot, placing a value-range of $6.23 million on the low end to $7.27 million on the high end, some City Councilors - Councilman Jack Spiker in particular - were of the opinion that the original offer price of $4.5-$5.5 million by Menards back in May was too low. Menards had responded at that time that depressed economic conditions and indicators warranted the price drop, and the original land appraiser had stated that the uniqueness of the land specifications, coupled with those depressed indicators, made a new appraisal unfeasible.
The seven “Yes” votes for the resolution were Councilmen Don Pearson, Jack Spiker, Jim Brown, Patrick Collins and Mayor Kaysen, along with Councilwomen Georgia Broyles and Amber Ash. The “No” votes were Councilmen Jimmy Valdez, Sean Allen and Council President Dr. Mark Rinne.
Spiker, originally against the sale, said at the Nov. 21 Finance Committee meeting that the number of jobs and the likelihood of a potential distribution center changed his mind. “I now support the
sale,” Spiker said, adding that he was
never opposed to Menards coming into Cheyenne, “but that I thought, and continue to think, the land is worth more than what Menards is offering.”
Broyles shared Spiker’s approval. “I’m speaking in favor of this sale. I believe that Menards has followed the typical procedure that the City offers to any other developer, and I believe that it would also send a poor message to other developers that want to come to our community, if they see this as the typical way we treat new companies that want to come to Cheyenne. I have the majority of my constituents supporting this, so, for those reasons and many others, I’m supporting this sale.”
Allen, however, indicated that he had also received a large amount of support from his constituents for taking the opposite position. “I think the property should have been reserved for public use,” he said. “Sometimes you just have to call a strike a strike, and I think that’s what I’ve been doing this whole time. I think us selling this property is a strike.”
Valdez stated that he was also opposed to the sale, unless Menards would make a commitment for the potential distribution center. “Are you willing to put that in writing,” he asked Nuttelman, “or is that just talk?”
“No, it’s not just talk,” Nuttelman said. “This is a logical location for such a center. Two major freeways, two major railroads and proximity to an existing store. All I can say is that if there’s a store here, it’s an option that makes more sense than any other option out there. But I can’t and won’t make a commitment I have no authority to guarantee, much as I’d like to receive your vote.”
“And I appreciate that,” Valdez said.
Rinne, also a “No” vote, voiced his opposition as well. “I’ve had several objections to this all along,” he said, “and the primary one is that we’re selling park land. This land is close to the geographic center of town, and we are not going to be acquiring any more land in that area. Now, if we acquire any more park land, it’s going to be on the outskirts of town.”
“I also don’t like the fact that we do not have an appraisal,” Rinne said. “Well, we do, but it’s five years old. We asked the appraiser that did that if he would update it, but he said he wasn’t able to do it. We dropped it at that point and didn’t bother to see if another appraiser could give us an appraisal there. So, Menards comes along and says, ‘Well, the market’s diminished, the land’s not worth what it once was, this is what we think its worth,’ and we pretty much accepted that. I don’t think any of us would sell our own property along those lines. We just wouldn’t do it… I don’t think we did our due diligence and I don’t think we were good stewards of the City’s property. I think we fell short of our responsibilities in that area.”
Collins, however, offered a rebuttal. “When I listen to Dr. Rinne’s comments,” he said, “in some ways I agree with him. But when I look at this neighborhood, it’s a pretty mature neighborhood. It doesn’t look to me like there’s a lot of room for additional growth and housing there. And we already have a nice neighborhood park that has all the amenities that we’re looking for. There’s not a need for a bigger park there. So the question is, what do we do with that land? And it seems to me that if we can take that land and leverage our dollars for parks and facilities that are needed elsewhere, that’s what we should do.”
Pearson, additionally, echoed the same points. “I think I know how I’m going to vote on this tonight, and I’m going to support it. The main thing that’s put me over on the side of selling the property is that the proceeds don’t go to the general fund, but to Parks and Recreation projects. Where else is Parks and Recreation going to get $5 million in the next 20 years? To improve our existing Parks and Recreation facilities? They’re not. This is a way to help them.”
Besides the three “No” votes from Governing Body members, some members of the public expressed misgivings as well.
“I question the wisdom of bringing another big box store to Cheyenne,” said resident Jeanne Tucker, pointing out that current large home improvement stores and other small businesses would be adversely affected by Menards’ entry into the Cheyenne market. “If we add 200 jobs but lose 200 jobs, we’re just on a round-robin,” she said.
Resident Tim Dryden, however, representing the Cheyenne Girls Softball Association, was supportive of the sale. “We were very pleased to hear that when this proposed sale came about, the Parks and Recreation Department listed as one of their major agenda items, for the use of the funds from this sale, to build a championship-quality field at the Converse Softball complex,” Dryden said. “We want you to know that we really support that.”
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty’s Torch.
City Land Seizure Postponed Amidst Property Negotiations
Contamination Questions Also Factored
Into Delay Of Action
By Bradley Harrington
CHEYENNE, WYO. - Cheyenne’s Governing Body voted 6-4 to further postpone eminent domain proceedings on the Hollywood Video property that has been interfering with moving forward on the Pershing Roundabout project at its Oct. 24 meeting, with nearly all the involved parties either asking for or in support of such a postponement.
The postponement was requested by Assistant City Engineer Nathan Beauheim, who advised that a meeting had been held with Alex Davison, the attorney representing 19th And Converse, LLC, the Hollywood Video property owner, and that negotiations were proceeding in regard to issues of property appraisals, contamination on the property and the DEQ’s subsequent involvement in that area, and a possible re-consideration of a potential re-arrangement of the roundabout project’s intersection design. Beauheim asked that the postponement be made until the City Council’s Nov. 28 meeting.
Mayor Rick Kaysen made it clear that a postponement to that date would mean that the issue would then be referred back to the Finance Committee meeting of Dec. 5, which would then place governing body re-consideration of the resolution to the City Council meeting date of Dec. 12.
Kaysen also supported the postponement; in a memo to the rest of the governing body on the morning of the Oct. 24 meeting, he stated that “Topics of discussion included appraisals, market value, rental opportunities and loss revenue, retention of property by the owner and options, parking and access, environmental concerns, DEQ testing, Pershing Project funding, and roundabout configuration options. The discussion was positive and beneficial for both parties. As such, a recommendation for a postponement will be made this evening to allow for further review and discussion. The trustee for the property owner and Alex Davison agree with and will support the postponement.”
And, indeed, Davison supported the postponement, saying that the meeting had resulted in “much progress being made” and that he believed the issues could be resolved without recourse to legal action by the city regarding potential property seizure.
The resolution had originally come out of the Finance Committee meeting of Oct. 17 on a split vote of 1-1, with Councilman Jack Spiker voting against and Councilman Jim Brown voting for. Councilman Jimmy Valdez, as Finance Committee Chairman, was ineligible to vote, although he has made it repeatedly clear in several meetings that he will never support a resolution that “takes someone’s property.”
Spiker, additionally, argued at the Finance Committee meeting that the resolution was inherently flawed for that reason and should be scrapped. “We need to buy this entire property and make this owner whole,” Spiker said. “This is not good government.” During the Finance Committee debate, however, Brown argued for the resolution, saying that “this whole thing is turning into a huge waste of time and money, and we need to move forward and make this project happen.”
Much of the Oct. 24 meeting discussion centered around property contamination and what has been discovered by the DEQ, who has had six chemical monitoring wells on the property for the last three years. It now appears, as this reporter originally reported in our Oct. 7 issue, that most of the involved parties have realized that the only part of the property suffering benzene and ethylbenzene contamination (the result of underground gasoline storage tank leakage from the days when the property functioned as a gas station) are the portions of the parcel the City has been seeking to forcibly acquire.
The DEQ, however, has not completely committed to ruling out other contaminative areas on the property; investigations in that area are ongoing.
The decision to postpone the City’s resolution for eminent domain proceedings was supported by Councilman Sean Allen, Councilwoman Georgia Broyles, Councilman Don Pierson, Councilman Dr. Mark Rinne, Councilman Jimmy Valdez and Mayor Rick Kaysen. Voting opposed to the postponement were Councilwoman Amber Ash, Councilman Jim Brown, Councilman Patrick Collins and Councilman Jack Spiker.
The decision to postpone the seizure proceedings comes on the heels of what has been a pretty solid City stance on the property takings, as evidenced by a “confidential” memo issued by City Attorney Dan White on Oct. 7. In the “Eminent Domain Basics” section of that memo, Mr. White documented Wyoming state law as supporting such takings: “Cities and towns in Wyoming are authorized by W.S. 1-26-801 to use the power of eminent domain to acquire real property to construct streets, alleys, highways, and public buildings.”
And, in the “Conclusions and Recommendations” section, the memo states:
“Because of the risks associated with a purchase of the entire Hollywood Video parcel, City staff recommends that the City proceed with negotiations to purchase only the 9.504 square feet actually needed for the roundabout. It is likely that through the course of negotiations, through informal procedures conducted by the Court, or through the appraisal process described in Rule 71.1, the City and the landowner will be able to reach a realistic settlement through which the landowner will receive compensation equivalent to the value of the damage to the remainder resulting from the loss of parking spaces and traffic flow on the site. By acquiring only the subject parcel and then paying for resulting damages to the remainder, the City only has to write one check. The City would not be burdened with continuing obligations to maintain, operate or dispose of the remainder parcel.
“It is also likely that the owner of Hollywood Video would use the money paid by the City to acquire the house and lot located immediately west of the existing Hollywood Video west parking lot. That acquisition can be handled much more nimbly by the owner of Hollywood Video as a private party. For example, the purchase of the house and lot immediately to the west could be made contingent upon the ability of the landowner to acquire necessary City approvals of the expansion of the Hollywood Video parking lot. The funds could also be used to remodel the existing structure so that patrons could enter the building on its west side.
“Is is important to note that the Hollywood Video property is going to be located across the street from the re-development of the Cole Shopping Center by Safeway Stores, Inc. That re-development will continue to attract significant customers to the area which is likely to increase the commercial value of the Hollywood Video site.
“City staff recommends that the Governing Body move to reconsider the defeat of the condemnation resolution. It will be difficult to conduct meaningful negotiations with the landowner if she and her attorney believe that the City will eventually purchase the entire site. If the landowner is placed on notice that the City only intends to purchase the subject parcel, it will be possible to move toward realistic discussions regarding the extent to which the remainder of the site will be damaged by the acquisition.”
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty’s Torch.
