City and county officials debate $88M–$95M infrastructure ballot measure, split and timing unresolved

City and county leaders met in a joint work session to negotiate the size, project list and allocation for a proposed infrastructure ballot measure likely to extend about a decade, discussing totals ranging in the transcript from roughly $88 million to $95 million and multiple allocation scenarios for city and county shares.

The discussion centered on which projects to include, how to split the pot between the city and county and practical questions about timing and voter outreach. Staff described a package that includes a city project list (police facility work, a fire station replacement, street and stormwater projects, sidewalks and ADA improvements, park and playground projects and recreation-center maintenance) and county requests (a new county service building or courthouse renovation, detention-center and fairgrounds repairs, sheriff vehicles and body camera storage, and library upgrades). Participants also discussed a joint $4 million airport match and whether that sum should be shared equally among jurisdictions.

Why it matters: the group must present an agreed dollar figure and project language before ballot language is finalized. Officials said the choice affects the length of the tax and the voter message; staff cautioned that forecasting and conservative assumptions (for example excluding wind-energy revenue in some forecasts) affect what is realistically collectible over a 10-year window.

Key project amounts and priorities identified in the meeting transcript included: a $12 million allocation identified for the police department (renovation or replacement); an $8.4 million figure for a fire-station project; a $9 million street program (with $7 million proposed from the general fund and about $2 million specifically for West Laramie unpaved-to-paved work); a $1.5 million West Laramie park and playground; a $5 million community sports facilities project; and a $2 million recreation-center maintenance item. County items discussed included a $30.5 million county service building (or equivalent), a $7.5 million courthouse remodel estimate, roughly $2.99 million for fairgrounds grandstand repairs and various public-safety vehicle and equipment requests. The transcript lists numerous other line items; staff said they pared an initial list of more than $150 million down to a smaller, prioritized package.

Election timing and cost: participants debated holding the election in May (several speakers favored May for lower confusion and a smaller election cost) versus an August or other date. The meeting included a specific reference to an estimated cost of about $15,000 for a May election, and staff warned that changing the election date affects revenue timing and public outreach.

Split and example allocations: participants discussed multiple percentage splits (examples in the transcript included 52/48, 55/45, 60/40 and other proposals). Staff presented an illustrative allocation for a remaining package of $89,325,000 that showed roughly $43,769,250 to the city and the remainder to the county; other numerical examples floated in the meeting placed the city and county shares in similar mid‑40s percentage ranges depending on the final total and airport set‑asides. No governing body vote or final allocation was recorded during the session.

Airport match and joint power considerations: airport staff explained a $4 million local-match request intended to secure federal entitlement funds and support pavement and runway projects over the next five to seven years; meeting participants noted joint‑powers obligations and discussed whether the airport item should be a separate line item on the ballot and how to treat its local match if jurisdictions do not contribute equally.

Justice-center and facilities planning: the transcript records differing approaches to county and city facility needs. The county described a defined estimate ($30.5 million) for a county service building, while city staff described separate city needs (police, fire and animal shelter work). Multiple participants urged producing both a plan A and plan B (for joint consolidation versus separate renovation) because the consultant’s justice‑center study and space needs analysis were still in progress; one staff member said a consultant report was expected "by Oct. 31" (meeting transcript). No binding decision was recorded on whether to pursue a joint justice center.

Next steps and unresolved items: staff and elected officials repeatedly emphasized that the figure and ballot language must be finalized before outreach and that several technical items remain outstanding: final consultant findings on facility siting and scope, exact project cost estimates, and agreement on a city–county split and election date. The session concluded without a formal vote; participants asked staff to return with clarified numbers and draft language for future consideration.

Ending: The meeting left the package in negotiation: staff will refine project cost estimates, incorporate the consultant’s justice‑center report when available and return to the governing bodies for further direction before any ballot language is finalized.