The Cheyenne City Council on Monday voted to pass 7-2 on second reading a controversial annexation, setting up a final vote next month that would decide whether a popular farm on the outskirts of the city would be folded into the city.
WY fresh farms and dozens of community members have pleaded with the council over the past few weeks to postpone the annexation — or write the parcels on which WY fresh farms is on out of the ordinance.
City attorney John Brodie and multiple city council members called the entire ordeal a “unique situation.”
Making Lemons Out Of Lemonade?
WY fresh owner David Kniseley addressed the council, thanking them for patience “as we try to wrap our heads around what’s happening.”
He repeatedly referred to the forced annexation as “taking lemons that have been thrown on the floor and stomped on."
“I still believe we can make lemonade,” he said. “I hope we’re in the process of doing that. But it’s been a lot of lemon on the floor.”
Council Accountable To The People
Cheyenne resident Donald Greer reminded the council that, as elected representatives, they are accountable to the voters. The city is pushing for this annexation, he said, and it is perceived negatively by the public.
“We’ve heard such an overwhelming coming together of the community,” he told the council. “It doesn’t feel like you’re listening to the voices of the people. How do you rationalize pursuing a course that directly contradicts the community’s desires?"
He addressed Mayor Patrick Collins directly, saying the mayor’s vision for annexing properties seems to disregard the value of community input.
“You guys work for us. Don’t forget that,” he said.
Push To Postpone Annexation
Richard Kniseley, David Kniseley’s 13-year-old son, pleaded for a postponement of the annexation. He told the council he has wanted to expand his flock of sheep.
“I want a little flock,” he said. “With this pressing annexation, it looks like I will not be able to do so.”
That’s because, according to city code, a bigger flock would require a larger barn, and a larger barn would require a building permit.
“We are perfectly willing to change our loyalty from the county to the city, if the city is willing to meet our needs,” Richard Kniseley said. “We are not asking for much. We simply ask why we cannot put this annexation off.”
Community supporters showed up to the meeting dressed in green shirts, as they did two weeks ago when the council voted to move forward with the first reading of the ordinance.
Chelsea McCort, who works for the Kniseleys, said the farm wants to separate itself from the current annexation so it is not holding up the annexation proceedings.
“This is not us playing a game where we’re waiting years to get annexed,” she said.
Instead, she said, it’s a matter of having adequate time to fully understand what being absorbed into the city limits would mean for the farm.
Council member Dr. Michelle Aldrich moved to postpone the second reading, saying the Public Services Committee had received a list of 143 questions to address regarding the annexation. If postponed, the second reading would have been considered on March 9.
Council members Dr. Mark Rinne and Dr. Kathy Emmons pushed back. Rinne said the Public Services Committee still has two weeks to work on answering all 143 questions, before the ordinance’s scheduled third reading on March 9.
Emmons wondered about what preparations were needed for the farm to be absorbed into the city limits.
“I keep hearing people talking about getting ready, but I don’t understand what you’re getting ready for,” she said.
The motion to postpone a second reading failed, with Rinne, Emmons, Wolfe, Labourne, Tom Segrave and Mayor Patrick Collins voting no.
Leashed Barn Cats?
Council member Pete Laybourne took issue with some of the questions WY fresh is delivering to the public services committee. One question in particular is whether barn cats will be required to be leashed on the property.
Cheyenne city ordinance requires all pets, including cats, to be under physical restraint (leashed or in an enclosure) when off the owner's property and prohibits them from running at large.
“Are we going to require barn cats to be leashed on this property?” Laybourne said. “I can answer you that that is not going to happen.”
WY fresh owner Tommie Kniseley defended her question about leashed barn cats, telling the council, “You have to give me time to fit within city code.
“Zoning violations are a criminal offense,” she said. “They’re not a civil offense. Now I’m in a position, just by continuing the farm, I could be a criminal.
“I do not know how to protect my livelihood by March 9,” she added.
McCort said the misunderstanding over the importance of the barn cats being leashed shows exactly why the question was necessary to bring up.
Is the question, “Do barn cats need to be leashed on the property?” Or is it, “Do barn cats apply to the city’s leash law?”
The discrepancy shows there’s misunderstanding, she said.
“There’s miscommunication between us as the everyday laymen city people versus you guys as the government officials.”
David Kniseley demanded an apology from Laybourne, saying Laybourne seemed to suggest the WY fresh farm questions are ridiculous.
Mayor Collins ruled Kniseley out of order. Kniseley said he would not accept being ruled out of order.
“That’s fine,” the mayor said. "You can sit down and you cannot accept it. I don’t care.”
Removal Of Parcels For Annexation?
Council member Ken Esquibel said he would favor an amendment to the ordinance that removes the WY fresh parcels from the annexation.
Councilman Mark Moody put forward such an amendment, calling to remove the parcels affecting WY fresh from the forced annexation.
“I do think that the public has said that we don’t want this to be annexed,” he said.
Tommie Kniseley said she was in favor of being removed from the annexation. She is already a month behind in planting, she said, because she has devoted all her time to understanding what is happening and putting together questions for the city planning commission and council.
City attorney John Brodie pointed to a statute that says a city annexation cannot leave a county pocket behind.
“This is an interesting circumstance that doesn’t fall neatly within that prohibition, but it is something I think the council needs to be aware of,” he said.
Removing both parcels in their entirety from the annexation would result in the entire ordinance being amended. New maps would have to be created, and the process would start over.
A motion to remove the WY fresh parcels from forced annexation failed, with Seagrave, Rinne, Emmons, Wolfe, Laybourne, Aldrich and Jeff White voting no.
Second Reading Passes
Aldrich suggested the council pass the second reading, to allow the public services committee to continue to work on the questions WY fresh has given them and consider a new amendment to annex the WY fresh parcels at a defined later date – March 9, 2027.
“We need to as a council and as a staff and city attorney, we need to bring this to closure,” Wolfe said.
Moody voted no on passing the second reading.
“The public does not support this annexation,” he said. “They have said it over and over and over again. We need to support our constituents.”
Laybourne voted to pass the second reading, saying the council should continue and see the process through.
“If at the next council meeting there are sufficient votes that terminate this annexation, so be it,” he said.
Councilman White said, “I think this situation is unique in that we are talking about an actual working farm. Clarification of what an urban farm looks like within city limits is the lynchpin for me. We’ve never done this before.”
Segrave was optimistic that through this process, the Kniseleys may have more assurances than they did when the council started talking about the annexation.
The second reading was approved with only Moody and Esquibel voting no.
The city council will take up the third reading of the forced annexation ordinance on March 9.
Kate Meadows can be reached at kate@cowboystatedaily.com.
