Council delays Cox Ranch annexation after hours of public opposition over data centers, water and wildlife

Mayor Collins convened the Cheyenne City Council on April 27 to consider an owner‑initiated annexation of roughly 1,200 acres west of Round Top Road adjacent to Happy Jack Road, an application that residents and conservation advocates said would allow data‑center development that threatens local water supplies and ranching character.

Cindy Delansancy, a Holland & Hart partner representing the seller, asked the council to pause the decision to give the parties more time to work through outstanding concerns. Tom McGissmeer of Via West and other applicant representatives outlined the procedural steps: annexation would bring the property into city limits, then assigned zoning (agriculture) would apply pending any later rezoning request.

Residents and stakeholders filled more than two hours of public comment. Heather Madrid, a Harmony Meadows resident, and several others told the council they were worried about endangered plants, raptor nests and surface flows from Crow Creek that contribute to local aquifer recharge. “Adding a data center there will reduce recharge and increase pollutant loading,” Madrid said, urging council members to reject the annexation until environmental risks are addressed.

Representatives for the purchaser, including Jack O’Neal, said the company was willing to meet with neighbors, draft development agreements and use closed‑loop cooling rather than repeatedly drill wells. “We would not drill a single well,” O’Neal said, adding his team aimed to pay the costs of required on‑site infrastructure and to require measures for lighting, sound and water management.

Multiple speakers also pressed for protections for a family mausoleum on the property and for more time for the Cox family and interested parties to negotiate access and easement language. Gay Woodhouse, representing Cox Ranches LLC, said survey work and family discussions would take more time and asked the council for a later date.

Planning staff and councilmembers debated process issues, including the city’s practice of assigning the county’s underlying zoning (AG) upon annexation so the city can enforce nuisance and other local ordinances. Planning Director Charles Bloom told the council that assigned zoning is standard practice and that subsequent rezoning would be a separate public process.

After extended public comment and council discussion about surveys, maps and outstanding questions, Councilman Crave moved — and the council approved — to refer the annexation and related zoning items to the Public Services Committee and to postpone formal action until Sept. 14, 2026. The referral also reflects requests for time to resolve a recorded family easement and to allow additional technical and environmental review.

What’s next: the Public Services Committee will study the annexation, and the council set a Sept. 14 deadline for the committee to report back. Any rezoning or development permit proposals that follow will require additional public hearings.