Council delays Westside blight decision after hours of testimony on floodplain, wildlife and process

The Laramie City Council on March 17 postponed final action on a proposed blight determination for the Westside study area after several hours of presentation and public comment that ranged from support for housing and infrastructure to concerns about flood risk, wildlife corridor impacts and statutory procedure.

City Manager summarized the statutory tests for a blight determination under Wyoming law and outlined studies on which staff relied, including a westside redevelopment conceptual plan, a statewide housing needs assessment and a brownfields review completed with EPA funding. He said the designation would allow the Laramie Urban Renewal Agency to use tax increment financing (TIF) to fund public infrastructure — streets, sewer and water extensions, stormwater detention, and possible environmental remediation — while stressing the city would not itself develop the land.

"A blight determination is a step defined in legislation that we must follow," said Fred Schmeckle, chair of the Urban Renewal Agency, who said the process was voluntary at the property owner’s request and that safeguards exist to prevent additional property taxes for residents. "Nobody's paying a single extra penny in tax dollars through a tax increment financing project," Schmeckle said, describing TIF as a way to reimburse developers for public‑benefit infrastructure only.

Multiple residents, conservation groups and scientists urged caution. Anne Brand of the Albany County Conservancy told council the Westside greenbelt is a riparian corridor that supports birds, mammals and amphibians and urged the city to avoid placing urban renewal projects in ecologically sensitive areas. Wildlife ecologist Mira Ben David said the parcel functions as a wildlife corridor and recommended a thorough wildlife evaluation be included with any blight assessment or project plan.

Several speakers warned the parcel lies in mapped 100‑ and 500‑year floodplains and asked that flood‑mitigation feasibility and funding be resolved before moving forward. Others argued the statutory process was being compressed and requested more public outreach.

Council debated procedural options, including a proposed temporary suspension of rules to allow additional public comment (which failed). Councilor Newman moved to postpone final action on the blight determination until the April 7 council meeting and to use a March 26 open house for further public engagement; the motion carried on roll call, 5 yes, 3 no, 1 absent. Staff confirmed the Urban Renewal Agency and Planning Commission will continue their review and that any future development agreement would require URA, Planning Commission and Council approvals.

The planning commission is scheduled to consider the urban renewal plan on March 23; Council will revisit the blight determination April 7.