[0:02] Hi, Jenna. >> Hi. Look at I was just noticing Brandy

[0:07] and Mike match.

[0:14] [laughter] >> Same colors.

[0:19] » Brown, [laughter] >> right?

[0:25] » Are we waiting? I think you might be virtual, but be

[0:29] here for the right meeting.

[0:31] » Oh, okay. Perfect. >> Just ask for a link for the pre meeting.

[0:34] » Okay. And I do need to catch up with you text.

[0:39] All righty. Let's go ahead and get started with first item on here are

[0:43] federal earmarks. Um I'm going to pass that to Janine. Looks like we have a

[0:47] couple staff members here to talk about the projects that we're looking at. So

[0:50] go ahead, Janine. >> Thank you, mayor. So, um, we have been

[0:53] working to identify projects that we, uh, have in the community or have

[0:58] already had in our capital plan that would be eligible for federal funding

[1:02] through earmarks. As you know, um, here at Hegelman's office is, uh, accepting

[1:07] again this year the earmark applications. As you are aware, the city

[1:11] has been successful in past years securing. Um, staff have put together a

[1:16] list for you. Um, Pete is going to present that list and the information in

[1:21] your memo. So with that, >> awesome.

[1:23] » Welcome to the podium.

[1:28] » Good evening, members of council. Pleasure to be with you again.

[1:31] » Yes, this is our presentation of potential earmark request. The formal

[1:35] name is congressionally directed spending. These are things that uh every

[1:41] member of the House of Representatives is allowed to request. Every member is

[1:45] allowed to request up to 15 different specific requests that get attached to

[1:48] various different federal endeavors that go into the budget. Presumably, this

[1:53] would be for the next upcoming fiscal year budget for the count for the uh for

[1:56] the federal government. That would be something that theoretically they would

[2:00] be passing around time passing by September 30th of this year. So

[2:08] there are many many rules around the kinds of things you can request. there

[2:13] many different subprograms and it's actually rather complicated as far as

[2:17] matching a potential request to a potential source of funding

[2:22] but but we have done a lot of work on in-house amongst ourselves and also with

[2:27] our consultants to see strategies to try to figure out an appropriate set of

[2:32] requests that are both timely for what we try to get done high priorities for

[2:37] us that to accomplish and also matching with a with a reasonable source of

[2:42] funding Having gone through all that, we've

[2:45] we've come up with three different requests that we think would be a good

[2:49] match for for potential for for the potential needs of the city. We would so

[2:55] three requests that we have, one is a uh an antenna and radio communication

[3:02] enhancements for the police department. This is a $1.6 million request. It's a

[3:06] way to to add some additional encryption to the police department's rating

[3:11] system. It would buy actual radios. It would also install an antenna at or near

[3:16] the event center itself. You would hopefully get this and uh the

[3:21] program we going through is called the Edward Burn grant program. That's nice

[3:25] because it has no match requirements. If if we were to get the if we were to get

[3:29] the uh award, we'd have to provide a local match. We've also asked for some

[3:36] funding for bedline replacement. We know a few places in the city where there may

[3:41] or or are certain very old water lines which may still have a certain amount of

[3:47] lead in them and we certainly been monitoring them for for years and years

[3:51] and years. This I mean get removing removing lead from from the system has

[3:55] been a process of literally generations of public services directors who've been

[4:01] gradually removing all those really old lines. But there are still some left in

[4:05] there. And so this would be a request that would allow us to remove some of

[4:09] the last of those and to make sure our system is 100% free.

[4:15] That's about a $3 million request that we would be asking for there. And then a

[4:19] third one would be Robertson Road. Robertson Road, as you may be aware, has

[4:24] had a lot of congestion issues and certainly this came up a lot when we

[4:27] were selling the truck lane property and we've got a lot of people feedback at

[4:31] that time. Since then, we've done studies and we've got a got a a vision

[4:36] for how we might go about making the traffic at Marson Road a little bit

[4:40] better, widening it a little bit, adding some trails to get some people off the

[4:44] roads, adding some left turn lanes. The idea being there that we could uh try to

[4:49] get um try to try to clean up that intersection just a little bit and we do

[4:54] believe that we could apply for some highway funds there. Uh that one, like

[4:58] the water lines project, this one also would have a 20% match. So someone

[5:03] requests 1.5 million for a $ 1.9 million project.

[5:08] So >> how much would that be?

[5:10] » So we would request 1.5 for for 1.9 the total would be 1.9. So

[5:15] we would have to we would have to provide match

[5:18] to get the entire project done as as we would like for that sector. Um but but

[5:23] uh in regards to that question certainly when you make these requests, you never

[5:28] know exactly what's going to happen. Certainly on the one hand

[5:35] you can make the request for that dollar amount it might change where as it goes

[5:40] through the congressional budgeting process which of course is extremely

[5:43] complicated and hard to predict. It it it can it is entirely possible for

[5:50] for if the congresswoman were to support our request which of course is the first

[5:54] question then it has to get through various

[5:58] approvals at different committees and so on they can

[6:02] of course they can deny the request which is always their right. They can

[6:07] also change the dollar amount which is not typical for it's it's one way in

[6:11] which this is different from a normal grant request. If we were to receive

[6:15] this as as a regular grant, [clears throat]

[6:17] we know exactly what we're asking for, and chances are we'll get either that or

[6:21] nothing at all. In this case, it's entirely possible to say, "Well, we'll

[6:26] give you half as much as what you're asked for. Do what you can." And in

[6:30] which case, that's what we would do. Get as much of the project on with the word.

[6:36] » Go ahead. So this obviously wouldn't fund um that

[6:43] amount of money wouldn't fund very much on that on that project in particular a

[6:50] roundabout um with kind of a deal. The way I looked

[6:57] at it um that alone be several million I'm guessing. Uh but uh um so is that

[7:07] not included in the project or just widening

[7:13] some of lower Robertson road? >> Sure. Um counselor mayor um that is not

[7:20] included in the project. Be certain we did look at the overall [clears throat]

[7:26] study design the theoretical design we would implement there. Certainly, it

[7:30] would go for much further than just this little segment. And and I believe that

[7:35] original cost estimates were something in the order of $8 million to do the

[7:40] entire length of what we would want to do on Robertson River if funding were no

[7:44] object. Um so, so you're right. No, this is just this is just that area closer to

[7:50] the CY Avenue. It's it's a bit of the widening of the intersection and some

[7:54] other work in that area. It um and certainly we had

[8:00] It's understanding that we could not reasonably expect to get an award of

[8:05] that size of $800. It just that's that's not in the that's not in the cards. So

[8:09] So we we thought we would ask for something that's more limited which

[8:13] would could still provide some benefit

[8:18] questions for people. You said the three we already talked

[8:22] about three projects already, right? >> Yes, exactly. would be the lead lines,

[8:25] replacement of the water lines, potential for lead contamination, the

[8:29] Robertson Road, and then an antenna for the police department and the radio. And

[8:34] so, so yes, I guess the question that I would ask for mayor and for council

[8:39] would be first of all, if that list is acceptable, and then if so, what the

[8:46] prioritization among those three projects would be because that is

[8:48] something that the congresswoman would would ask us. what if if I only did one

[8:53] which would you choose and that is that is something we will need to communicate

[8:58] that >> I mean to me looking at them just from

[9:03] the from the 30,000 foot view the lead service drinking water seems fairly

[9:08] important um as public safety communication but I also know I know I'm

[9:12] not kind of I'm not very trying to single any of them out the Robertson

[9:16] roads is important I know the vice mayor has talked often about that in his ward

[9:20] Um, but if I had to look at something for me personally, um, would be the

[9:25] suspected lead service would be probably one of our number one priorities, but

[9:28] like to offer that, open that up to the council, see what their thoughts are

[9:32] about priority. >> What was yours again?

[9:35] » Uh, the suspected lead service drinking >> water.

[9:39] So, I think that's been a problem around the state if I'm not mistaken.

[9:42] » Certainly, it's been it's been a problem nationally actually.

[9:45] » Absolutely. >> Yes. No. Um, and it's been something

[9:48] that's that the EPA and a long time.

[9:53] » Decades. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[9:55] » Michael, sorry, Vice Mayor. I'll get you.

[9:57] » My thoughts are the lead in the water pipes. I'm pretty sure EPA is going to

[10:02] start going to come out with grants for us to be able to do that if we can't get

[10:06] this. I think the antenna would be a little bit more

[10:11] important, but they're all three. Great.

[10:15] » They are. >> Vice Mayor,

[10:18] » thank you, Mayor. Uh, Pete, I was hoping you could in regards to the antennas and

[10:22] the radios. In the memo, it says that it will allow us to comply with the state

[10:28] of Wyoming's updated mutual aid encryption protocol.

[10:32] Could you provide a little bit more context and like are we currently not in

[10:36] compliance with the mutual aid encryption protocol and

[10:41] under what sort of timeline are we bound to? If not, what sort of timeline are we

[10:47] bound to get into compliance? A little more context in that regard if you could

[10:52] please. >> Thank you, Mr. Um, I can provide at

[10:55] least a little bit more context. Um, certainly our radios are currently

[11:00] encrypted and they do allow for cross communication with other agencies. Um,

[11:05] however, there are these uh call them back channels. That's not the proper

[11:09] channel where where the radios can be turned to another channel. And for some

[11:14] of those channels, they are not naturally encrypted. So the state is now

[11:18] upgrading its requested level of encryption to include both the front and

[11:23] the back of the house if you want to think of it that way. So So right now

[11:26] many of our radios or should say some of our radios are already compliant with

[11:30] that higher standard, that new standard, but not all of them. So, so the purchase

[11:36] of the radios would allow us to all the police department's radios was for also

[11:42] sworn staff but also the other all the other police department officials who

[11:46] have to carry radios including CSOS and you know patrol officers and other

[11:49] people have to have radio. Anyway, it allow us to replace those older radios

[11:53] with zero kind for both the front half and the back

[11:57] half encryption and and move to the higher level of encryption which is also

[12:02] a two key encryption rather than a one key encryption. Please don't ask me what

[12:06] the difference is. [laughter]

[12:10] » Yeah, go ahead. >> Thank you, Pete. Uh so for followup, I

[12:13] think I got the answer uh in the additional information you provided, but

[12:17] these radios are radios that we will need to purchase at some point in the

[12:22] future. They're replacing existing radios. They're not in addition above

[12:25] and beyond radios we're currently using. We're not adding to our kind of

[12:30] inventory of assets. These are radios that need replaced at some point in

[12:34] time. And when they do need replaced, they will need to have this encryption

[12:40] protocol. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, um that is my understanding. Yes, that um

[12:45] that certainly you had at one point requested a timeline. I don't know if

[12:50] the state has given us a deadline thing. Thou shalt have your radios ready at

[12:54] this time. However, I believe chief police is

[12:57] standing behind me. [laughter] No pressure. He might have more information

[13:01] than I do on this subject.

[13:05] » Thank you. Great job. >> Thanks. Thank you, [laughter] Mayor

[13:07] Counselor. Um so I'd really just speak about the antenna itself. We do have

[13:11] some dead spots in Casper and if some of you remember, we've had some critical

[13:14] incidents. They've been in the past, but some of our older buildings are concrete

[13:19] and these portables that we have now do not um most buildings that are older do

[13:23] not require that. Um >> I want to make sure I got my language

[13:27] right. So it's bilateral communication. Um, so when we had the incident at the

[13:31] hospital with the active shooter at the hospital some years ago, we were unable

[13:35] to communicate in the hospital because the hospital did not

[13:38] » that bad bilateral antenna is what it's called. [clears throat]

[13:41] We have some dead spots across the front of the Casper Mountain. This new

[13:45] antenna, if we got it, would help clear up some of those dead spots. Um, as well

[13:50] as you also remember, we had the hostage situation down on North Popppler

[13:56] in the uh old state building. name names but it was state agency where

[14:03] unsecure building an attorney was taken hostage turned into a whole thing. We

[14:07] had a problem with their interoper interoperable communication with our

[14:10] portables because of the dead space down there. So this antenna at that proposed

[14:15] site when we had a um some radio engineers come out and do a site survey.

[14:18] That would be the best place to have it. Currently what we're operating on is a u

[14:23] tower that we call the the tall grass tower. It's in Converse County. So, a

[14:27] lot of our traffic, depending on where we're at, has to hit that tower down in

[14:31] Converse County and then come back. It's not really a repeater anymore, but it

[14:35] goes through that wild link system and then comes back. And so, this would help

[14:39] with take some of the burden off that tower. And also, some of our traffic

[14:42] here up on the west side of town hits the radio tower clear out at Alcoa. So,

[14:46] this would help take some of that um traffic off those two towers and put it

[14:51] here and help increase our communication. the portables themselves

[14:55] when uh the state went to Wildlink and ponyied up some of that stuff. We're

[14:59] still in good standing on those portables, but as you know, we being one

[15:02] of the larger agencies in the state, sometimes we can call to go other

[15:05] places. These portables will be able to flip a switch through dispatch, be able

[15:09] to communicate seamlessly with those other agencies even though they're not

[15:11] necessarily programmed. Their channels aren't programmed in our portals. That

[15:15] makes sense. So, that's what Wild's trying to get to.

[15:21] » Any other questions? Yeah, go ahead. >> Um, thank you for that, Chief. And I

[15:29] my understanding when I've brought up uh the lead issue at regional water after

[15:37] last year's I think it was wham um summer convention

[15:44] um and brought back you know some concerns from that um via DEEQ

[15:52] in a presentation um It's pretty well.

[15:58] I think they're tracking at least in Casper where where the problems are and

[16:05] I think they're down to less than 100 100 properties

[16:10] uh that they're still tracking uh if I remember right. Uh but uh but anyway uh

[16:19] I you know listening to some of the leg legislative stuff and some of the

[16:26] hearings recently on on different things that sounds like the wild link um you

[16:34] know and trying to keep keep up with technology.

[16:38] I I think that's probably a quicker quicker need. Nothing against

[16:46] you know they're all good projects. >> Yeah.

[16:50] » So

[16:53] » um I would just add a few things if I could council. Um so with respect to the

[16:58] lead lines this came up during capital budget review and your understanding is

[17:03] my understanding as well. Um this has been being tracked for some time. couple

[17:07] years ago um during the Biden administration, the EPA really up the

[17:11] ante and mandated uh jurisdictions that were not inventorying their system for

[17:17] potential lead or other pipes that could can um hold lead.

[17:22] They created a deadline for that to occur. So, Casper Regional Water has

[17:26] that inventory has been chipping away at this. What kind of brought this to my

[17:31] attention um and why I asked that maybe we look at this and um escalate the rate

[17:38] at which we address lead lines is that Biden era mandate to inventory and then

[17:45] remediate uh is still out there. Now, with the Trump administration taking

[17:49] office, there was some question whether the Trump administration would roll back

[17:53] these regulations like they have for things like um the toxic plastics and

[17:59] groundwater, mercury, etc. But the most recent news I've seen is that the Trump

[18:04] administration is saying they're going to hold firm on the mandate to

[18:07] remediate, but the grant program, to your point, counselor, that would have

[18:12] come with this to help with remediation remains in question. So, um I think your

[18:18] point is a good one. If the grant program receives a federal green light,

[18:24] then sure, we would love to utilize that funding and maybe make our other

[18:28] project, one of the other projects a top priority. Um, what I will say though is

[18:33] with the knowledge that these locations exist, I had concern that maybe we need

[18:39] to get out and remediate these sooner versus later because we have a known

[18:43] liability in in the pipes and um, lead is serious as we all know. So anyway,

[18:50] what I would maybe suggest hearing what you've said, I think it's a good point.

[18:54] Um, if we could elicit some information from the feds as to whether or not that

[18:58] grant program will be reinvigorated and kept whole by the Trump administration,

[19:02] then this could be depprioritized among the three. Um, but if we can't, then

[19:09] maybe it it's a more urgent issue. So anyway, just some perspective for you.

[19:13] And if any of our water engineering folks want to address this, they're

[19:17] certainly welcome to add to to that. >> Don't feel pressured.

[19:22] » You don't have to. [laughter] >> Don't feel bullied.

[19:28] » I think everybody has covered it very well. Uh these are areas that we have

[19:34] been track tracking for a while. They're not currently areas that we're concerned

[19:39] with the quality as in life cycle of the pipe.

[19:44] They're they're not exposed or they're not having frequent breaks or anything

[19:48] like that. So, this is really just a lead service line or suspected lead

[19:52] service line issue that we we'd rather get out ahead of than than wait for

[19:58] other opportunities if we can. Just wrapping up, the concern is if the

[20:03] mandate to remediate remains and we don't secure funding, will we find

[20:06] ourselves down the road in a situation where oh, we have to have this

[20:10] remediated in a year and there is no money. So, we're trying to be proactive.

[20:14] So, thank you, Ethan. >> Yeah, just a quick question. I'm just

[20:18] wondering, we're talking about prioritization and I'm wondering it

[20:23] appears that these are coming from different pots of federal money. So, is

[20:29] there really a need to I mean, are we talking about in terms of which one we

[20:34] would advocate for more strongly or because it looks like they're from

[20:39] different pots of money. So, if they'd be competing or not,

[20:44] Mr. Mayor, Councelor Bond, um the answer to your question is that under the rules

[20:49] of the House of Representatives, every representative of the House can can

[20:52] submit only 15 requests. I see. I see. So, so inevitably you're not the only

[20:57] agency that might asking >> and so she she may have to make some

[21:01] choices. >> I see. Thank you for that clarification.

[21:04] » All right, sir. >> Thank you, Mayor. I have a question,

[21:06] Pete. I know previously we've always worked with Representative Hagman. Does

[21:10] the Senate not also have any opportunities like this or

[21:14] » Mr. Mayor, Mr. President? Um, the Senate can, but uh our senators have have

[21:20] chosen to opt out of the this process.

[21:27] submit any of these requests on their behalf.

[21:33] » So, it sounds like the two that I'm hearing obviously are the communications

[21:38] for the police and and the lead. Um, I guess I would offer or ask um what you

[21:45] guys kind of look at those two. I'm sorry, Kyle, but it sounds like the

[21:49] » I was going to say if no one's going to speak to it, I'm happy to advocate. Do

[21:52] you want to advocate for before we move? >> Yeah, I mean since we haven't mentioned

[21:56] it, um you [clears throat] know, uh councelor Sweeney, uh to your point,

[22:00] this is everything south of the bridge to see why. Um I'm really thankful. I

[22:06] think it was when Andrew Beamer was our public services director. I had asked

[22:10] for some help with restriping that area of road and that did help tremendously.

[22:15] Um so I'm very very pleased with that what that's done. But still the hill

[22:19] leading up from north uh from Robertson Road Bridge 2C is only two lanes. And

[22:25] this most recent snow event that we had, I was on my way to work or something. Um

[22:30] it is often the case vehicles, two wheel drive vehicles get stuck on that hill.

[22:34] In this case, it was a bus kind of jack knifed across that one lane of traffic.

[22:38] Nobody can get through. It turns into a huge issue. And I'm sure there's dozens,

[22:44] maybe hundreds of people that are very late to work those mornings. And it

[22:48] happens almost every significant snow event. And so, you know, uh for people

[22:52] that live in that area of town, you know, it's hard for me to say it should

[22:56] be prioritized above clean drinking water and uh public safety critical

[23:00] communication equipment, but certainly um I support this being on the list. And

[23:06] uh you know it's a $2 million project that would eat up currently our streets

[23:10] funding you know annual budget is 3.7 so that would eat up over half of our

[23:14] annual budget. So it's something that would be very hard to do without some

[23:17] sort of federal assistance. Uh but I do think it's it's a significant need in

[23:22] that area town. So just my two cents. [clears throat]

[23:28] » So sounds like we we're seeing now that you guys everybody heard from Kyle. I

[23:32] agree. No I want to give you that opportunity my friend.

[23:35] » Appreciate it. Um [laughter] uh but it sounds like the real

[23:39] priorities where we're looking at are the lead um and the uh communications.

[23:45] Uh I guess what do we want to be I it's going to be hard to put those two

[23:50] » um or is everybody anybody leaning certain one? Mayor, I I think you

[23:56] proposed all three, correct? Yeah. >> And then then you get kick back from

[24:01] Egamman's office and saying, "Okay, this year I've got 45 in front of me. What's

[24:06] your priority?" >> Is that how we want to do? Because I

[24:09] know you in the in the memo it said you want to give us a priority now or am I

[24:15] wrong in that, Peter? >> No, Mr. Mayor. You are correct. It would

[24:18] it would be helpful at this time to know what your what your top priorities would

[24:22] be so that we could communicate that. [clears throat]

[24:25] Thanks, Mayor. I mean, if budget is not a variable in this equation and it's

[24:30] just number of projects, we're asking for twice as much for the lead water

[24:35] lines. And if we were to get that, you know, coming up with 1.6 for the police

[24:39] department is probably easier than coming up with three million for water

[24:43] lines. >> Water lines. Yeah.

[24:45] » Um although rape payers. Yeah. I mean, so

[24:49] that you know the ask is twice as much for the other one. Um, which again will

[24:53] be borne by the rateayers in that case, but if we can do them a solid, I think

[24:56] we owe it to them. >> Amber,

[24:59] » yeah, I I had the same line of thought and ultimately I think the order that

[25:03] they're in in the memo is the order I would

[25:05] » Yes, >> if I had to prioritize them, I think

[25:07] they're all worthy of being on the list, but uh if I had to prioritize, I would

[25:12] just say proceed as is. Yes, >> I would second that.

[25:18] » Anybody against that? Awesome. So, as the order it is in the memo.

[25:24] » Thanks so much, sir. Appreciate it. >> Thanks. Thanks, Steph.

[25:27] » Appreciate it. Thanks for coming up, Ethan.

[25:31] » All right. Agenda review. Anybody have anything they'd like to talk about

[25:35] that's in the P or in the um agenda for tonight? Anything? Questions,

[25:40] clarification? >> Yeah, go ahead.

[25:43] » So, Mayor, um I I probably should have asked to pull

[25:52] off the consent agenda as far as the rate increase for the golf course. No, I

[25:58] can't um

[26:05] authorizing

[26:09] the water utility rate adjustment amendment that's on consent. Um,

[26:16] weren't we hearing tonight the the golf

[26:23] course? >> Sounds like it's next

[26:25] » coming up sweetie. >> Oh, it's not on.

[26:28] » It is tonight or is not tonight? [cough] >> Uh, [clears throat] so actually when it

[26:33] comes to the recreation enterprises, you all established a resolution of the

[26:38] council that our rates would be set based on our cost recovery goals. And so

[26:43] we have not since 2018 when that resolution was instituted uh passed

[26:48] specific resolutions for rate increases to any of the enterprises except for the

[26:53] cemetery. That's the exception because of specific statute related to

[26:56] cemeteries. Um so generally speaking we have not brought a resolution for a

[27:01] formal approval. Once you all give conceptuals we move forward with

[27:06] implementing those rates based on that um 2018 resolution.

[27:12] me to hear any feedback or concerns that you might still have.

[27:18] » So, I didn't vehemently oppose it and I didn't give it a I didn't give a thumb

[27:26] either way or a finger either. [laughter] So,

[27:33] » I didn't know that was an option. [laughter]

[27:36] » Something new every day. But um I I just uh but you know the

[27:44] majority voted and and it was all good. But uh tonight I if if it was and I

[27:51] thought I had seen it but I got it mixed up with with the um amendment. Um, so I

[27:59] I just think with the winner we've had and lack of

[28:05] winner up on Hogadon, those losses are going to be tremendous. Um, and u I just

[28:13] don't know if we want that much more misery because I I do believe we're

[28:18] going to have to water a lot more this summer um than previously. Hopefully

[28:24] [clears throat] this storm does hit and dump in the

[28:29] snowies and Sierra Madre and that's where the most of our north flat water

[28:34] comes from. So um that might help but so I I

[28:42] you [clears throat] know majority rules so

[28:48] late to the dance. >> Yes. So,

[28:52] thanks for [laughter]

[28:55] any other questions. Do you have anything to add?

[28:59] » No, I I was going to mention going through parks and recy board. That's the

[29:04] only right.

[29:09] I think that's probably clear. >> Want to address

[29:13] » add a comment in response. We will absolutely monitor course conditions um

[29:19] you know and and navigate the end of season as best as possible. We do also

[29:25] offer um our package options of

[29:31] F season pass that starts July 1. Um so look at altering that as well. I I think

[29:40] there are options available to us and we would bring forward um some

[29:43] recommendations if we felt like there needed to be a change. Um but we will

[29:48] absolutely be monitoring the watering uh and the conditions of the course. Um but

[29:54] would also say that you know season passes are the foundation of our revenue

[30:00] streams and I think historically pass holders understand that. Um, and I think

[30:06] when I did the math, a passholder would only need to golf 16 times to break even

[30:11] as compared to paying a daily rate. Um, and so we still feel like our

[30:15] passholders are getting good value and even in a dry summer, they would likely

[30:19] far exceed that 16 time break even point.

[30:25] » Thank you, Vice Mayor. >> Thanks, Mayor. No question, but uh I'm

[30:29] just really thankful to have learned that uh you can go play the course for

[30:32] free over the winter. And I went last weekend and it was beautiful and walked

[30:36] 12 holes and and still a little sore about it. So yeah, just uh appreciate

[30:40] it. It's nice. Those fairways run pretty good though in these dry winter

[30:44] conditions. So that ball won't stop moving.

[30:55] » So just a reminder of the non-conent where we had anything 500,000 or more

[31:00] that we would discuss about that. So, just wanted to give a reminder Janine

[31:04] was the heads up on that, but I think it'll be probably remembered. So, thank

[31:07] you, Janine. >> So, um for items that are $500,000 or

[31:13] higher, uh those will now be on your non-consent agenda.

[31:17] » And tonight, you have two uh one is the screw pump project, what I which I think

[31:21] most of you are very aware of, and the other is the McKinley Street uh work

[31:24] with YOT. >> Brought it up after the 1.6 million

[31:28] sewer interceptor project a few weeks back.

[31:31] That was the vice mayor initiative >> exercising my authority.

[31:36] » You [laughter] guys, you guys put me in the role. It's time to hand. [laughter]

[31:44] » We need to be careful. >> What we paid for it.

[31:47] » Thank Zelma. >> Thank you, Zelma.

[31:51] Thanks.

City of Casper | March 3rd, 2026 | City Council Pre-Meeting

Transcript