(Fremont County, WY) – County 10 sent the following questionnaire to each of the Lander mayor and city council candidates, ahead of next week’s August 18 Primary election. The answers from candidates who responded by the deadline are presented below, unedited and in alphabetical order. (Note: Mike Box withdrew from the City Council race in the weeks prior due to an unforeseen medical condition.)
George Case, Ward 1 City Council
1. How familiar are you with the Lander Master Plan and the most recent 2025 update? What areas do you think are strengths? Weaknesses?
I’ve reviewed the 2025 Lander Master Plan Update completely. It seems geared towards receiving grants and building a vibrant community. I like that it wants to ” address workforce challenges” and agree with many of the ideas in the Plan, but only so much can be controlled or influenced by a city government.
2. Where do you stand on the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax? Please explain why either way. Is there anything about the proposed tax as written that you think voters/residents might have confusion about, or may be lacking clarity on?
The most important part of the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax is the EMS service. Now with FCAG taking complete control of EMS and receiving a grant for about $2 million, I really hope our EMS can be straightened out soon with a long term solution for its challenges. Hopefully, the extra tax won’t be necessary in the next voting season. As I’ve said before, lumping the three taxes together puts more burden on the voters who don’t think private businesses should receive taxpayer money while trying to keep their community safe. For the voters I worry that these funds could become slushy.
3. So far, the community candidate forums for Lander have indicated that city government spending/availibility for communication, affordable housing, and infrastructure issues are primary concerns. What specific actions would you take to address those concerns?
One of the problems I see with the City of Lander is the council’s spending habits. I just think there’s a lot of money leaking through the cracks that need to be sealed up. As far as communication goes, I believe there is room for improvement within the City between employees and the council or mayor. Small towns are famous for their rumours and it’s hard to pinpoint the truth when the public finds out about something after it’s already happened instead of before, but I’m eager to look into those instances. As costs rise and Lander becomes more popular, housing has become a noted problem. Housing density can be increased, which is more attainable for the consumer, but has more risk for the builder. It’s important to use the least amount of regulation to create the most desirable outcome. Zoning and permitting cause contractors and investors to do their business outside of Lander. New houses aren’t the answer to everyone due to high labor and materials cost, but they can free up more affordable options when someone moves into their new home. I think other forms of housing need to be considered.
Less government and more free market solutions should be the path we take. For the infrastructure concerns in the city, I believe they have a good plan. The most failure prone parts of the water system are where ductile iron pipe lays in clay soils. They deteriorate the fastest and need the most repairs. Public Works is focused on replacing these sections of infrastructure first. Sewer lines also have a failure trend where clay tile was used. In many areas, the sewer has been lined and that’s a good solution. Some parts of town have higher traffic which degrades the sewer system faster. The City has traffic data and visual analysis of these situations. If the tax payers want smooth roads, they should get them. Small lifts of new asphalt seem like race tracks on an otherwise deteriorated stretch of city street. They buy about 5 years of extra life for the roads, and it’s clear we’d ask for more time if we could. In terms of prioritization, I agree with the plan that’s already in place. It’s been explained to me in a way that I feel is transparent. We have a great public works department and I’m proud of what they do everyday. The challenge now is funding, and that’s a big one. The penny tax still goes to road repair, but it’s not enough to perform the extensive rebuilds of the utilities under the streets. There is no other way for the necessary work to be done besides using grants that I can see. The culture of the city should be to empower businesses and let them thrive.
4. Outside of the primary concerns mentioned above, what area of improvement do you think the town/city government needs to make that might not get as much attention?
The City shouldn’t stand in the way of the private sector with extra regulations. For example, I think landowners should be able to easily have short term rentals and not have to go through such a process to have them legally. This is how I think many problems that arise in the City can be solved, like housing. With more regulation, freedom dies.
5. What specific strength would you bring to the role of Lander City Council member/Mayor? What is an area of weakness, or a subject matter that you would have to work on if elected? Can you think of a time when you failed at something, but overcame the failure or hurdle to work toward a solution that would apply to the role of City Council Member/Mayor? Please elaborate.
I believe my strength as a manager will bring the most to the role of Lander City Council member. My greatest weakness is that I’m frugal to a fault. If elected, keeping the community updated on current events would be something I’d like to improve on. Usually when I’ve failed at something it was because I failed to reach out for help when I should have. I believe a council person should be asking questions all the time to stay informed and make the best decisions when it counts. I’ve been asking the community this summer to give me their hardest questions and always let me know what their concerns are so I can understand what’s most important to them. The people are the most important part of our community.
Chad Cassady, Ward 2 City Council
1. How familiar are you with the Lander Master Plan and the most recent 2025 update? What areas do you think are strengths? Weaknesses?
As a sitting council member, I am familiar with the Lander Master Plan and the 2025 update. I was present for the Ayers briefing and have regularly referenced both the Master Plan and Strategic Plan in policy discussions with constituents and council members.
Strength: The plan provides a useful framework that helps keep emerging ideas consistent with the city’s longer-term direction.
Weakness: Public outreach was limited in scale and timing. Approximately 1,300 residents participated across 21 hours of contact time, with only 9 of those hours scheduled outside regular business hours. While the residents who did engage brought thoughtful and constructive input which strengthened specific elements of the plan, the modest overall participation and constrained evening/weekend access limit how fully the document can claim to represent the community’s complete vision. I would hope that future efforts are considerate of those residents who are not available during the working hours.
2. Where do you stand on the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax? Please explain why either way. Is there anything about the proposed tax as written that you think voters/residents might have confusion about, or may be lacking clarity on?
I support the three services this tax would fund—commercial air service, ground transport, and ambulance service—but I oppose funding them this way.
Why I oppose it:
1. It consumes most of our sales tax funded economic development capacity.
By statute the county can raise only 1% sales tax for economic development. This proposal takes three-quarters of that capacity and locks it into these three services. The remaining quarter is too small to pursue meaningful economic development. We would effectively trade our ability to truly grow the local economy in exchange for these very specific services.
2. It stretches the definition of “economic development.”
First-responder services such as ambulance are important, but they are not pure economic development when compared to proven economic development activities like workforce development, business recruitment, commerce infrastructure development, etc. Expanding the definition this way dilutes the purpose of the tax and sets a precedent that could justify many other services under the same label. Over time we risk having neither the sustainable services we need nor the economic engines that actually grow the community and generate the public revenues those services require.
3. The process damaged trust. Communication from FCAG through its liaison to the Lander City Council fell far short of what the process required to keep the council informed and in a position to allow constituents to weigh in until much too late in the process. When FCAG finally briefed the Council, its representatives were surprised at how little the Council knew. That lack of transparency has fueled public skepticism and does not bode well for future cooperation.
Bottom line:
The services matter. Public trust matters more. If forced to choose between securing these services at the cost of trust, or preserving trust and returning to the table to find a better solution, I will always choose trust.
3. So far, the community candidate forums for Lander have indicated that city government spending/availibility for communication, affordable housing, and infrastructure issues are primary concerns. What specific actions would you take to address those concerns?
I agree that these seem to be significant topics of concern with constituents. In discussing these with folks in Lander I’ve tried to achieve three aims:
1. Listen first—and prove it.
As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to listen carefully and work to understand the full range of viewpoints in our community. No matter how effective we may believe our current engagement efforts to be, a more deliberate approach is always possible.
2. Manage expectations: I’ve tried to uncover some of the regulatory, economic, or political complexities involved in these topics. Often serving as an impactful councilman includes going deep into the topics alongside concerned constituents.
3. Advocate clearly and consistently: If I can bring a constituent’s voice into the City Council it is my duty to represent their concern in a competent and compelling way.
I think all of these topics are complex but manageable. Some we can improve upon through organizational and cultural change within the environment of City Hall (communication). Some we can plan to solve while remaining aligned to our strategic plan (infrastructure and spending). Others we can hope to manage over a much longer period of time because of the scope of the problem (housing).
Within the actual authority of a City Council member, here are the specific actions I will take:
Communication / government availability
• Continue to defend public comment at every opportunity.
• Continue, alongside Council Representative Stuble, to advocate for more open-house opportunities for public engagement at the city level.
• Work with Council Representative Stuble to establish ward-level listening sessions and report what I heard back to the full Council and staff.
• Work with the Mayor and city staff to improve how agendas and staff reports are written so residents can access not only data, but also staff analysis, so residents can actually understand the trade-offs.
Spending and infrastructure
• Continue to emphasize to the Mayor, Council, and staff that the annual budget should serve as the main accountability document and ask for clear, public prioritization of infrastructure needs against available revenue.
• Continue to advocate for operationalizing our discussions on the spending of public funds. Advocate for multiple discussions throughout the planning stages, instead of the current practice of bringing the Council into the discussion only once the planning is complete.
• Support grant-seeking and intergovernmental partnerships where the city cannot fund projects alone, and insist those efforts are tracked publicly.
• Refuse to vote for new spending that is not paired with a realistic and transparent funding path.
Affordable housing
• Support only zoning and annexation tools which are widely accepted and proven to remove barriers to supply while being respectful of our community and its character.
• Listen closely to the community for fatigue on this issue, understanding that as a community Lander has had multiple engagements on this topic.
• Advocate for state and federal programs that actually bring capital and flexibility to places like Lander.
• Measure progress by whether we are steadily removing obstacles and attracting partners, not by promising a number of units no City Council can guarantee.
4. Outside of the primary concerns mentioned above, what area of improvement do you think the town/city government needs to make that might not get as much attention?
Outside of the primary concerns already discussed, one area that receives less attention but has a real impact on our ability to govern is the tone and tenor of our public debates.
Too often, policy disagreements are delivered or received in ways that feel personal. When that happens, the natural response is escalation rather than de-escalation, and the Council’s capacity to work through difficult issues suffers. Residents notice it, staff notice it, and it quietly erodes trust in the process.
Since joining the Council I have made a deliberate effort to model respectful dialogue and professionalism in every discussion, regardless of the topic or who is speaking. I will continue to do so. No matter who serves in the coming years, we are on the same team. We all want Lander to succeed. Maintaining a culture of civil, substantive debate is one of the most practical improvements we can make to city government.
5. What specific strength would you bring to the role of Lander City Council member/Mayor? What is an area of weakness, or a subject matter that you would have to work on if elected? Can you think of a time when you failed at something, but overcame the failure or hurdle to work toward a solution that would apply to the role of City Council Member/Mayor? Please elaborate.
This is a complex and multi-part question, so I will try to break it into its separate parts.
Specific Strength:
The strength I bring to the Council—and will continue to pursue—is the one highlighted in my answer to Question Four. Governance operates in an environment of limited resources and competing priorities. That process can easily turn argumentative, combative, and unproductive, but it does not have to. We owe our constituents much more and better service than that. I served as an enlisted Marine and later as a commissioned officer for two decades. Those years of real fighting shaped my view of governance: the ‘fighting’ approach is unhelpful and counterproductive in this setting. We achieve far more when we build strong teams that replace dogmatic, short-term, win-at-all-costs thinking with rigorous debate grounded in mutual respect and trust.
Area of weakness/subject matter shortfall:
After a little more than a year on the Council, I have clearly seen my own subject-matter gaps. My biggest shortfall is limited familiarity with the detailed background work involved in pursuing grant funding for the City. While this is not primarily a Council role, I believe the Council should be informed early and often so we can keep constituents informed. Serving on the Council has a steep learning curve; meaningful service requires leaning into it.
Previous failure/achievement and application to council:
As I mentioned before, I was a US Marine for two decades. I was able to pack into those twenty years a lifetime of hardships, innumerable failures, lessons identified but not learned fast enough, and some which were learned through severe difficulty. I have been challenged by near impossible circumstances in which there was no clear win to be achieved, no previous solutions to refer to, and no guiding light to lead you to the best possible outcome. In facing these real world, complex risks awash in fatal consequences I was able to learn about myself, my weakness, my strengths and above all the value of teams. Early in my career, I lived a life guided by rigid, dogmatic, judgmental thinking. Personal experience with close combat, personal loss, numerous near death experiences, and being wounded multiple times in combat operations very firmly and completely shifted that mindset. For many years I have felt blessed to have been afforded the opportunity to learn and survive this lesson. I believe that my ability to respectfully disagree while also strongly feeling a sense of companionship with those I disagree with is the most impactful life lesson or achievement I can bring to council. As I have said in town halls and forums in the past; there are no enemies here in Lander. No matter how much we may disagree, ultimately we are all on the same team.
Oakley Corsick-Boycott, Ward 1 City Council
1. How familiar are you with the Lander Master Plan and the most recent 2025 update? What areas do you think are strengths? Weaknesses?
Having been more familiar with the Lander Master Plan prior to its 2025 update, I would consider myself moderately familiar with the recent version.
The strengths of the updated 2025 Lander Master Plan are that it does a fairly decent job of prioritizing the “needs” of our community over “wants”. Ultimately the followthrough in that regard is the responsibility of council and staff to uphold that in the best step practices that the Master Plan outlines.
It was good to see that an adjustment had been made in the 2025 update in regards to prioritizing senior housing attainability.
One of its weaker points is that though a broad spectrum of the community has been represented throughout the development of this master plan and its update, it’s been my take away that it doesn’t reflect the true depth of diversity that our community holds.
2. Where do you stand on the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax? Please explain why either way. Is there anything about the proposed tax as written that you think voters/residents might have confusion about, or may be lacking clarity on?
I am in support of the ¾ percent sales tax.
As written this proposed tax is often misunderstood within the limited tax structure allowed under Wyoming law.
Wyoming statute only allows counties to propose sales taxes in quarter-percent increments. The three services individually, don’t match the available options. A 0.25% tax would not generate enough revenue for commercial air service, but would generate more than what is needed for public transportation. A 0.50% tax would still fall short of what is needed for ambulance service.
The proposed funding model supports approximately 54% of the revenue of the ambulance service, 31% supporting commercial air service, and 15% would support public transportation.
The ballot language limits how the funds can be used, meaning revenue from this tax may only be used to support emergency medical services, specifically ground ambulance, commercial air service, and public ground transportation as stated in the ballot proposition below:
“Shall the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Fremont, State of Wyoming, be authorized to impose an excise tax of three-quarter percent (3/4%) upon retail sales of tangible personal property, admissions and services made within the county as defined by Wyoming state statutes, the purpose of which is for economic development. The net proceeds of the tax shall be used for economic development only to support emergency medical services (ground ambulance), commercial air service, and public ground transportation. If passed, the tax shall become effective on January 1, 2027, and as provided by W.S. § 39-5-203(a)(v)(C) the same proposition shall be submitted at the general election in 2030.”
3. So far, the community candidate forums for Lander have indicated that city government spending/availibility for communication, affordable housing, and infrastructure issues are primary concerns. What specific actions would you take to address those concerns?
First and foremost, I would like to see more active community participation around all of these issues, not just the same faces who show up every time. If we as a community choose to even just do a little bit better in that aspect, while also bringing our own creative problem-solving to the table, there is nothing we Landerites can’t.
If I were to choose one of the three to focus on here, I would say that I would like to see more diverse community engagement with local
government around affordable housing. To begin with, I would like explore what conversations surrounding caps on short term rentals can look like with action taken towards the development of designated workforce housing.
With complete understanding that this does not solve the problem of affordable housing availability, greater collective conversations need to be had (and action taken) in ensuring that longtime community members have a safe place to call home vs pushing real estate development for expansion.
As stated in the City of Lander Master Plan(with city action already taken in these directions) I support:
-Promotion of organizations that create grant or low-interest loan programs to help homeowners repair and modernize homes, with focus on pre-1960 properties.
-Utilization of programs like EPA Brownfield to finance cleanup and revitalization efforts of vacant homes which are dilapidated and uninhabitable.
4. Outside of the primary concerns mentioned above, what area of improvement do you think the town/city government needs to make that might not get as much attention?
One of the most disheartening city projects to see fall through was the Table Mountain Living Facility.
Memory care for our elders is such a specialized need and growing so rapidly that it is my hope there can be a way for us to sustainably readdress and meet this need in the near future.
5. What specific strength would you bring to the role of Lander City Council member/Mayor? What is an area of weakness, or a subject matter that you would have to work on if elected? Can you think of a time when you failed at something, but overcame the failure or hurdle to work toward a solution that would apply to the role of City Council Member/Mayor? Please elaborate.
As a member of Lander City Council, one of my strengths is listening to learn vs. listening to respond. I don’t need to be right—I want to learn how I can be better. My strength is that I always want honest feedback because without it, we are all going nowhere. I want to know why people, systems, organizations, municipalities ect. work in the ways that they do and if I am wrong about any preconceived notions that I am have, I will always want to learn the inner workings in order to build a better future. If elected, the job itself is a steep learning curve. I am a person before I am ever a politician. Over my life I have watched Lander City councilmembers that have served on council for years continue to have to approach the challenges of that curve curve with humility and grace. That is the type of leader that I aspire and am inspired to be.
Failure isn’t real if you choose to learn from it. If we as a council are actively choosing to hold ourselves accountable to each other and our constituents then failure isn’t even on the table.
Jesse Grossinger, Ward 2 City Council
1. How familiar are you with the Lander Master Plan and the most recent 2025 update? What areas do you think are strengths? Weaknesses?
I would describe myself as moderately familiar with the Lander Master Plan and its 2025 update. I have spent time reviewing it, but I would not pretend to have every page memorized.
One of its greatest strengths is that it looks at Lander as a connected system. Housing, infrastructure, transportation, economic development, land use, and quality of life cannot really be separated from one another. I particularly like the emphasis on directing development toward areas where water, sewer, and other infrastructure already exist or can be reasonably accessed. That is generally more responsible than expanding outward without considering what the City will have to maintain twenty or thirty years from now. The 2025 plan specifically identifies development-ready areas based in part on existing infrastructure and physical constraints.
My concern is less with the vision and more with implementation. A Master Plan should be a map, not a shopping list. Every major recommendation eventually has to be connected to cost, funding source, timeline, staff capacity, and measurable result.
I would use the Master Plan as a guide when making decisions, while recognizing that we cannot accomplish everything at once.
2. Where do you stand on the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax? Please explain why either way. Is there anything about the proposed tax as written that voters/residents might have confusion about, or may be lacking clarity on?
I support the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax, but I have reservations about how the three services were packaged and how the proposal has been explained.
I support ambulance service, commercial air service, and public ground transportation. All three serve people throughout Fremont County, and I believe regional services need a sustainable regional funding structure.
The ballot does provide important protection. If approved, the tax begins January 1, 2027, has an initial four-year term, and returns to voters in 2030. The ballot also restricts the proceeds to ground ambulance, commercial air service, and public ground transportation.
I also understand why some voters dislike having three different services combined into one question. I would have preferred more individual choices where practical, but state statute did not allow that to take place. Regardless of the outcome, taxpayers deserve transparent budgets, public reporting, and measurable results from every organization receiving these funds.
3. City government spending/availability for communication, affordable housing, and infrastructure issues are primary concerns. What specific actions would you take?
I would approach all of these concerns with the same basic rule: show the work.
For spending, major expenditures should clearly identify the need, total cost, funding source, long-term maintenance costs, alternatives considered, and effect on residents. I would also like Council to review progress against the budget throughout the year rather than treating the annual budget as a document we approve and put away.
For communication, I want major decisions explained in plain language. Residents should be able to quickly understand what is being proposed, why it is needed, what it will cost, what alternatives exist, and how they can participate. Better communication does not necessarily mean spending more money on communication.
For housing, the City cannot solve affordability by itself, but it should examine where its own zoning, permitting, fees, and development requirements unnecessarily increase costs. I support infill and development where infrastructure already exists, along with partnerships and outside funding that increase housing opportunities without simply transferring costs to taxpayers.
For infrastructure, I would prioritize water and sewer, followed by projects based on safety, likelihood of failure, long-term value, and available funding. Underground utilities and street reconstruction should be coordinated whenever possible, so we are not rebuilding the same area twice.
My goal is not simply more spending or less spending. It is better justified spending to create consistency from local government.
4. Outside of those primary concerns, what area of improvement does city government need to make that might not get as much attention?
I think we need to spend more time creating opportunities for young people to build a future in Lander.
We talk a lot about attracting businesses and managing growth, but keeping the next generation here is just as important. Not every young person wants or needs the same path. We need engineers, nurses, teachers, business owners, but we also desperately need plumbers, electricians, mechanics, carpenters, equipment operators, and other skilled trades.
The City does not run the schools or private businesses, and I do not think it should. What it can do is be a better partner. That means working with local employers, Central Wyoming College, the school district, contractors, and community organizations to identify barriers and opportunities. It also means keeping permitting and City processes understandable and predictable for someone trying to start or expand a small business.
I would also like the City to communicate upcoming infrastructure and development needs early enough that our local workforce can see where opportunities are developing.
A sustainable community is not simply one that people want to move to. It is one where the children who grow up here can see a realistic path to staying here, building a career, raising a family, and eventually retiring here.
5. What specific strength would you bring? What is a weakness? Describe a failure you overcame that would apply to City Council.
The strongest thing I would bring to City Council is systems thinking. My background has taken me through military service, engineering, manufacturing, finance, grant management, and public-sector business management. I am comfortable looking at the technical side of a problem, the financial side, and most importantly, how a decision affects people.
An area where I would have work to do is the detailed legal side of municipal land use, zoning, and some of the history behind Lander’s infrastructure systems. I am comfortable admitting that. My approach would be the same one I use professionally: learn the rules, listen to staff and subject-matter experts, talk to the people affected, and ask questions until I understand the issue well enough to make a responsible decision.
I also know what it is like to fail. When I joined the Air Force, I attempted Combat Control. I did not meet the run requirement and did not achieve that goal. I had to decide whether failing at one objective meant I was finished serving. It did not. I adapted, continued serving in Security Forces, and kept building new skills throughout my life.
That experience taught me that leadership is not about pretending failure never happens. It is about owning the result, understanding what went wrong, adjusting, and continuing the mission.
Mike Kusiek, Ward 3 City Council
1. How familiar are you with the Lander Master Plan and the most recent 2025 update? What areas do you think are strengths? Weaknesses?
I’m quite familiar with it. I read through the full 2025 update closely, including the appendix with the public engagement and survey data, not just the headline goals.
What stands out most to me is something the plan’s own numbers point to but don’t say directly. Lander’s population has barely moved in over 40 years, and the plan projects only modest growth through 2040, something like 7,450 residents in 2025 growing to around 7,625. So a lot of the anxiety I hear about growth fundamentally changing this town just isn’t supported by the actual trend line. We’re not on the verge of becoming a different place.
What we actually need isn’t protection from growth. It’s a real answer to why young people and young families leave, or never come here in the first place: the cost and availability of housing. The survey data backs this up too. Housing attainability for all income levels was the top-rated priority in the community survey, and workforce housing for teachers, nurses, and police officers came up constantly in public comments. If we want this community to still have a Main Street, a school district, and volunteers in twenty years, we need young adults who can afford to put down roots here now.
To me, that’s the plan’s real strength: the Priority Growth Matrix and the public engagement process give the city an objective, data-backed way to direct growth to the right places, and the housing goals around workforce and missing-middle housing are aimed at the right problem.
Where I’d push back is that the plan treats housing as one goal among many rather than naming it as the urgent, defining priority it actually is. The objectives are aspirational, using words like promote, explore, and encourage, without unit targets, timelines, or funding attached. If affordable housing for the next generation is truly what determines whether Lander thrives or slowly hollows out, I’d like to see that stated plainly and treated as the plan’s central mission, rather than folded into a list alongside things like parking and streetlights.
2. Where do you stand on the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax? Please explain why either way. Is there anything about the proposed tax as written that you think voters/residents might have confusion about, or may be lacking clarity on?
I support the three-quarter cent sales tax. My understanding is that Fremont County currently doesn’t have adequate funding for ambulance service, bus service, and the airport, three things that fall into the category of essential infrastructure whether or not any individual resident uses them directly. If this measure fails, the county will likely have to cut other critical services to keep those three funded, since they can’t simply go away. So to me this isn’t really a question of adding a new expense. It’s a question of how we pay for services we already depend on and can’t afford to lose.
I’d also point out that a sales tax spreads the cost across everyone who spends money in the county, including visitors and tourists passing through, rather than placing the full burden on property owners or a smaller tax base. For a county like ours that depends heavily on tourism and outdoor recreation traffic, that’s a meaningful advantage.
3. So far, the community candidate forums for Lander have indicated that city government spending/availibility for communication, affordable housing, and infrastructure issues are primary concerns. What specific actions would you take to address those concerns?
There will always be concerns about spending, and that’s healthy. Residents should be asking hard questions about how their tax dollars get used. But I think the real work here is on the communication side. We can do a much better job of keeping citizens informed about what the city is doing and why, and, just as importantly, we can do a better job of inviting people into the process before decisions are made rather than explaining them after the fact. That could look like regular, plain-language budget updates, a more active presence at community events, and clearer explanations of how a project was funded, especially when grant dollars are involved. When people understand the “why” behind a decision, spending concerns tend to soften, even when the answer isn’t what they hoped to hear.
On infrastructure, I think most residents don’t fully grasp how dependent Lander is on grant funding to get anything done. By some estimates, our current city staff is leveraging roughly 21 dollars of outside funding for every 1 dollar the city puts in. That’s an extraordinary return, and it’s not something people talk about enough. Most of our roads were originally paved back in the 1960s, and asphalt has a useful life of around 20 years. Without grant funding, we’re putting band-aids on band-aids and falling further behind every year because the city budget alone doesn’t come close to covering what’s actually needed. Skilled grant writers who know how to put together a winning proposal are rare and valuable, and protecting that capacity, whether through staff retention, training, or dedicated support, is one of the most concrete things the city can do to actually move the needle on infrastructure.
On affordable housing, I’d point to the same kind of practical, specific action. That means pushing forward on things like flexible zoning for missing middle housing such as duplexes, townhomes, and ADUs, supporting deed-restricted housing programs that keep homes attainable for future buyers rather than just the first one, and prioritizing infill development within city limits so we’re not driving up the cost of extending infrastructure to serve sprawl. None of that solves the problem by itself, but each piece chips away at the actual bottleneck, which is supply, not just intent.
4. Outside of the primary concerns mentioned above, what area of improvement do you think the town/city government needs to make that might not get as much attention?
Outside of communication, housing, and infrastructure, I’d point to beautifying the city and making Lander safer and easier to navigate on foot or by bike. Those two things don’t get nearly the attention they deserve, but the research on their economic impact is strong, and there are small towns very similar to Lander that prove it out.
Fruita, Colorado, has leaned into trail and bike tourism, and it now sees over $ 1.5 million a year pumped into its local economy from that alone. Its sales tax revenue increased 51 percent over five years, and restaurant revenue jumped 80 percent. Oakridge, Oregon, a former timber town that lost its logging jobs and rebuilt its economy around cycling tourism instead. That’s basically the same story Lander has been living through since the mines closed, just with a different focus on outdoor recreation.
And we don’t even have to look outside Wyoming. Teton County’s trail system generated an estimated $ 18 million in economic activity in a single year, supporting over 200 jobs and $ 3.6 million in wages. Lander has the same kind of natural assets: the Wind River Range, Sinks Canyon, the Popo Agie River corridor, and outdoor-focused institutions like NOLS already here. We’re leaving real economic value on the table if we don’t invest in the infrastructure that lets us capture it, as these other towns have.
On the beautification side, Main Street America’s national data backs this up too. For every dollar a community invests in a local Main Street program, about eighteen dollars in new private and public investment flows back into that downtown, and that’s true whether you’re a town of 7,000 or 700,000.
This connects directly back to housing and workforce too. Walkable, bikeable small towns with a strong Main Street are more attractive to young professionals and young families, the same demographic Lander needs to anchor for its future. When people are choosing between towns, a safe, walkable Main Street with good bike access is a real deciding factor. It also directly lowers the cost of living. The average vehicle costs roughly nine thousand dollars a year to own and operate, so a town where you can walk or bike safely gives families real breathing room in their budget.
So my case is simple. Beautification and bike and pedestrian safety are economic development tools with a well-documented payoff in towns just like ours, and Lander should be treating them that way in the budget.
5. What specific strength would you bring to the role of Lander City Council member/Mayor? What is an area of weakness, or a subject matter that you would have to work on if elected? Can you think of a time when you failed at something, but overcame the failure or hurdle to work toward a solution that would apply to the role of City Council Member/Mayor? Please elaborate.
Strength:
“The strength I’d bring is a proven ability to turn community priorities into funded, built projects. Running a small nonprofit for years, I’ve had to become fluent in grant writing, coalition building across agencies such as the Wyoming Association of Municipalities, the BLM, Forest Service, and WYDOT, and in navigating the state legislative process directly, including testifying before committees and working sessions in Cheyenne. That’s exactly the skill set a city needs right now. Lander’s infrastructure needs depend heavily on outside funding, and that only happens when someone on the team knows how to write a winning application and knows the right people at the state and federal level to call. I’d bring that network and that track record straight into the role.
Weakness and a time I failed:
The last time I served on council, I didn’t fully appreciate how much work it takes just to get up to speed on an issue before you’re ready to vote on it responsibly. I leaned on instinct more than I should have, and if I’m being honest with myself, I sometimes gave the most weight to whichever constituents were reaching out most frequently or most urgently, rather than doing the deeper homework on an issue first. The thing I’ve come to understand since then is that this job, while rooted in representing Ward 3, is really one of seven voices shaping the near and long-term future of this whole community. People joke that it only pays a couple hundred bucks a month, and I joke right back that at least it feels like having a second job, because the real work happens before, during, and after every council meeting, not just in the few hours you’re sitting at the dais.
What I’d do differently, and what I’m committing to if elected, is putting in the work to actually know the issues and understand how things have been handled before, rather than relying on gut instinct alone. That means seeking out input from city staff and outside experts, from citizens across the ward and the city, and from the people who served on council before me and already worked through similar decisions. That’s not a comfortable thing to admit I’ve failed at, but it’s exactly the kind of lesson that makes you better at the job the second time around.
Alan McOmie, Mayor
1. How familiar are you with the Lander Master Plan and the most recent 2025 update? What areas do you think are strengths? Weaknesses?
I am somewhat familiar with the Lander Master Plan. I looked it over, prior to filing for Mayor. I have reviewed it again, noting the 2025 updates.
I see strength in having a relatively up to date plan, with citizen input. It does lay out some goals over a 15 year period. It gives insight into what we have and where we are going. It shows what the City has and what the City goals are. I believe this is a good plan, but there is one problem that I see.
The major weakness I see is no real order in the plan itself. The plan does not set out in what order the goals are to be implemented. Everything goes hand in hand when it comes to the plan. With that being said, the first goal being a strong infrastructure. Without that everything else fails. You must have listed priorities and follow them as closely as possible. Starting at the most important and completing that goal before moving to the next.
2. Where do you stand on the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax? Please explain why either way. Is there anything about the proposed tax as written that you think voters/residents might have confusion about, or may be lacking clarity on?
I do support the 3/4 % sales tax, only because we need an ambulance. I do not like the way it was presented to the citizens of Fremont County. FCAG attached the Airport and WRTA to the tax, because I believe neither would be able to be passed on their own. What I also did not like was that I was under the impression that this tax would fully fund the 3 operations. This is not true. The ambulance will still be coming back to the Fremont County Govt with a hand out to make up the difference. I do understand the Air Service because it does bring in money and supports the communities. Also the vote must happen every (4) four years. Which at first I did not know. The vote does not lock in the percentage that each agency will receive. This percentage can be changed with all members of the MOU voting for the change. The changes can take place without the voting public permission. We, the voting public, voted in the tax, but don’t have a voice in any changes that can come up afterwards.
I believe there are other options for funding the ambulance. I believe that we should research a 1st Responder District for Fremont County as a whole. This however would make the residents of the county responsible for all the cost. It would not tax non citizens of the county to help pay for the service like ¾% does. Or maybe the County could take the ambulance service back over, like before. It seemed like it was working, until they privatized the service. The county owns the equipment now and is responsible for all maintenance on these vehicles so why not. They could hire a director to oversee the Ambulance Service as before and then hire certified EMT’s as County employees.
3. So far, the community candidate forums for Lander have indicated that city government spending/availibility for communication, affordable housing, and infrastructure issues are primary concerns. What specific actions would you take to address those concerns?
I would immediately stop all funding to the new park. We have far more pressing needs than the park. I would start looking at repairing the streets, pavement, curbs and gutters along with valley pans. The curbs, gutters and valley pans can be fixed by city employees rather than hiring the jobs out. We must start fixing these 3 items as quickly as we can, as they can cause major damage to the road surfaces and home owners sidewalks. As for the road surfaces themselves, there are two alternate ways of repairing them rather than waiting to tear the street completely up when the water and sewer lines are done. A lot of streets won’t be touched for years under the current master plan. We can do a lot better and faster if we don’t get side tracked with parks or complete rebuilds. Infrastructure is my #1 goal. Without a strong infrastructure, business and affordable housing will lag. As for stopping the funding for the new park, there are a few reasons why. The cost of outfitting the park is going to be a major cost, but the little talked about cost is the ongoing cost of maintaining the park for the rest of its life. Like power, water, mowing and the upkeep of restrooms and other infrastructure as examples.
Affordable housing can be accomplished through helping the business community that are willing to spend their money in developing new subdivisions or single builds. From new townhouses, duplexes and cottage type homes. The city can help through zoning, fast track permitting and lower fees. The city can also help identify properties within the city limits of old failing structures that need to be rehabbed or torn down. The city could also identify large 2 or 3 residential lot properties. These properties may be able to be broken up into smaller lots, thus increasing building sites. The city could work with the contractors on reviewing and updating the Cities building codes, making them more efficient for the City of Lander instead of a road block. The City should work with the business community, not hinder it.
As for spending, I will review all aspects of the budget. I will push for accountability and fiscal responsibility. I will import a “What we Need and Not what we Want” type attitude. I will work with all department heads and the council in attempting to get the biggest bang for your buck, through leveraging grants for infrastructure programs. I would also look at the city’s workforce structure and see if we should either cut or expand the city employees. Review current positions for redundancies making sure that the position is needed and filled by the most qualified person. Meet with department heads and employees to discuss what if any equipment or policy changes need to be made to become more efficient in doing their jobs.
Another very important change would be communication. Giving the citizens a voice. It seems that the city is failing to listen. Some examples are, the proposed zoning changes or not being able to address issues in front of the council at the time of discussion. To not being contacted back when a citizen is asking to be heard. Also the council meetings will be run differently. Instead of giving a citizen 5 minutes to talk at the start of the meetings. I will let the citizen(s) talk when the subject is being discussed by the council. This is very frustrating when you want to talk about the subject at hand, but are only given the time ahead of the subject matter. I believe that we can do better on our transparency also. Updating the City web site to make it more user friendly. To use social media to get the message out on upcoming infrastructure events so you will know why painted lines suddenly show up on your street. To when and where jobs are planned or when the snow removal crew will be coming down your street so you can move your vehicles. Use more door hangers to make sure residents are aware of projects coming to their neighborhoods and what may be expected of them. I will work hard at not shotgunning citizens or businesses when an issue comes up. What I mean by this is not making a change to an ordinance or policy when there is a single issue that needs to be addressed. Example would be the new Title 2 ordinance update. And last but not least, as mayor I will be available for public contact. From calling you back or setting up a meeting to help resolve an issue. My staff will also be held to these standards. Communication is key to resolving issues.
4. Outside of the primary concerns mentioned above, what area of improvement do you think the town/city government needs to make that might not get as much attention?
Water storage is an issue that gets little discussion. We need to look forward to increasing the storage. When I say storage, I mean working on expanding Worthen Meadow reservoir. After watching the Federal Govt come in and tell Wyoming we must start sending more water to other states, I fear that we, Lander, could be next. By increasing the capacity, we can start working with the State and Federal Agencies so the city can start releasing more water into the river, in an attempt to stop the water from dropping to a dangerous level; prompting the “Stay out of the water warnings” which seems to happen every year. I remember as a kid, I was able to go and play in the river all summer long. I don’t ever remember seeing the water level drop to the point that it is now. Also by increasing the storage capacity the city will be ready for any growth that may occur in the future.
5. What specific strength would you bring to the role of Lander City Council member/Mayor? What is an area of weakness, or a subject matter that you would have to work on if elected? Can you think of a time when you failed at something, but overcame the failure or hurdle to work toward a solution that would apply to the role of City Council Member/Mayor? Please elaborate.
Strong leadership. Communicator and problem solver. Fiscal conservative. 41 years of experience as a City employee. 20+ years of supervisor experience. Helped make and manage budgets. Represented the Lander Police Department in both department head meetings and City council meetings. Understanding the other city department functions and needs. How to get a group of people together and come up with solutions to a problem. Not afraid of asking the hard question or giving a hard answer. Understanding that I can’t make everyone happy.
A weakness of mine is not knowing all the answers to questions. However with that being said, I do know how to find the right person or resources to get the answer. I also believe that when seeking out this information for a citizen or employee that I listen and understand the answer so next time I will know.
As for a failure, I have had a few. However the one that would apply to being Mayor is as follows.
I had just retired from my law enforcement position and took the dog catcher/code enforcement position. After reviewing some ordinances on dogs at large, I first attempted to rewrite the dog ordinance. I thought I had a good grasp on what Lander wanted. I took the new proposed ordinance to the council to review/make changes and then bring it up for passing. When the public found out after first reading, public outcry happened. From being too strict to not being strict enough to just leave it alone. So the matter was tabled.
I regrouped and asked that a committee be formed out of both dog advocates and non dog lovers. The mayor, Mayor Wolfe, thought this was a good idea, assigning a council person to represent the city. I put out an ad in the paper and also contacted Sid Miller, Pet Connection founder. Before long I had approx. 8 people, not including the council person. I also had a mix of younger people and older seniors.
After approx. 8 meetings we came to an agreement that everyone could live with. I prepared the ordinance again and gave copies out to the committee. All were happy with what we had worked on together. I then presented it to the City Attorney for proper phrasing and legal wording. After this the committee presented it to the council. The ordinance passed all three readings with no changes.
I learned that by getting a group of people together both in favor of an idea and against it, was the proper way of doing things. I have done this a few times since. I learned that by listening to a different perspective on an issue, I could make a better informed decision.
Missy White, Mayor
1. How familiar are you with the Lander Master Plan and the most recent 2025 update? What areas do you think are strengths? Weaknesses?
Cities are required by State Statute to have a Master Plan. I’m well familiar with the 2025 Master Plan since I was heavily involved in its development as a Council Member. I participated in the planning of it, attended community outreach sessions, and reviewed and edited the drafts. I keep a copy front and center on my desk as a guide.
Strengths of the plan include significant outreach in different locations and formats to gather ideas from a broad cross-section of the Lander community. It was discussed in-depth by Council before adoption. It dovetails with the Council’s Strategic Plan, and provides structured guidance for directing resources to achieve our community’s shared goals.
Other strengths are the breadth of considerations: growth, economy, housing, infrastructure, parks and rec, and transportation. Additionally, there are specific goals for each category, and prioritization of them for further direction. This plan is a North Star for the community – it shows us the direction we want to go, and guides staff and Council to prioritize projects that are aligned with community desires.
While some see a need for partnerships to achieve many of the goals as a weakness, I believe those are strengths. Moving forward on the Master Plan continues to capitalize on the strong partnerships we have in place with other entities. Lander is small enough to work together, and too small not to!
2. Where do you stand on the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax? Please explain why either way. Is there anything about the proposed tax as written that you think voters/residents might have confusion about, or may be lacking clarity on?
I’m in favor, and this is the only option for raising sufficient funding that doesn’t depend wholly on residents. Visitor spending will contribute significantly.
Ambulance service is a basic expectation of residents and businesses. I believe it is an essential service, even if it doesn’t meet the State’s definition of the term. If the initiative fails and the cost of ambulance service is allocated per capita, Lander’s share of the $3.1M bill will be appx $500,000 annually. That will gravely impact the budget, and reduce other services that we provide now, and that the community depends on.
Commercial air service is an economic driver. Rural, remote communities without air service are declining economically. That’s why I’ve been deeply involved in maintaining and improving commercial air service since 2014: The erratic service of Great Lakes negatively impacted residents’ quality of life and the business environment. Families missed weddings, returned late to work, or were stranded in Denver for excessive lengths of time. Multiple businesses left Lander and Fremont County, and more were packing their bags to leave, but stayed because we improved air service. The funds paid to the revenue guarantee are returned back multiple times in support for our tourism economy, support for businesses, connecting rural America to the world for business, medical assistance, and with family.
I encourage everyone to read the Memorandum Of Agreement, the formal document that outlines limitations on how the funds can be used. There is no money available for discretionary use: funds can only be used for ambulance service, public ground transportation (WRTA, Senior Centers, etc) and/or commercial air service. A Public Comment period of a minimum of 30 days has to precede proposed changes. Following that, each governing body must have majority approval for changes to be made to the MOA.
Each entity is required to create a restricted fund and/or line items in their budgets for the tax proceeds and expenditures. No part of the tax shall be transferred to a general fund for general operations. Each entity is audited, and audits are public.
The revenues that will be generated by this initiative are necessary for continued delivery of important services and provides accountability to the public. Transparency is achieved through the agreements between elected bodies, and the requirements for any future changes.
3. So far, the community candidate forums for Lander have indicated that city government spending/availibility for communication, affordable housing, and infrastructure issues are primary concerns. What specific actions would you take to address those concerns?
Communication
I firmly believe that well informed community members are critical for functioning democracies. I’m grateful for everyone who engages with Lander’s government on a range of issues. It’s essential that we share information and solicit dialogue and input with everyone in town. I’m proud of the extensive communication regarding Council activities that Lander offers: streaming of Council meetings and recordings available on-line usually no more than 24 hours later; agenda packets available to the public before meetings and kept on the city’s web page. I believe that Public Comment is an important component of Council meetings and will protect that on our agendas. Open Houses have been another way for engagement with the community, allowing a more relaxed, small group conversation.
I am also a firm believer that we must continue requiring ALL documents requiring financial obligation of the City to be voted on in Council meetings.
I welcome drop in visits at City Hall! We open the door and welcome folks in daily. Lander residents deserve excellent customer service. To me that means having enough time to discuss and ideally resolve your concern in one meeting. That might mean having researched background information or gathering documents ahead of time. If you’ve got questions or concerns, I look forward to working with you.
It’s also important that city facilities protect vital documents and information, and provide safety for staff. I respect that our front desk staff feel safer with the current practice of a window and locked door. Don’t worry, we’ll buzz you right through for a conversation! This system allows us to keep our facility and staff safe from the rare, but consequential, possibility of a person with ill-intent seeking access.
Attainable Housing
I’ve been addressing housing needs for years, because I deeply believe that a healthy community includes those who do the work of the community, living in the community. I am concerned that rising housing prices are impacting both the workforce as well as those on limited incomes. Below is a list of actions that I have or am taking to address this:
- Worked with City staff to acquire $500,000 to offset sewer, water, and sidewalk costs for in-fill housing development
- Refinement of Planned Unit Development option for housing development
- Support development at a scale that the city can sustain
- Have initiated conversations with large scale developer/financer
- Continue work with dedicated housing stakeholder group
- Bank, Chamber, Local and State elected officials, Community Members
- Possibility of Land Trust formation
- Develop guidelines for responsible development of the land allocated by Legislature for residential development
- Responsive to neighbor concerns
- At a scale the City can sustain over long term for replacement of major infrastructure
- Provides variety of housing options: apartments, small “starter” homes, traditional single family homes
- Consider incentivizing building of rent-restrict units
- Refine zoning code as appropriate to encourage additional housing opportunities
Infrastructure
Tackling major infrastructure projects took years of planning, engineering, and acquiring additional funding. I’m thrilled that we’re now in a position that has allowed us to break ground on multiple road, water, and sewer projects! My priorities:
- Continue with the plan underway to replace/repair major projects
- Baldwin Creek will go to bid this fall, and likely 5th Street
- Continue to find additional funds for these projects. Inflation significantly impacted our top 10 projects, increasing the price from $49M to $107M
- I will continue working with State and Federal entities to educate them about the funding need and that additional funds are needed for Lander
- Maximize the use of .25% interest loans for current projects and seek additional ones for future projects. This allows us to keep water and sewer rates to the minimum amount needed to make loan payments and achieve loan forgiveness as soon as possible. While no one likes paying more, the 7% water and 9% sewer increases allow us to leverage millions of dollars in low cost loans. Otherwise, we couldn’t do the projects without a drastic increase to residents’ rates.
4. Outside of the primary concerns mentioned above, what area of improvement do you think the town/city government needs to make that might not get as much attention?
Every day, City staff work to make improvements, whether its refining the mosquito program, replacing grills in parks, prepping fields for sports teams, planting trees, cleaning public spaces, closely monitoring and responding to water system needs, improving the sewer ponds, sweeping streets, caring for families in their time of need at funerals, patching pot holes, assisting contractors, patrolling the community and keeping us safer through their actions. We get so much done and I want to be sure we’re sharing these updates and improvements on a regular and easily accessible basis. I’ll prioritize improved communication about all that we’re tackling.
I bring this up because we have to “walk and chew gum at the same time.” We need to work on today’s projects, prepare for next week or next month’s, and also make plans for next year’s projects, and the foundation for projects years out begins years ahead of time. I’ll work to make sure we don’t miss the opportunity to better engage and inform our community members, and seek their feedback about how we provide services, and how we can provide services even better.
5. What specific strength would you bring to the role of Lander City Council member/Mayor? What is an area of weakness, or a subject matter that you would have to work on if elected? Can you think of a time when you failed at something, but overcame the failure or hurdle to work toward a solution that would apply to the role of City Council Member/Mayor? Please elaborate.
Specific Strength
Nothing beats having active participation in Council decisions for almost 8 years, with decades of community and service involvement prior to that. Over the years I’ve gained significant information on projects, from expanding water resources to housing to increasing transparency to improving sewer and water systems and catching up on decades of deferred work on our streets. That intensive work means I have a deep understanding of the requirements to make effective decisions in general and financial decisions in particular. Additionally, I’ve built a foundation of knowledge of the nuanced steps to move projects forward with fidelity to legal and ethical obligations.
The last 17 months serving as Mayor has deeply increased all of the above, as well as providing me the opportunity to share my organizational development and systems thinking skills to work with staff to develop credible, actionable, sustainable plans to keep Lander’s momentum towards its best future.
Overcame the failure
Last year, when we were rewriting our liquor license codes, we found out that we could have improved our early outreach. When we held a public workshop in the Fall, it became apparent some business owners had missed media coverage, as well as our previous meetings where we openly discussed our intentions to rewrite Title 2. I don’t like that folks felt caught by surprise, and it was a reminder that while our agendas are published, and that our discussions are held in open meetings and recorded on the website, that we also need to make targeted outreach happen. My staff and I swiftly made that adjustment and slowed down the ordinance approval process – meeting one-on-one with business owners who couldn’t make evening meetings, holding additional workshops and listening sessions, and taking time to get it right. This allowed us to have conversations with the many license holders who wholly supported revisions, and even wanted stricter guidelines sometimes, and with those who didn’t understand current obligations they held, or city roles in the licensing process. We developed solutions together that Council ultimately passed.
As a result of this, I’ve done significant outreach to shops, school leadership, the cycling club, and the general public before the first reading of the draft revisions of the e-bike ordinance.
Subject matter for more learning
I have heard loud and clear that there are points of concern for contractors regarding the permit process and work towards resolution. Thank you to those who have engaged in this conversation! I want to better understand the issues, gather specifics, and work towards a process that meets everyone’s needs. We need builders building in town – and while many do and I applaud the new homes and businesses we see in construction, I want to work with the contractors who are hesitant to break ground in Lander to co-create solutions.
Jenny Young, Ward 1 City Council
1. How familiar are you with the Lander Master Plan and the most recent 2025 update? What areas do you think are strengths? Weaknesses?
I am familiar with the Lander Master Plan and have spent time reviewing the 2025 update. I appreciate that the plan is intended to provide a long-term vision for Lander while recognizing that we need to preserve the character and qualities that make our community special. I particularly appreciate the emphasis on housing, infrastructure, responsible growth, community character, and the need to make thoughtful decisions about our future.
One of the strengths of the plan is that it identifies many of the issues residents are already talking about. The housing section, for example, recognizes the need for diverse housing options and additional housing opportunities while maintaining Lander’s unique character. I also appreciate that the plan was developed with community input.
Where I see a weakness is not necessarily in the plan itself, but in implementation. A plan is only useful if we use it to make decisions and establish priorities. I would like to see clearer timelines, responsible parties, measurable goals, and regular reporting on progress. We have done a lot of planning. I believe the next step is turning that planning into action.
2. Where do you stand on the proposed three-quarter percent sales tax? Please explain why either way. Is there anything about the proposed tax as written that you think voters/residents might have confusion about, or may be lacking clarity on?
I support the proposed three-quarter percent sales and use tax, with the understanding that it must be accompanied by transparency and accountability.
This is not a general-purpose tax for the City of Lander. It is a countywide tax dedicated to three specific services: ground ambulance, commercial air service, and public ground transportation. Those are services that have regional importance and affect Lander residents, businesses, and visitors. The proposed distribution is 54% for ambulance services, 31% for commercial air service, and 15% for public ground transportation, with a four-year term.
I do think there is potential for confusion because the phrase “economic development” could lead voters to believe the revenue can be used broadly for economic development projects. I think voters need to understand exactly where the money goes, how much is expected to be collected, who receives it, and what accountability exists for those funds.
I am particularly supportive of the additional requirement for public reporting by the service providers receiving the funds. If residents are being asked to contribute additional tax revenue, they deserve to see measurable results and understand how that money is being used.
3. So far, the community candidate forums for Lander have indicated that city government spending/availibility for communication, affordable housing, and infrastructure issues are primary concerns. What specific actions would you take to address those concerns?
On spending, I would support a more deliberate approach to budgeting that connects expenditures to clearly identified priorities. Before taking on new projects or programs, we need to understand their long-term costs, available funding, and impact on core city services.
Communication needs to be two-way. I support regular, plain-language updates on major projects and decisions, as well as making better use of existing communication tools.
For housing, I believe the city needs to be using the tools available to encourage infill, rehabilitation, and a range of housing types, especially the missing middle housing. The 2025 Master Plan already provides a foundation for this work. We need to move from identifying the problem to implementing practical solutions.
Infrastructure requires prioritization and long-term planning. We cannot fix everything at once, so we need a transparent capital improvement plan that identifies what needs to be done, what it will cost, what funding is available, and what should happen first. Roads, water, sewer, drainage, and other basic infrastructure have to remain at the center of responsible city government.
4. Outside of the primary concerns mentioned above, what area of improvement do you think the town/city government needs to make that might not get as much attention?
I think one area that deserves more attention is follow-through.
Lander has many good ideas, plans, studies, committees, and conversations. What I think residents sometimes lack is a clear understanding of what happens after those conversations. What was decided? Who is responsible? What is the timeline? What has been accomplished, and what is still outstanding?
I would like to see the city place greater emphasis on turning decisions into measurable action. That means setting priorities, assigning responsibility, establishing timelines, and reporting back to the public.
I also think we need to improve the connection between city government and the community’s many organizations, businesses, nonprofits, and residents. City government does not have to solve every problem by itself. Strong partnerships can help us make better use of the resources and expertise already present in Lander.
5. What specific strength would you bring to the role of Lander City Council member/Mayor? What is an area of weakness, or a subject matter that you would have to work on if elected? Can you think of a time when you failed at something, but overcame the failure or hurdle to work toward a solution that would apply to the role of City Council Member/Mayor? Please elaborate.
One of the greatest strengths I would bring to City Council is my ability to listen, organize information, and look at a problem from multiple perspectives. My professional experience has required me to work with data, budgets, grants, organizations, and people with very different
experiences and priorities. I am comfortable asking questions, examining the details, and then stepping back to look at the larger picture.
I also believe that good government requires both compassion and accountability. We can care about our community while still being responsible with public money. We can recognize that something needs to change while also respecting Lander’s history and character.
An area where I would have to continue learning is the technical side of municipal government, particularly some of the more specialized aspects of municipal finance, infrastructure, and state regulations. I would not pretend to know everything. I would approach that as a responsibility to learn from city staff, experts, other municipalities, and my fellow council members.
One of the most important lessons I have learned from failure is that good intentions are not enough. There have been times in my professional and community work when a project did not move forward the way I expected or when an approach simply did not work. My response has been to step back, identify what was not working, gather better information, and adjust rather than becoming attached to the original plan.
That is something I would bring to City Council. I am not interested in being right for the sake of being right. I am interested in finding solutions. Sometimes that means changing course, sometimes it means continuing to work through a difficult problem, and sometimes it means acknowledging that an idea needs more work before it is ready. I believe Lander needs council members who are willing to listen, make decisions, take responsibility for those decisions, and keep working toward practical solutions.
County 10 does not endorse any political candidate and strictly separates news from advertising. To learn more about political advertising with County 10 or to submit election news, click here.