CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The Cheyenne City Council voted Monday to repeal the recently implemented paid on-street parking district in downtown Cheyenne, following significant backlash from business owners and the public.
The decision comes just over two months after the program went into effect Jan. 1.
The paid parking district, which generally spanned from West 15th to West 24th streets and Pioneer to Warren avenues, with some blocks on Thomes and O’Neil avenues also included, was initially approved by the council Nov. 25, 2024. City officials had said the program was intended to alleviate parking problems and encourage turnover in parking spaces.
However, downtown stakeholders quickly voiced strong opposition, arguing the initiative was expensive, was difficult for customers to use and was negatively impacting their businesses.
“I don’t think it’s going to work now,” said Susan Allen, owner of the Hawthorn Tree, during the council’s second reading of the repeal ordinance in February. “I don’t think it’s going to work in the future.”
At the City Council meeting Monday, the ordinance to repeal the paid on-street parking district was on the agenda for its third and final reading. During the public comment period, business owners reiterated their concerns and thanked the council for considering their input.
Rob Dickerson, who works out of the Boyd Building downtown, said it was important the council was listening to business owners. House District 11 Rep. Jacob Wasserberger also voiced appreciation for the repeal, noting concerns from business owners about discouraging customers. Corey Loghry, speaking on behalf of many downtown stakeholders, emphasized their commitment to a vibrant downtown and requested the implementation of recommendations from previous studies dating back to 2017.
An amendment proposed by Councilmember Tom Segrave aimed to eliminate all time-limited parking within the Downtown Development District boundaries and the area around the capital complex. Segrave suggested a “Wild West” approach to parking, allowing parking anywhere downtown without time restrictions, except for handicapped spots and fire hydrants. He argued this would encourage people to come downtown without fear of parking tickets and could save the city approximately $300,000 annually in enforcement costs.
The amendment faced strong opposition from downtown business representatives who expressed concerns about long-term parking by residents and employees, hindering customer access. They advocated for revisiting previous parking studies and implementing their recommendations instead of an untested approach. Councilmembers also voiced reservations about eliminating all time limits without further study.
Ward III Councilmember Ken Esquibel said he spent three days in Estes Park, Colorado, where they have free on-street parking and free parking in a garage.
“They have a very vibrant downtown,” he said. “I witnessed this every day I was down there. And their parking garage is further away from their downtown than ours is. I don’t want to go back to the status quo. I mean, what is the definition of insanity? Just like my colleague from Ward II said, going back 20 years, expecting a different outcome by doing the same thing time and time again.”
Ward I Councilmember Jeff White and Ward II Councilmember Mark Rinne voiced similar frustrations. Rinne said the council’s work to fix downtown’s parking problems was done in the open, in meetings that were announced. He said the council had done its duty to alert the public to join in on the conversation when it was happening. White agreed, saying it was disingenuous for downtown business owners to suggest they were “blindsided” by the city’s move to create the paid parking district because the city had hosted 15 public meetings on the matter.
Still, White was not in favor of Segrave’s first amendment, siding instead with Ward III Councilmember Michelle Aldrich in suggesting there was a window of opportunity to clear the slate, start from scratch and chart a path forward.
With just two votes in favor of it, the amendment ultimately failed.
Another proposed amendment suggested free, unlimited-time parking in the city’s parking structures with a sunset date, aiming to encourage their use by employees and free up on-street parking for customers. That amendment also failed after discussion regarding potential misuse, security concerns within the garages and the financial implications for repaying bonds on the structures.
Danica Hecht, who works downtown, said she appreciated the amendment, which she viewed as a compromise.
“I was very opposed to the previous amendment. I think having it be a free-for-all is a recipe for disaster,” she said. “I think this is a good balance of taking care of the different competing interests that have been mentioned, right? Making sure that employees have parking that is not costing them an arm and a leg, or risking them getting tickets but making sure that there’s business turnover and time limits still be able to be enforced with on-street parking.”
She said she was concerned with the 17th Street and Pioneer Avenue parking structure because of apparent racing that happens after 5 p.m.
Addressing concerns about contractual parking in the George Cox Parking Facility, Segrave said purchased parking by businesses and the county would remain possible as it would allow them to maintain groups of parking spaces versus employees or customers having to find an open space.
Rinne suggested an amendment to Segrave’s amendment that would sunset the free facility parking in June 2026.
House District 44 Rep. Lee Filer spoke in favor of Segrave’s and Rinne’s amendments, saying the council could revisit the issue to determine what to do if a vehicle remained longer than 24 hours.
Rinne’s amendment passed.
Another amendment, offered by Aldrich, would have eliminated the George Cox Parking Facility from Segrave’s second amendment because of the parking contracts already in place. Reluctantly speaking again, Filer said it would be confusing to the public if free parking was offered in one place and not another. Segrave also was against the amendment to his amendment for the sake of consistency.
Dickerson said it felt like the council was “winging it” again, proposing something that wasn’t fully fleshed out, despite his own support for free parking in the garages.
Aldrich’s amendment received just two votes in support, so it did not pass.
Another amendment was offered to institute a 24-hour time limit on the free garage parking. Echoing some public sentiment at the meeting, White said the issue was “getting far too convoluted at this time.”
“I appreciate the ideas. I know that we are trying to all discuss potential solutions to some things that exist, but perhaps we should just get back to business on the main motion at hand and then do a work study. Some of us can meet with the ad hoc committee of downtown business owners and discuss those and flesh those out and then come back to the full government body with recommendations,” he said.
After further discussion, the 24-hour amendment failed.
Segrave’s second amendment for free garage parking also failed, dying on a 5–5 vote.
Ultimately, the City Council approved the original ordinance to repeal the paid on-street parking districts program, with Segrave casting the lone “no” vote. Several councilmembers emphasized the repeal presents an opportunity and expressed a commitment to working with downtown business owners and city staff to explore alternative solutions to downtown parking issues.
“This is simply the first step, and it’s going to require that we continue to work together between business owners and the council and our department heads in order to enact some of the additional ideas that have been outlined in the petitions that we received from downtown business owners,” Aldrich said. “And I would hope that we have all learned that it’s all about communication and relationships, and that it’s not — we can’t ever assume that somebody else is watching out for our best interest or that we know what people want or what the problem is.”
The repeal effectively ends the paid parking district that went into effect earlier this year, returning downtown Cheyenne to its previous parking regulations.
The ordinance is attached below:
