Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Northeast Cheyenne topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends annexation and general zoning for pockets north of Del Range; residents voice opposition
Summary
The Cheyenne Public Services Committee voted to recommend annexing multiple county pockets north of Del Range Boulevard into the city and to assign general zoning for that land, while residents and some committee members voiced opposition and requested more information about consent and utility impacts.
The Cheyenne Public Services Committee voted to recommend approval of two ordinances: one to annex multiple pockets of land surrounded by city limits in northeast Cheyenne, and a companion ordinance to assign general zoning for that land if annexed. The parcels are generally north of Del Range Boulevard, east and west of Ridge Road, and south of Story Boulevard.
Standing in for Connor White, Seth Lloyd of the Planning and Development Department told the committee the city is authorized to annex property that is 75% surrounded by city limits and that some of the properties proposed already have outside-user agreements for city water and sewer. Lloyd said such agreements commonly require paying one-and-a-half times the city rate and often include a consent-to-annex clause; properties on city water and sewer would see their Board of Public Utilities (BOPU) rate decrease to the city rate upon annexation. He said the city would provide police, fire and sanitation services after annexation.
Several members of the public urged that the annexation be stopped. A resident identified as Mr. Brown said many county-pocket residents “do not wanna be annexed into the city,” to which the committee chair responded with background that the city and county had agreed years ago to resolve jurisdictional gaps by bringing some pockets into the city.
Daniel Singh, who said he represents House District 61, told the committee: “Please stop the annexation. The people that are experiencing the annexation are experiencing it against their will,” and argued that conditioning water service on annexation felt like coercion. He warned of increased property taxes and new rules for landowners.
Staff and council members disputed the idea that annexation is universally harmful. Lloyd noted the city has, in past annexations, waived some infrastructure requirements such as immediate curb, gutter and sidewalk installation to ease transitions and that nonconforming uses can remain grandfathered. Chairman Seagrave and other members said annexation reduces jurisdictional confusion that has affected emergency response and maintenance in the past; one council member noted that some roads and intersections are already city-maintained while adjacent parcels are county pockets.
Committee members asked for more information on how many properties are already on city services and how many owners opposed annexation. Dr. Aldridge said she had heard concerns and would vote no in committee today but recognized the city interest in contiguous jurisdiction; Dr. Remonds and Councilman White noted varying levels of constituent contact, with Remonds reporting no calls from Ward 2 residents on the issue.
The motion to approve the annexation ordinance was moved by Dr. Remonds and seconded by Councilman White; the committee approved the recommendation for council consideration, with Dr. Aldridge recorded as voting no in committee. The companion zoning ordinance assigning AG, MR, MUR and CB designations to the annexed land was advanced on a separate motion and will follow the annexation item to the City Council.
Next steps: Both ordinances were recommended to the full City Council at its next meeting. Staff said they will continue to review outside-user agreements and implementation mechanics; several committee members asked staff to provide counts of properties already connected to city utilities and to confirm which parcels contain outside-user agreements and their terms.
