2026-11-03 - Finance Committee

When they come there, you can greet them like that. >> So, with the Public Service Committee, Charles Mebane called in on I was waiting to hear the recording in progress. >> You missed it. >> I did. Okay. Well, it's it's high noon in Old Cheyenne. I'd like to call the November 3rd meeting of the Finance Committee to order. Uh a few housekeeping items. If you have a cell phone with you, make sure it's either vibrate or mute. When making public comment, clearly identify yourself. When making public comment online, use the raised hand function. In person, approach the podium and turn on the microphone. And also, at the end of agenda there will be no additional business discussed. Uh most importantly all communication goes through the chair. And with that clerk, first item, please. >> Item number 22A, contract modification number one to contract number 8081 between the city of Cheyenne and the National Forest Foundation to reflect an extension extension in the performance period and an increase in funding. >> Okay, who do we have doing the staff report? Hello. >> Good afternoon. Elizabeth Fennell Carroll, I'm the economic resource administrator for the city of Cheyenne. Before you today, I have contract modification number one for city contract 8081 between the city of Cheyenne and the National Forest Foundation. Unfortunately, National Forest Foundation is in a conference today, but they do um send some information with me and their thanks for considering this extension today. This modification is being requested to reflect an extension in the performance period from October 31st, 2026 to October 31st, 2027 and an increase of funding to the contract from 110,000 to 149,800. This contract modification will result in no additional financial commitment from the city of Cheyenne or the US Endowment. The funding has been reallocated among budget categories and will not impact the awarded grant amount. Um this request is a result of an approved budget modification between the city of Cheyenne and the US Endowment for Forestry and Communities Innovative Finance for National Forest grant number 24-00799. The city of Cheyenne was awarded 250,000 in 2024 to pilot the potential use of the Wyoming Clean Water Revolving State Revolving Loan Fund Program to fund wildfire risk reduction activities with the town of Encampment. Representatives from the Board of Public Utilities, the City of Cheyenne, the Town of Encampment, the National Forest Foundation and World Resources Institute have utilized the US Endowment funding to develop the fuels reduction project and apply for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program. The loan application was successful. The total amount a loan amount awarded was $1,227,176 with a maximum 75% principal loan forgiveness. National Forest Foundation is going to be covering the remaining 25% of the principal and the loan origination fee. This contract modification will ensure that the National Forest Foundation is able to continue to provide management to the project, and this will serve as a model for other communities looking for innovative funding opportunities to reduce wildfire risk. And I stand if you have any questions for me today. >> Can you come answer questions for the committee for staff? >> Mr. Chair. >> Councilman White. >> Um Elizabeth, I wonder if you can um tell me you know, I I I certainly support the grant and the purpose, but when you start talking about the distance between us and Encampment, that seems a little far. I'm not sure why um we're partnering with Encampment on this and not the City of Laramie, which is much closer or even Rawlins. Um can you clarify some of that for me? >> Yes, uh through you, Mr. Chairman. So, City of Cheyenne is receiving our water from Rob Roy, which just so happens to be up the hill from this entire program. Unfortunately, Wyoming knows too well that fires don't understand boundaries or water districts and fires move as they will. The area that this project is going to take place in has a significant amount of dead and dying trees due to beetle infestation and drought. It has made the city of Cheyenne's water infrastructure around Robidoux vulnerable to damage from a large water fire. So, this is really advantageous to the city of Cheyenne. This is not costing us anything. We just serve as the holder of the grant and they are doing all the work. And we get the benefit of our water infrastructure being protected by the work that they're doing. >> Perfect. Thanks. Any other comments or questions from the committee? I had one. So, the Hog Park Reservoir as well, is it that included or is it just the the Robidoux area? >> Chairman, I believe it is to the south and the west of Hog Park. So, that area should benefit as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh with that, we'll go to public comment in the room on this item. Any public comment in the room? Seeing none, we'll go to public comment online. Any public comment online? Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. What's your pleasure? >> Mr. Chairman, I move to approve an amount not to exceed $149,800. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Councilman Moody, second by Councilman White. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing that that vote is unanimous, the recommendation of the Finance Committee at the next meeting of the governing body will be to approve. Next item. >> Item number 22B, contract modification number two to contract number 7782 between the city of Cheyenne and DHM Design Corporation for the Reed Avenue Rail Corridor design project. >> Staff report. >> Good afternoon, Chairman Esquibel and members of the Finance Committee. Tom Cobb, city engineer. Before you and for your consideration is contract modification number two to on contract 7782 between the city of Cheyenne and DHM Design Corp for the Reed Avenue Rail Quarter project. Primary purpose and need of this is for basically an additional services add number 2A for expanded street improvements from Bent to Snyder. I asked the consultant as we began to work through this project, um, that Reed it was confined to the Reed Avenue Quarter itself. Um, as we got through the process and coordination with the BNSF, I said we really need to make this connection at least one block on either side. So, I added pedestrian improvements and street improvements on all the side streets that are adjacent the quarter all the way down. From basically, um, again from Bent to Schneider and that would include 17th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd streets. And at this as you as you read through the memo, you'll see that what I said was we had to assume the worst case scenario. So, that would be rehabilitation or basically reconstruction of everything. As we work through the design, we we may not need that, but I wanted to make sure we had it covered. The second item is 2B. Um, we added in a design of a parking lot and pedestrian access on 20th and 21st. This is for the additional purchase of the parking area that the Wyoming Lottery currently owns. I'm under the process of negotiating that for additional parking along the corridor. The next item is add service number 2C. Um, this is for additional railroad coordination, environmental compliance, and additional design that was required to complete the construction documents during the process with the BNSF. So, what occurred is during our design and initial concept plan, they had to they were required to do a lot of additional design work for us to get to where we are today. And so, we're basically then having to fill that back in on the the services that we used at that time to be able to make sure that we completed the design as we are to finish, okay? The last item is what I call 2D. These are for the FRA components that we now required for the additional environmental. So, those are basically the four primary components, and the justification for the contract modification is basic for continuity and efficiency. Obviously, to go out for a new firm at this particular juncture would not make sense. We'd be starting over. Secondly, for timely project delivery to expedite this as quickly as we can. And and last really is to make this connection uh for for the whole quarter itself. I Those additional services for completing all the side streets are so important. The school is right there for St. Mary's. All of the connection to the neighborhood. We did not have that included in the original concept before I even got here. It just wasn't ever conceived, and I really just simply discovered it as we worked through it. It really made sense to do so. The three primary components that are used to pay for this are going to be the 6-penny specific purpose tax, which is for Reed itself. Um the 5-penny optional sales tax 23 to 26 will pay for the side street connections. And last but not least, a portion this will be done by the FRA grant. And if you look on page three of my memo, you can see I've summarized that into the three categories. The FRA eligible components $277,500. The 5-penny optional sales tax totaling $466,620. The 6-penny specific specific specific purpose tax, can't speak today, $422,527. And the total contract modification amount, $1,166,647. With that, I I'd like a little I I that you do approve this contract modification, but I thought I would start a little bit in a little bit different mode than I normally kind of wanted to update you all on basically project status and kind of go through you some things that have occurred since some of you have heard it, some of you haven't. I apologize to Mr. Wolfe and Mr. White. They have heard this. So, I'll try to make it sound a little bit different. Um Okay. So, with with that I I want to do an overall update. I want to I want to really explain to you there are really now two complementary projects running simultaneously. The FRA component is the one where we do the the elimination of the side streets that we talked about, no pedestrian, no vehicle traffic. Again, we have four closures now. Four. The second component is is the the one that you originally saw, which is the corridor revitalization improvements, which included both the pedestrian promenade on the east and then basically all the aesthetic enhance enhancements all the way through. Um and then, of course, the last and most the the part that I want to talk about that we don't talk about a lot is the BNSF maintenance road, which is going to be on the east side. Couple of new things. Okay. Whoop. If you want me to go through this, I can show you the schedule. Yeah, it So, two new things that have occurred since the time, two very important things. One is on March 3rd, 2026, we met with my counterpart at BNSF, Maryanne McNally, and Rich Scott, the the mayor, um myself, um the chief of staff, and and actually Libby was there as well. And we sat down with them at that particular juncture. And this is where we talked about the mayor wanted to really talk about the fourth crossing. This is where the right the the neighborhood really didn't want it, the businesses didn't want it. And so, this was the opportunity to discuss why BNSF required us to make those closures happen and from their perspective. So, the part that we really began to understand is we both had two different positions, right? We we both had benefits. We didn't want the closure because obviously that fourth closure cuz it did affect the people who had invested in the quarter. It was directly on 21st Street. From the mayor's perspective and mine, that was solid. From BNSF's perspective, this is all about safety, right? We talked about that the railroad, they look at two things, right? It's basically profit and safety. Those are their only two major factors in all the decisions that they make. So, it was impossible for both sides it was an impasse, right? The only way that the project was going to move forward is if we agree to the fourth closure and they they made it quite clear to us. So, with that being said, the mayor was able to make his discussion points of making his point. We tried to understand BNSF's perspective. That discussion went back and forth. In the end, the mayor understood where BNSF was coming from. Although they understood where we were coming from, they made it clear that they weren't going to budge forward without without letting us get those closures. If we agreed, it was going to move forward. So, with that So, we began to discuss with them, "Okay, fine. If we get the closure, do you understand that the businesses need access on both sides of the quarter to make it connected, right? We can't just block them off and have a two-block period where they never can get across because there's no way for pedestrian that's on the east side to get to the west side without having some pedestrian connection on the east side." So, the biggest point that came out of this is the BNSF then agreed that they would allow an 8-ft pedestrian quarter on their maintenance road. So, that had never happened before. It clearly opened up the door then. Then we got a compromise between, "Okay, they were physically don't they want these closures all four closures, yes, but now we have this 8-ft promenade well, pedestrian area that we can now utilize to make the connections from people on the east to get to the west side cuz you can go to an area that's not been closed." Great point. Great conversation and again, the point that I'm going to make is it was a compromise. Both sides lost a little bit, right? We lost the closure on 21st Street, but they agreed to lose a bit of their maintenance road to account for the additional pedestrians because the point was made to them that people are going to try to get over the path no matter what we do, right? So, then they'll want to cross. It's not going to physically change. They're going to if they they don't want them climbing over the fence. They don't want them to do that. When that point was made, they agreed to the 8-ft corridor. So, the second meeting that occurred occurred on July 14th, 2026. And this meeting was so important because this they called the BNSF wanted to meet with us and they said they wanted to do a meet and greet. And they simply they made it kind of at the last minute, and the only people in attendance that meeting were the mayor and myself, but the important people from the railroad, and this is what really comes important is Rich Scott, who was in the previous meeting. He is basically the director of the north region for BNSF. It Mary Emanaldi, who is my counterpart at BNSF. And last but not least is French Thompson the III. He is the one who basically sent us the letter that said you don't do the fourth closure, you're not moving forward with the project. He now is his his title at that point was general director of BNSF, but he is now vice president of Burlington Northern Santa Fe as well. So, the key components out of that meeting were that this is this is huge to me because the BNSF at that time volunteered for us to help us with our FRA grant. We we had members not only of that main team that I said, we had their grant person there, we had their public relations person there. And And again, they sat down and said, "We love this project. We we want to help you. We want to help you navigate the FRA process. These things go slow. We're there to help you." The second piece is this is where they this was volunteered by them. French Thompson got up to the mayor, looked him in the face, and said, "We want this project to really be a demonstration project of what we can do when we partner with a community to make something good for both of us. So, in my mind, it was absolutely huge on where they've come. We have had, as you as as you all know and I've reported this to all of you before, it has moved so slow in trying to navigate this process, but I felt like at that particular juncture, the floodgates have now opened for them. They they don't only want it, they want to use it as a demonstration project. Completely different story. Next slide, please. This is sort of what I wanted to show you just just so what there's remembrance of from a visual of what that 8-ft corridor looked like on the east side. So, the left side at the bottom is that 8-ft pedestrian connector. We've got the 18-ft of active rail corridor in the middle, and then the remaining is the maintenance road. That's what we're trying to show with the truck is showing. That's where BNSF we're going to have fences on either side of that all three locations next to the track on the other side of the maintenance road, and then one to the private property areas, so as needed. So, again, you have got that active rail corridor, which is 18 ft, and then the east side, of course, is a large pedestrian promenade, which we've talked about before. It's about 34 ft plus or minus. What I'm showing you Oh, it's okay. I was just showing where the closures are. The orange or identifies the areas that we have the three closures that are directly on the corridor. Again, 17th, 18th, and 21st. Dillon is off to the side really isn't involved in the corridor directly. Next slide, please. I get a asked this question a lot, and um besides the meetings that have taken place, the answer really comes up all the time is why or how How do you think that BNSF has agreed to be supportive of the project? Well, there are two The most important thing that I can tell you is In the process, I've talked about this before, but we had this little agreement on the side, the BNSF 22905 agreement. And it took me a long time to bring this through council. It took a long time for actually it to get signed. But what it basically committed us to was one important element. The reason it was stalled is cuz it was related to the fourth closure. What it basically does is establishes that we are going to close four streets. It says we as city of Cheyenne promise you BNSF that we are going to close four streets. The second thing with this is it provides written concurrence that they have now agreed with our concept plan. That concept plan is what we submitted with the 30% design. Now, the only thing that was not shown on that was the fact that we were going to close 21st Street. So, there was a conflict between the two, but the the agreement clearly outlines that and two parties have agreed to this. We have executed this agreement. BNSF has signed it. We have signed it. The scope of the project then in this agreement basically says we're going to eliminate, like I said the four at-grade crossings. And it says we're going to install fence to restrict access to the rail corridor and we're going to do some drainage improvements. That's basically what it says. The key assurances are, and this is the other part that I told you from the beginning, there are two things the railroad look at, safety and profit, right? That's it. So, the part that is the part that's a little bit ambiguous about the agreement is it basically says we're going to compensate BNSF for the use of their right-of-way. And what that means is we are basically leasing it back with a one-time payment which is a plate which we think equates to about 10% of of the appraised value of the corridor. What at one time I had this done, so I have a rough idea where we are. We think it's about $275 to $350,000. We'll have the appraisal redone and in railroad the way they work, again, I tried to make them commit to a person that we could use as an appraiser to actually define this now. They have not given me that name yet. So, that that's part of this that I don't know, but again, I can estimate it based on what I do know. Um uh it's kind of where we are. Next slide, please. Oh. That's it. So, okay. Here we go. I can I can say it again. I wanted to talk a little bit this about this modification. I think the important components are, as I said, it really required additional BNSF coordination. That was a requirement on this to be able to get this through. We had to use additional design services um that we did not account for in the original scope. Um we have the additional FRA grant requirements compliance, which included NEPA, which we did not have in our original scope to them. And really, the expanded city required design services, which included the parking lot and then the side street boundary components, which I think are so important to tie the corridor together to the main core of the downtown and our entire area on the west side. So, with that, all have any questions that you have I will take. And I also have Gene McDonald here under other comment, if you have some. He's representing the DHM design team. >> Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Questions or comments for city engineer from the committee? Nothing? I have one real quick. So, what why did they want the right-of-way on the east side rather than the west? >> I'm I'm sorry, sir. Can you repeat? >> Their their maintenance road on the right-of-way, why did they want it on the east side instead of the west side? >> I misspoke. I'm I put it on the other side. Sorry, the east side would be the pedestrian promenade, the west side is the maintenance road. My fault. I should have known that. An engineer should know west from east, but I'm telling you, it's a common mistake I've made for 25 years. I am apologizing. >> I did that, too, when I was on tracks, so. Yeah. All right. Councilman Wolf. >> Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Cobb. Through you, Mr. Chairman. Um uh this is uh but this is this is the very first thing I did when I was appointed at the council was to jump into the this Reed Avenue project, which is now almost a year ago. Um and and throughout that I just really appreciated your leadership and you know, the really thoughtful uh way you have maneuvered through a whole set of really difficult issues. And I also want to thank Mr. McDonald and his and DHM. Um you know, I strongly support this. We um you know, we need to It's a big modification, but we we need to keep this team together. Uh we need to keep their expertise devoted to doing this. Uh we have investors um who are in the room today uh and who uh are keenly interested in this and um uh Councilwoman Laybourn who has chaired the steering committee. So, um and I know you've given this a lot of thought and and worked hard with this consultant to uh get these project details worked out and to work out the timeline. So, um I am I just want to thank you for that. Uh your maps have been fantastic. I really appreciate the clarity with which you have been able to present this to the coordinating committee and to the to the council and and all the meetings that you've just been so gracious to have with us. So, thank you. >> Thank you for your your turn. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Good job. Thank you very much. So, with that we will go to public comment in the room. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Brennan Wasepi from Wasepi Edge Brewing. Um I think it goes without saying that I'm in 100% support of this. I think it's it it's the main reason why we bought the building that we did. It's not because the building was perfect. As we all know, it really wasn't, but seeing the steam and motivation that's going into this right now, especially, it's I just want to see that keep going and see this project succeed. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any questions for Ms. Wesby? >> Don't run away. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you. Um I also like to thank you and and your family for their steadfast involvement in all of this and uh uh I was talking to some people who went to um the event of that North North Dakota game and your place was packed. So, um this is a little bit of a deviation, but how's the liquor store part of this working out? >> Um it's slowly growing. It's definitely not super taken off yet, but we're really hoping with the new apartments and then hopefully the Reed Avenue that it'll become a destination. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Thank you for all your support, too. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Councilman Ley Bourne. Complement a bit. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh speaking as the chair of the steering committee, we had a meeting recently and it was uh we steered out of the rapids and we were out into the calmer waters and uh everyone that was there was really um very pleased at all the effort that had gone into this that got us to that meeting with the railroad where the railroad acknowledged that this was something they wanted to see happen because over time we've had a lot of issues. I mean, it's a uh I wish we would have identified some of these things earlier and worked them through, but we did. And of course, it is a a really major contract modification, but it puts us right in the middle of the track and will support us with the local investors and I think that's a key point here. We've this isn't some out-of-towners and these are local people that believed in us and local people Tony and Nancy feed have been waiting a long time. So I know that this is something that I'd certainly like to see progress as rapidly as possible and I look forward to communicating with everyone involved and I think it's time we spread the word a bit and perhaps the downtown development authority can help us with that now with their new staff and their new communication team because people have been this has been on their radar I think but not really something that I I can tell you I got tired of going to the meetings and going the railroad says talk to us later or whatever you know, so there's a message here. I think we want to spread. So I'm certainly in favor of this and the steering committee is and I think that we can confidently look forward to overcoming some real difficult details and beyond that connecting up to the 15th Street project and connecting up to the path down to the pump house and connecting the Greenway to this entire system which will make a huge difference in our city. So thank you to the team and I'd be glad to answer any questions if I could. >> Does the committee have any questions for Councilman Laybourne? No. Thank you Councilman. Any further public comment in the room? Okay, we'll go to public comment online. >> Mr. Miller, you can go ahead. >> Hello, can you hear me? >> We can. >> All right. Um Let's see here. Um this uh Chairman Askew Bell, members of the Finance Committee Charles Miller for the permanent administrative record. Um I'm speaking on contract modification number two to contract number 7782 with DHM Design Corporation, which adds $1,166,647 and 88.3% increase that nearly doubles uh a $1,320,919 and $20 design contract to $2,487,566.20 and pushes design completion out to April 30th, 2028. Mr. Cobb's live testimony just revealed four major fiscal, legal, and mathematical defects in this 29-page packet that require you to hold or sever this modification today. First, Mr. Cobb just admitted on the microphone that ad service number 2B, which charges $79,600 to the 6-penny specific purpose tax, is to design a parking lot between 20th and 21st streets on property that the Wyoming lottery currently owns and that he is still under the process of negotiating that. Look at the memorandum on page one, the contract on page five, and exhibit two on page 15 of your own packet. Nowhere do the written contract documents disclose that the city does not own this land. You cannot spend nearly $80,000 of restricted 6-penny tax money on 60%, 90%, and 100% final construction documents for land owned by the Wyoming lottery before the governing body has even approved a purchase agreement. Even worse, the math in exhibit two has three different totals. On packet page 16, DHM list 29,300 plus 31,500 plus 18,800 plus 196 in expenses, which adds up to 79,796 dollars. On packet page 18, the task subtotals 30,216, 30,506, and 18,882 add up to 79,604 plus 196 to equal 79,800. Then the contract on page packet page five lists 79,600. Second, an add-on service for number two C for 250,427 dollars and six petty funds. Mr. Cobban admitted on the microphone that because BNSF required more design work during the 30% concept phase, we're basically then having to fill that back in on the services that we used at that time. Looking at exhibit three on packet page 20, DHM admits their original 1.28 million contract assumed BNSF would approve hand-drawn conceptual graphics, whereas BNSF required developed CAD drawings. Instead of coming to council for modification before doing out-of-scope work, staff and the consultant spent the money allocated for later design development and construction document phases using a fee table dated January 14th, 2026, nine months ago, and now ask you for >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Your 3 minutes is up. Any further public comment online? Any further public comment online? Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee with your pleasure. >> Mr. Chair, I move to approve in an amount not to exceed 1,166,647 dollars. >> Second. >> Been moved by Councilman White, second by Councilman Wolf. Any further comments or discussion? >> Um Mr. Chair. >> Councilman White. >> Um it's no secret that I've been a long-time supporter of Reed Avenue project uh because it's an important investment in the in Cheyenne's future. I remember going to the first meeting of this uh before I even got on council. Um in in the old Holmes barn when it was was just a barn before the Westby family took it over and restored that to to the successful business that it is today. Um I think what we need to do is recognize where we are in this project, and we've never been closer to completion than we are now. Um I know it took a long time, but we didn't have the green light from the railroad. And that was the single most important component in order to move forward. And that's what we're doing with this modification is we're moving forward. I know um as I said, I know it's a significant modification, but it addresses additional design work that is going to take place because now we have the approval of the railroad. It's It has the railroad coordination. Um it addresses environmental requirements, which again may not have come into play initially because we didn't have the permission of the railroad. And then um it also addresses improvements to the street network that surrounds this project. So, those are all important elements that I think sometimes get missed when we talk about the holistic plan. So, I've always thought that Reed Avenue plays an important role in improving connectivity and encouraging redevelopment on the in Cheyenne's west side as Councilman Laybourn alluded to at the last steering committee meeting, all of the stakeholders um well, I think there might have been two missing, but most of the stakeholders who would be affected by this project were at that meeting and were very um excited about the prospects of moving finally moving forward with this, and we're completely supportive of this. So, um I couldn't be more excited that we finally seem to be progressing down the field and and getting closer to the goal line. And um enthusiastically supporting it. >> Councilman Wolf. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you, um I I want to join in the comments of uh Councilman White and Councilman Ley Warren. Uh and also to commend them. I guess Councilman Ley Warren left, but uh they've they've they've stayed with this project. Um there's there's a lot to be said for that kind of commitment to something that's this complicated. Uh has so many moving parts. It's such a part of the history of this. Also, want to to assure Mr. Miller that uh Mr. Cobb and his team will um uh properly uh sequence the uh undertakings so that uh we'll have the uh agreement with the uh parking uh for the parking at the Wyoming Lotto building. Um and uh and then we will make sure we get the design work done. So, thank you. Thank you uh Councilman White in particular for your hard work on this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Seeing there's no more comments, all in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Recommendation of the Finance Committee at the next meeting of the governing body will be to approve with Councilman Moody voting no. Next item. >> Consideration to purchase between the City of Cheyenne and Aardvark Tac- Tactical for the purchase of 26 sets of ballistic body armor for the Cheyenne Police Department. >> Staff report. >> Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the council. My name is Chase Rippey. I'm a sergeant with the Cheyenne Police Department. And what you have before you is consideration to purchase between the City of Cheyenne and Aardvark Tactical for the purchase of 26 sets of ballistic body armor for the Cheyenne Police Department SWAT team. This is a single source purchase, therefore no bids were requested. The total amount of purchase is $142,800. The funding for this is through an SHSP State Homeland Security Grant. Um, and remember this award was approved through SHSP Grant through an SHSP Grant and is to replace our expired ballistic vest that we currently have on the SWAT team. And I stand by for any questions. >> Comments or questions for sergeant from the committee? No, seeing none, we'll go to public comment in the room. Thank you, sergeant. Any public comment in the room? Okay, we'll go to public comment online. Jennifer. >> Mr. Miller, you can go ahead. Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can. >> All right. Um, Charles Miller, uh, for the permanent administrative record, I'm speaking strictly to the procurement documentation and contract terms of the $142,800 no-bid purchase with Aardvark Tactical for 26 sets um, of body Project 7 body ballistic body armor for the Cheyenne Police Department SWAT team. Everyone in this room agrees our officers deserve effective ballistic protection, particularly when funded through a State Homeland Security Program Grant under Project 97910. However, a grant does not suspend our municipal purchasing rules. And the nine-page packet before you contains four specific procurement and specification defects that need to be corrected before $142,800 is encumbered. First, look at packet page two, form number three, the request for sole or single-source purchase signed October 16th, 2026. The form explicitly instructs the department to circle one, sole source or single-source. Neither is circled. Meanwhile, the purchasing manager's October 21st memorandum on page one and the legal notice on page three state that this is a single-source purchase, therefore no bids were requested and in the very next sentence claim the products are sole source. In public procurement, sole source and single-source are distinct legal classifications staff cannot claim both at the same time to avoid competitive bidding. Second, look at the justification text on form three and in the page one memorandum it claims that project seven represents a fusion of proprietary and or patented technologies in a combination of materials and design elements that are not available in any other product even including a typo ROM any other source. On page one, if you turn to packet page four you will see that the city did not conduct an independent technical evaluation. Staff copied that paragraph word for word from the first paragraph of our box technical tech tactical's own generic sales letter dated Jan 9th 2026. Furthermore, on packet page five our box own letter admits that project seven is assembled using third-party commercial components specifically Blue Force Gear Ultra Comp components. First Spear tube closure systems and standard SAPI sized hard armor armor plates. Pasting a vendor's marketing brochure onto form three does not establish that no other tactical manufacturer can bid NIJ level IIIA modular entry vest and ceramic rifle plates. Third, look at quotation SO2435 on packet pages eight and nine dated October 16, 2026 which works out to $5,492.31 cents per set. Seven of the 11 equipment line items totaling $94,290 across platforms, yolks, throat, upper arm, abdominal and groin protectors and battle belts still say specify color or specified color size. Even more concerning while packet pages five and six tout project seven's no guess sizing system with SAPI based hard armor coverage size to the individual operator, line item three on page eight orders all 52 ceramic rifle plates $31,980 in a single size SAPI large. Um look at the fine print at the bottom of page nine. Delivery takes 150 days after receipt of order. They're non-returnable. 25% restocking fee. Um I ask committee >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Your time is up. Any further public comment? Any further public comment online? I see none. We'll come back to the committee. What's your pleasure? >> Mr. Chairman, I move to approve an amount not to exceed $142,800. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Councilman Wilson by Councilman Moody. Any further comments? All in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Seeing that that vote is unanimous, the recommendation of the Finance Committee at the next meeting of the governing body will be to approve. Seeing that there are no more items in front of the Finance Committee, we are adjourned. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman.