Council reviews concept floor plan for new chambers, flags costs, access and security questions

Cheyenne city council members and city staff met Feb. 6 to review an early concept floor plan for potential new council chambers and associated office space, asking staff to explore alternate layouts while noting major cost and timing uncertainties.

At the outset, the chair limited the meeting to discussion of the proposed floor plan and said no public comment would be accepted. Vicky Nemechek of Public Works told the council staff were ready to respond and that the current plan is “the most economically based,” warning that moving bathrooms or relocating the dais could require removing structural columns and adding expensive steel supports.

Council members raised multiple practical and symbolic concerns. Doctor Aldridge pointed out the drawing appeared to show only nine dais seats and asked for confirmation that the dais would accommodate the council’s ten-seat requirement. Councilman White said he preferred a dais close to “a level playing field with the public,” arguing a taller dais can appear intimidating: “When you come up to speak, at the podium and you're looking up, it is intimidating, and it shouldn't be.” Doctor Emmons and others said a modest step rather than a high raised dais would be preferable.

Members debated whether to swap the council offices with tenant or agency space (the plan lists the DDA and MPO as possible occupants of offices 1–5) so that council offices would be closer to the main public entrance. Staff said Plan 1 could explore such swaps, but cautioned that structural columns and associated costs might limit options.

On security and access, members discussed installing a buzzer for evening meetings and whether the committee meeting room should have a separate exterior entrance so the public could use it without passing through the main lobby. Adele Bartel of Public Works described the buzzer option and said that if an outside tenant occupies part of the space it would be locked off from the rest of the building.

Council members also pressed for clearer programmatic details: staff estimated the overall area is roughly 9,000 square feet and said a committee meeting room would be about 1,000 square feet and could accommodate an additional 30–40 people. Members called for dimensions, storage plans for movable seating, and audiovisual upgrades similar to those in nearby public meeting rooms.

Budget and schedule questions framed much of the discussion. Public Works staff said the council will need to decide whether to purchase the adjacent senior center; if not purchased, the city would likely return to a larger addition plan for the current building. Vicky Nemechek warned that many questions about cost, renovation scope and where staff would work during construction remain unanswered. Councilman Layborn urged the council to produce “complete and accurate answers” in advance of an anticipated August ballot on the project.

The council directed staff to take the feedback to Plan 1 and return with revised options. Staff emphasized they will need time to incorporate the council’s input; the chair and members discussed scheduling follow-up work sessions in March ahead of budget season.