CHEYENNE — Members of the Cheyenne City Council voted Monday night to ask a judge to decide whether a recently circulated petition can go through the city’s normal referendum process, or whether Wyoming law requires residents to use a different process to challenge the annexation.
The vote was taken after the council came back from a private executive session, which took place immediately after the main meeting. The item was not on the agenda.
The referendum petition, which was started by a group of Cheyenne residents last month, seeks to overturn Ordinance No. 4687, which is the measure approved by the City Council on July 13 that annexes land tied to a Microsoft data center expansion.
If validated, the referendum would be put on the general election ballot in November for Cheyenne voters to decide whether to uphold or reject it.
Under Wyoming law, petition organizers had to collect signatures from at least 10% of registered city voters within 20 days of the ordinance’s passage for the referendum to qualify for the ballot.
They needed around 2,700 valid signatures, but organizers said they were aiming to collect between 6,000 and 7,000 to account for any that may be invalidated during verification.
The deadline to collect signatures was Aug. 2.
Mayor Patrick Collins gave a detailed explanation of the issue before the council voted.
The city recently approved the owner-initiated annexation of 3,460 acres, Collins said.
State law provides a referendum process through which residents can challenge certain city ordinances by collecting enough signatures.
At the same time, Wyoming Statute 15-1-409 provides a specific process for challenging an annexation in district court.
“That’s the question,” Collins said. “The law in annexation says you have to appeal in district court, but there is this other thing that says you can do a referendum. We’re not clear on what is the correct way.”
The city is therefore asking a judge to determine which process applies to the annexation.
The exact motion that was made and approved Monday is to “authorize the city attorney to investigate, prepare and, in the exercise of the city attorney’s professional judgment, to commence and prosecute a declaratory judgment action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act seeking a judicial determination of whether an annexation ordinance is subject to the municipal referendum process, or whether the annexation challenge procedure of Wyoming Statute 15-1-409 controls to the exclusion of the referendum.”
The motion does not stop the city from continuing to process the referendum petition, several council members emphasized during the discussion Monday.
Councilwoman Michelle Aldrich said she supports seeking a court ruling because she thinks the city needs clear guidance on whether an annexation can be challenged through a referendum.
“It would be helpful to have a declaration from a court of law letting us know whether the annexation ordinance referendum can be done, and what our limitations would be in that response,” Aldrich said.
She said getting an answer from the courts could save time and resources for both residents who signed the petition and city staff if a judge decides the referendum process ultimately is not the proper way to challenge an annexation.
Councilman Jeff White also supported the motion, saying he wanted clarification for both future City Council members and residents.
Councilman Tom Segrave said the question stems from what he sees as conflicting provisions in state law.
“I believe there’s some ambiguity between the statutes,” Segrave said. “… We really need to know the right way for the public to appeal a decision. Clarification is what we’re after. We’re not stopping the count or the certification.”
Councilman Mark Moody was the only vote against seeking a court ruling. He said he thinks the language written in Wyoming law already makes clear that an ordinance can be challenged through a referendum.
“I’ll be a no vote,” Moody said. “The reason is that plain language states any ordinance can have a petition and go to referendum. It’s clear in Wyoming law. Really, it’s clear in constitutional law even for our whole country.”
Other council members said seeking clarification from the courts would help ensure the city follows the law while preserving residents’ ability to participate in the process.
The council also sought to clarify what a successful referendum would and would not mean for the proposed Microsoft data center expansion.
Councilman Ken Esquibel said overturning the annexation would not prevent the property owner from moving forward with development plans.
Instead, the property would remain outside the city and would be subject to county regulations rather than the city’s rules.
“It’ll just be moving forward in the county with less regulation than what the city has,” Esquibel said. “So if you signed that referendum thinking that you were stopping a data center from going in that annexation, that is not the case.”
The city clerk will continue counting and verifying the signatures submitted for the referendum while the city attorney seeks a court determination on which legal process applies.
The council approved the motion, with Moody voting no.