Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines donated Sinclair parcel after concerns over industrial use near housing
Summary
The Rawlins City Council voted down acceptance of a donated parcel from Sinclair Land Development Co. after councilors and residents raised environmental and neighborhood concerns and questioned whether the city should own industrial land. The motion failed 3–3–1.
The Rawlins City Council voted on Feb. 3 to decline acceptance of a quitclaim deed conveying undeveloped property from Sinclair Land Development Company after an extended debate about potential future uses and neighborhood impacts. Council member Patterson moved to accept the deed and authorize staff to record it and pay outstanding 2025 property taxes; the motion failed with three ayes, three nays and one abstention.
City Attorney Mayberry described the offer as a donation with one explicit condition: the city would pay the 2025 property taxes. He told council the city had completed title checks, reviewed easements and conducted due diligence and that no liens were found. “We have conducted our due diligence; there is nothing that gives us any reason to pause at this point,” Mayberry said.
Opponents said the site’s proposed future uses—including discussion of a new municipal asphalt plant—raised public-safety and quality-of-life concerns because of nearby housing. Vice Mayor Daryl Garner described waking to dust and odors from an existing plant and warned the proposed parcel would sit within a few hundred feet of apartment complexes and houses, saying residents’ “eyes were burning” during past events from plant emissions. Council member Derek Elliott also questioned siting heavy industrial uses adjacent to housing and urged caution given existing vacant commercial properties in town.
Supporters said the parcel is zoned industrial and argued the city already owns some public facilities and can responsibly manage property. Council member Sanger noted the city owns a golf course and recreation center and that ownership of certain facilities is a long-standing practice.
When voting was recorded, the three ayes were Mayor Jacqueline Wells, Council member Patterson and Council member Siloff; the nays were Vice Mayor Daryl Garner, Council member Derek Elliott and Council member Sanger; Council member Lumen abstained. City Attorney Mayberry clarified after the vote that the council had voted on acceptance of the property itself, not on any specific future use.
The council did not adopt any directives to staff regarding alternate disposition of the parcel; council members said they expect additional public discussion and study of potential industrial use and neighborhood mitigation before any future proposal returns to the body.
