Board of County Commissioners Meetings - Regular Meeting

All right, we will call the July 20, 26 meeting of the board of county commissioners to order. Can we get a roll call?

Commissioner.

All right, let's stand for the pledge. All right, so the first order of business is the announcement of the 2026-2027 County Commissioners Renewal Scholarship recipient, which is Emily Burkle. So congratulations. And we'll move on to our appointments and discussion items. And we will have Howard Oden and Chris Cody for a fire marshal fees and update.

gentlemen go ahead well I guess our maybe my first question would be is what kind of questions do you guys have regarding that sure these are the inspections I think that's the big thing for us is hopefully to answer some questions if there are questions sure so the primary question is there's a budget allocation of around $30,000 from the from the county's general budget to the fire protection district

to cover inspections, would you just kind of overview what that does for us?

Sure. So after speaking with the building official, Brad Morrison, I got with him and we kind of talked about what I do for them on their side and then what I do for the fire department side. And so I did kind of lay that out in a document that i gave him i think we presented it to you guys at one point so really when it comes to what we receive from the county it's really for the inspection side of annual inspections for county businesses any inspections that are related to the building department in general anything requested by them if we go out into a compliance visit they involve me and so i go out and do that with them any type of final occupancy inspection i go out and do with them even if it's not fire related as far as fire protection equipment that's fire sprinklers fire alarms hood systems and all that so basically i go out and check The building for egress pass, um, blocked exits, uh, exit lighting, emergency lighting, fire extinguishers type of stuff as well as whenever they're doing their inspection. So I kind of do that with them. Um. The annual inspections that we perform, um, we've got close to 714 buildings in our system. I cannot get to all those in a year doing my other duties. There's just no way. We are lacking an additional inspector in our office. We used to have one, I don't know, six, seven years ago, something like that. So we're still down that position. So it's tough for me to get all the way out and do all those. A lot of it's on a priority basis. Where's our highest occupancy load? The schools, any type of assemblies, restaurants, anywhere there's going to be a higher hazard to people and place. Some more of the funding goes to the annual subscriptions that we need to maintain our certifications. to include membership to the ICC, the International Code Council, the State Fire Marshals Association, and the National Fire Protection Association links, as well as purchasing the code enforcement books and publications that the county adopted, the International Building Code and the International Fire Code that I work under. I also provide my signature for all certificate of occupancy. So all new buildings that come through the planning process or the buildings department, they need the building official signature as well as mine. So that's something that we provide as well. What else do I got on here? Anytime the building officials see something while they're doing their inspections, they give me a call and say, hey, this is what we saw or this is what we need you to look into. I will go out and follow up with them on that type of stuff. Some things that aren't in the mutual aid agreement for the 30,000 is essentially doing the building plan review. that's something that i've been providing to the building official ever since i've gotten to that position but essentially it's not in our mutual aid agreement that was signed in 2009 it doesn't talk anything about doing or performing a building plan review when i do that i perform a code analysis occupancy classifications occupancy load calculations or verification means of egress and capacity, emergency exit and illumination requirements, access travel distances, high piled storage requirements, maximum allowable quantities of hazards, fire resistant rating requirements and verification, special detailed requirements based on the occupancy use, and identifying what or if the building will need a fire protection system and or equipment. do provide that now anyways it's kind of goes with the building so that's essentially what I provide right now for that mutual aid agreement minus the building plan review it's it's not in there but I do it right now so I think that needs to be updated we did present that agreement to our fire board at one of our last meetings and it was under mutual consensus that it's outdated and it does need to be updated one just for the time frame that it is from 2009 and then you know essentially you know that 30 000 mark is probably undervalued at this point in time in 2026 17 years later so uh we do want to revisit that that's something that we would like to put on our our radar that we're going to look into that and update it, and then obviously have everybody look at it and agree to how it's updated. Does that answer everything on kind of that? For me, yes.

Chris, so the only thing that you're billing for separately is the building plan reviews. Is that correct? Independently, outside, everything else is covered under the $30,000?

I do have a fee schedule.

I think that was one of the biggest questions is just what are you actually billing for and if it's not making sure that there's not an overlap with what we're providing for the $30,000 versus what you're doing separately.

Correct. I did print out our permanent fee schedules and then the inspection fee schedules. The big thing for us And moving forward with this software and what we're finally doing is we're trying to standardize what we're doing. We're basing it on what the building officials are already doing. So we have a log of what's coming into our department. We're attaching it to a building. We have all the plans set in there. Any alterations to that building after the fact, we'll be able to reference that in the system with the building, and we'll be able to attach more to that. the building changes hands and they do modifications or remodels or something we'll have that timeline of when and what happened um fire departments all across the nation are already doing this uh they're issuing permits for fire protection equipment uh when we were building this system i based it off of what the state is already doing and so everything that we require as far as a submittal plan review is 100 what they're already requesting so i just use their templates, and then we just basically kind of pushed it into our system. If the Natrona County in general lost home rule, I don't know if you guys know what home rule is, but essentially it allows the state fire marshals to give us jurisdiction over seeing the building plan reviews as well as the fire department's plan reviews. If we were to lose that, all of those would go to the state and they would be charging for that anyways does that make sense there are requirements from the state fire marshal's office for us to do this and what we're pursuing i have to have my fire inspector one and two through the icc international code council as well as my plans reviewer certificate through the international code council which i do have i achieved that in November of last year, so January 1 is when we implemented this. But to get back on your question about what we're actually charging for, yes, we're charging for construction permits. And with that permit, you get the plan review and then the inspections that follow that. So any type of fire protection equipment to include fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, any type of modification for those systems, fire standpipes, fire pumps, commercial hood systems, paint spray mixing booths and alternative fire suppressions is what we're charging that plan review permit for. We do charge for inspections that are associated with that fire protection equipment though and those are those are ones that are required just like the building officials whenever they're doing a foundation they have to go check the rebar or if they're putting in a fire resistant wall they're going out checking that as it goes that's what we're also charging for us for our time to go out there wherever it may be in the county the other inspections that we're charging for are ones that are requested to our office so that's something that's not an annual inspection that's something where a private citizen or company is reaching out to us and saying hey we need this for our business or hey we need this because the state is requesting this there's third-party companies already in town that do them as well and so they're welcome to call them but they've been calling us and asking us to go do an in-home fire inspection for daycares or respite care facilities anything along those lines something that they're requesting out of our normal duties that makes sense um That's really the biggie for us as far as what we charge for. We're not charging anything exterior on that. We do operational permits. An operational permit is essentially what it is. It's for an operation like a burn permit. We've been charging for burn permits seven, eight years now. Nothing's changed on that. We have added some permits to an operational permit. We'd like to add some more just so we can standardize what people are doing within the county. We added a food truck and trailer permit on there so people can call us and do an inspection and receive a permit that's good for the whole state. we've been seeing a couple of those come through the amusement buildings if somebody's got a haunted house it needs to be inspected it needs to be safe and so we're requiring that now that's again this is this is something that we're trying to make it more standardized and be safer within the county it's something that we've had to kind of build from nothing But I think it's going to set the standard for the Natrona County Fire District and then push us into the future. People below me or who are going to take our positions are going to have a whole bunch of information already ready to go that they can just build on.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, gentlemen.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate you guys coming in. Yep.

Mr. Hagler, you're up.

chairman for the for the record can we we'll just make note that peter nicholason is here commissioner nick lason we're lucky enough to have mr class with us known as peter nicholas mr mr acting chairman um i uh i would note that i texted the actual chairman that i was gonna be a few minutes late due to i-25 I'm torn up. So anyway, the memo didn't get to y'all. I apologize for being a little late.

Glad it wasn't a county road. All right. Good afternoon. Buffalo Creek, I really don't have anything to update you on that yet. We're still dealing with DEQ and the permits. Herb's Gravel Pit's going to go out to bid July 30th. Uh, see how that goes. See what the bid's coming up. Uh, Gray Reef, we have an update meeting on the 16th. Uh, so I'll know more about what they're planning on doing there with that flap grant and the progress. The, uh, A NEW SHOP PROBABLY CONSISTENCY FUND BUILDING WE WERE GOING TO BUILD. I WAS WORKING ON THAT RFP, BUT I HEARD SOME RUMBLINGS THAT THAT MAY NOT BE HAPPENING, SO I MAY HOLD OFF ON THAT. SQUAW CREEK ROAD PROJECT IS ON ITS SECOND WEEK OF CONSTRUCTION. I BASICALLY DIDN'T SHUT THE JOB DOWN YESTERDAY, BUT I STOPPED IT. WE RAN INTO THE GAS LINES. out there on CY. And so we got to change the whole plan for grading. The depths that were on the plans are way too deep. And we can bring them up. But they're drastic to begin with. And I called that out a week ago that there was a bust in something. So they finally figured it out. But they run a machine on GPS. And a week ago, I was out there and saw that they were over digging. So or in my opinion. So we got that rectified. Other than that, the project's going well. We haven't had too many complaints from anybody on driveways or fences. We're trying not to move anything if we don't have to. The Badwater Bridge is still being designed by YDOT. I haven't heard anything more on the Gray Reef bridge with YDOT. And we put the new speed limits up, or the weight limits up, I think I told you that last time I was in here. And I've talked with everybody back in there, warned them about going across it with anything heavy. We're still working on establishing, Ashley gave her some stuff today for the roads that we need to still work on. I've got six of them that are gonna be prioritized out of the 25 plus that we have to still do. So the ones that aren't correctly established, there's 25 of those we still need to do and the others just need title work and some minor surveying.

So we'll be working on that.

I'm not sure if anybody, I mean, that was budgeted in the legal office to work on these roads. I don't know if that continued. I didn't put anything in my budget for it, just so we know. And East Salt Creek Bridge, Worthington ran into a problem with their flight that they did with their drone. For some reason, their software, isn't downloading the drone information and they're they they're gonna have it in two weeks but i thought i'd have it by now i don't and uh the other night we're doing general maintenance on a number of roads and uh getting a lot of complaints on dust uh this is gonna happen uh we played them two days later they're shambled again so We've got some culverts to work on here in Midwest and out on 12 Mile. Other than that, we don't have anything other than just general maintenance.

Mike, how many lane miles would you say of County Road, Dirt Road, do you guys service?

Well, there's 800 miles of road roughly. 150 of that roughly is paved. So it's double that lane miles. We're going to talk lane miles. And the remainder of that, there's probably 200... 50 that we have gravel on, and the others are roads that go to nowhere in the mountains and trails, I call them. They don't have anything on them. We blade them, but routinely we do the major ones. All the major ones have been graveled.

They're in need of more gravel, but... And you have nine guys, right, roughly? at seven last week seven last week so you guys do a pretty good job considering the limited staff you have in the in the road inventory you have so thank you i appreciate it i just think it's important to recognize the fact that you're operating thin with a large amount of roads so you can do what you can but i appreciate it any questions for mike

I haven't forgot your requests on the roads either. I'll get that to you.

People ask me about a lot of things.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mike, I wanted to ask you about one of the licenses that's in our consent agenda. And it's more of a procedural thing than a concern with a particular Gerard Ranch license for a waterline crossing. I don't know if this was a case where they proposed licensing needed to put in that line immediately. I know the line's been in for a couple weeks. And so we're not going to turn this one down. There's no reason to. But in the event that the county had a problem or a concern or decided not to do it, I think I don't know if you tell people or what the practice is, if it's you better not, or if you do something, it's at your own risk.

until the county commissioner sign off on it and it's yeah that's that's never come up i mean the policy's been ever since i've been here is that i sign off on all that i'm the guy in the field looking at it uh uh if i had a question as to why we wouldn't do it you know that's a gravel road i didn't see a problem with crossing it uh and they they uh uh were trying to get water from one side to the other you know for livestock It was only going to be a two-day job, but it ended up being longer than that. And then they had some problems with it after they did it, and they went back out and fixed it. We had that heavy rain, I think, wash some of their ditches. But yeah, normally, I can't think of one I've ever turned down. There may be some strange considerations, you know, if we've had conflicts with utilities and things like that, but... That's still up on them to get all that worked out.

Yeah, I just don't know what kind of bind it puts us in legally. If... If you give them the okay, but the is still supposed to sign off on that. Like, are there's a line for border county commissioners to sign underneath your signature. And and I think that it's just if we understand there's some risk there, but I think that our council could make some arguments like detrimental reliance or a stop or something like that. And then do they have to remove it? Do we remove it? I don't think it would ever put us in a bind. but i just mostly put it on the table for you to have in the back of your mind and for our council to know that um if if folks aren't waiting to do the work the utility work or whatever uh until it's been you know a rubber stamp by the bocc you know well i can change it it's just always been that way you know

Time is so short for these people to get most of these things done. Most of it's done in the summer. And by the time you wait for meetings, they lose contractors that are available. It's just kind of a mess. And, of course, when they come in, they want it right now anyway. But, you know, that's never come up, but it could.

Anyway, just food for thought. Thanks. Okay.

We can put a disclaimer on there. Yes.

Yeah, I think that would probably be the best. I suppose I'm going to disclaimer that, you know, this is pending final approval and all work done, you know, before final approval is at your own risk. I think that would help.

Thank you, Mike. Yeah. All right.

good afternoon commissioners round one for me anyway i think uh mr ferringer is getting a document for us uh ashley and i have discussed uh land splits with uh natural or man-made kind of distractions and obstacles that are in the way uh in your packet i'd send you guys So one of these parcels that's currently we're looking at, a gentleman wants to purchase from another one from a ranch that's over 1,000 acres. Part of the ranch goes across 487, and it's approximately maybe 26 to 29 acres. It's in RAM, so our minimum lot size is 35 acres. planning department can't do a variance because one of the restrictions specifically says it can't reduce the minimum lot size. So they are here. They might want to elaborate on that a little bit. I don't know if maybe you have some questions for them, but they asked us what they can do because it's essentially useless to the ranch because, like I said, it's essentially under 30 acres and it's across 487, so they can't really run cap cattle on that and so they just wanted to sell it to someone else to potentially build a house on uh but there's nothing we can do or have found that we can do so we're asking you guys if you have suggestions or we don't know what to do from here yes so we're just kind of asking for a little bit of guidance because when we looked at our regulations we're not seeing where it fits

um into anything that our regulations allows currently thank you mr chairman so wouldn't in theory one option be to change the zoning of that ram parcel out in the middle of nowhere in theory yes but then it's from a plan gonna be spot zoning then you're doing the spot zoning because you've got 20 acres out in the middle of you know 100 000 acres of ram but So do you have a sense of the magnitude of the problem? I understand the two examples I'm aware of are the one where State Highway runs through it, and you've provided us an aerial of kind of what that looks like. And then the other one, I think, is bisected by the North Platte River. I would expect that both of those situations occur Up and down the river in the county and along various highways. In the county, have you analyzed. How many of these issues there might be no, we have not.

We know the 1st, 1 came up on the platte river 1 and. they seem to have resolved that one. But then right after that was when this other one came up. So we're like, okay, now here's two. And this is the first two that we've had. So we haven't looked at any other ones now.

Why, what theoretically is the reason and anybody in the room, all the planner types, all the developers, all the, you know, anybody, what is the reason for not allowing a variance of acreage size.

Marietta Robinson- It's in our regulation? Christopher Mirabile, No, not good enough.

Marietta Robinson- What do you mean? Christopher Mirabile, Of course it is. Marietta Robinson- I mean, that's our- Christopher Mirabile, I don't understand that. But why do professional planners, I assume they considered this when they did the zoning, the comprehensive zoning change for five years ago. So Is this typical? Is it different in the city regulations? And maybe people that work in cities or work with cities have an idea if a variance is allowed for minimum lot size in other contexts, or is this pretty much the standard?

So I guess the long and the short of that is it has to do with your general land use plan and the overall land use plan for the for the county so if the county says that ram is going to be ranching agricultural mining to be preserved in this form and function and that requires this amount of acreage to use that land as it's intended in that particular zone then you follow you know whatever your land use plan says that you need this many acres based on the environmental factors to be productive land in that zone so it's not really arbitrary there's there's some

factors behind it and that's the same within like within cities if you have minimum lot sizes and these things it's like it's basically um what is the best value for the land for the size my my problem with that and thank you for the explanation um if we're not wanting to change the form and function of a particular zone classification you know we do that all the time We risk doing that all the time in every variance anyhow. And that's really the ultimate determination for planning and zone. Well, the development department, the planning and zoning and ultimately the because if somebody is only allowed a house of this many square feet or this close for a setback to the adjacent property line. we can do those and the analysis really is, is it gonna change the form and function and intent? Is it this idiot's fault? I mean, that's not what our regulations say, but, you know, I mean, we consider these different factors. This seems no different that as long as we're not changing the form and function, as long as it's not this idiot's fault, you know, God put the river where it is. So, and then the surveyors, you know, came up with the PLLS system, so. Anyway, I think that this is one where we can change the rules, the regulations, if we go through the process, by some sort of exception. And I think that we do this all the time in other areas of the law. And I think that, you know, where it's not of the person's own fault, you know, where they didn't create it or where they're not trying to do an end run about, you know, the form and function and the intent of that classification. Because otherwise, in these situations, the person with that little remnant parcel on the other side of the river or the other side of the highway, they really have about one option other than non-use, and that's some sort of plotage adjacent to that property owner over there. but if they're gonna get, if they can't put a fair and reasonable deal together with that person, the Hatfields and McCoys come to mind. But you know, it might not give them the flexibility that I think we ought to have as a county.

So yeah, I think that the answer to this situation would be to adjust our variance language to include the ability in these particular circumstances that a variance can be sought because it does truly present a hardship for some of those pieces. So that would be my suggestion is to come up with some kind of remedy in the variance language that would allow something like this to be pursued. And then we can move through the normal process, get that adopted, and then we can run out of time.

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm listening to you. I'm thinking something along the lines of like the hardship, but the minimum loss size can be adjusted if there's a natural or man-made barrier that prevents some sort of something along those lines. Is that kind of where you guys are going? Correct. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. And there are some other areas that maybe not this particular issue that has come up, but we're new roads. And I'm thinking of the bypass as a prime example, how it split off different sections and different stuff. And granted, because it's not... A lot of that's not RAM. It limits, you know, the size is a lot different, but there are a few chunks in there that would have been in this same predicament. And it wasn't, it's not the way that it was originally designed. It's not where they wrote. I know where my property is. My house is originally 221 right behind it. It no longer does. And it changed. We have other areas in the county, um, on the south side of CY that are in similar situations. So I think that is something not just for this particular situation, but for other, application where we do have the possibility of something that's beyond property owners control where there is you know whether we do that change it to a non-conforming lot allow it to be a non-conforming lot and and do it that way or i mean there i'm not going to tell you what language we need to use i'm just saying that those are situations that we definitely need to look at and have that option, I think if we do have that option, it's gonna make life a lot easier for us down the road, instead of just being hard, fast and rigid and saying, we can't do this. You know, there are a lot of situations out there that, and it may be an irrigation ditch. I mean, it could be a lot of stuff that separates what you actually have access to, so.

yeah i think we and you and planning and zoning and our council need to be thoughtful that we don't have an exception that solves the rule so that the language needs to be tight um because we don't want to turn this you know we don't want to open up the floodgates so much that we throw zoning out unintentionally so i would hope that we can be real thoughtful and precise in our language to continue with the intent and spirit that I think we're all in agreement on.

Okay.

Answer the question? Ready to move on to the next?

Round two?

Yep, round two.

As Brad joins me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, for our development updates. Code enforcement, we do have a meeting set with the holidays and everything. We have a meeting set this Friday with Casper Landfill to discuss some options, as we talked about a couple times, see what we can do there. We've had now our fourth new cell tower application came in today. This was actually anticipated last fall. The company actually gave us a heads up that they were going to apply this year for four new cell towers. We actually got our fourth application today. Subdivision regulations, I sent those out, so I want to kind of go over those. I don't know if you guys have been able to look at them much, but I still want to look at those a little bit further as well. and for projects um staff was informed that prometheus is still considering atrona county looking at going south of the interstate now we have not been in contact with them lately so we don't have any further information so i don't know if you guys have heard anything or not but uh that we don't have anything on our end further on that so and then brad can do his building updates

Good afternoon, commissioners.

As far as the update for the building department, I included some numbers in here on the amount of permits we've been dealing with for the month of May. We're going to lag a month because we've got to get this information into you before this meeting, so the next update would be for June. So the... We issued seven commercial building permits, 27 residential building permits, 41 electrical, 26 mechanical, and 19 plumbing. We did 65 building inspections, 104 electrical inspections, 23 mechanical, and 44 plumbing inspections. The larger projects that are still going on, The Mesa project, that's the big one. I did issue them a TCO. They're still continuing working on that. They've got a little ways to go. They were just wanting basically a TCO for their contract, for the substantial completion contract they had with the owners. So they had enough completed. I submitted a TCO for them. And that's still in progress for working toward the full CO. We are currently under review on the air traffic control tower and the SPEES Fitch Hatchery expansion. Those permits are in place now. So we're working on those. Uh, we just completed the inspections for the central Wyoming fair and rodeo and the carnival last week. Um, that went very well. And then we're still dealing with that, uh, decommissioning project for the Chevron, uh, generators.

Yes, sir.

Well, um, they have applied for a permit for every structure out there. So every wind generator tower. and any substation they're tearing down, so we can keep track of everything they're dealing with. They are projected to get started, they said, this month, but I haven't heard anything. I believe it was 11 total. They did not give that information on what they were doing at all. So that's still a mystery, whether they're trying to recycle or where they're hauling them. I would agree, but we do not have any information on their plans on what they're doing with the remnants.

Sabrina, the last conversation I had with Prometheus, they had indicated that they would still like to pursue a PUD. I did explain to them that some of that would be maybe beyond the initial scope of our department at the time and that we would need maybe some additional expertise just to help shore things up and make sure that we were on point at this thing so we didn't bungle something for the county and allow something that could hurt the residents. They were very open to the county being able to retain whoever it wanted. And then through some form of a MOU or some other form of contractual agreements that they would be able to, we'd basically be able to charge that back. I haven't seen anything from them yet, so that's where it's at but at least from my perspective it was they were willing to foot the bill for any expertise we thought necessary regardless of the outcome so that's the update I have for you and there was my understanding from talking to them in the beginning so I'm glad that that was the case that you said as well Commissioner Clayson I'm sorry about that Commissioner North

Big difference. We're on different ends of the table. Big difference. Anyway, they also indicated that, you know, besides that, being very open, that they wanted to come back. and do a presentation for us probably sometime in August, if possible. With the change in the location and everything else, it sounds like they've got a lot of the concerns that were originally raised. They're mitigating those as best they can. We'll see what they come up with.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been made aware by the developer's representatives that they are moving everything south of I-25. Instead of being immediately adjacent and upwind to an important part of our family's ranch, it's now roughly two to two and a half miles, depending upon which way you go to our family's property. And I don't have any specific information other than it's going to be south of I-25 and maybe accessed off of I-25, but probably some part of it accessed off of the Hat-6 road. So at this point, Mr. Chairman, and I let the public know and Sabrina know that I don't think I have a conflict of interest and plan on participating.

uh in this in this matter if and when it comes up thank you commissioner to that point um when i met with prometheus they said that they had taken um notice on quite a bit of the public comment and that was part of part of the reason behind their move and they would be um you know the neighborhood of three miles from any home in and of itself at this point in time so um again no no firm location or anything like that that's been indicated just just general notes anybody else for serena brad all right thank you i'll see you in a couple hours for round three thanks danielle

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Starting with the policy review, we have made it through Chapter 3. I have started drafting Chapters 4 and Chapter 5. We are at a standstill this month because, well, the clerk and all the department heads and the elected officials are trying to finish up budgets. And then also the clerk has an election to run. So we will see when we can get that next one scheduled. I will say we're still on schedule and we will be done with the policy handbook by the end of the year. These last few chapters we can put together. I expect that we'll probably have 10 chapters. So we're already halfway through. I have been providing health insurance updates to departments to discuss our Griffin prescription program and the high deductible health plan. I have met with the airport, the clerk of district court, the coroner, the fair, and the legal department. And I meet with the library Friday morning. So I'm slowly getting through to departments to answer benefit questions. If you remember, I discussed last update that We have several employees who are probably overinsured that could be using the high deductible health plan and benefiting both themselves and the county. So I've been doing updates and answering questions with employees. It's been great. It's been effective. Employees cannot switch to the high deductible health plan until open enrollment. I've actually had a couple say, can I go ahead and jump on now? Well, no, you have to wait till open enrollment, but great questions. So they've been effective. I completed an update in training with Workforce Services on youth employment laws. I think it's an important reminder as a few of our outside boards hire seasonal youth workers on what the youth workers can and cannot use as far as equipment, being around chemicals, that sort of thing. So employees under the age of 18, I should say. Um, we held interviews and hired a maintenance technician who will start on August 4th that leaves Garrett with one open position for maintenance. So we're getting him back to full speed. We have now had two deputy county attorney applicants who have canceled their interviews because they took jobs elsewhere. Um, I can say both of those candidates were from out of state. And they did not have their Wyoming licensure. I'm sure they were trying to get jobs where they were at. However, they did apply for our position. We scheduled interviews, had to cancel them. Commissioner Coates was informed with that. So was Commissioner Milton when I do my weekly updates with them. So I'll let Ashley fill you in with some of our plans with her update. We transitioned child support enforcement off of everything as they're no longer a county entity. I ended up creating term letters for them. They needed them for their health insurance, Wyoming retirement system, all of those logistics. One of the employees did transfer to the clerk of district court, so she transferred over to Jill. Otherwise, the rest of them went to the new company. The new company ended up hiring all of them. We've had two workers' compensation claims in the past month. One of them I completed a root cause analysis on out at the fairgrounds. If you would like information on that, I think that it's protected by personnel. I don't want to get too far into details on it, so if you have questions on that, just give me a call. We had two property damage claims, one from Roden Bridge and one at the fair. Six employees are out on FMLA coordinating those. We had four unemployment claims that needed attention from Workforce Services. Three of those we helped Bart, the undersheriff, with. And two of them we actually got the county attorney involved. So if you have questions on those, we can discuss further. Health and Safety Committee. This month, the coroner said that he's focusing on scene safety as he's seeing a lot of highway accidents. And so he's done a lot of table talks and I guess you'd call it tailgate talks and making sure that his employees are prepared for those on-scene accidents. I'm also looking into another Narcan training. The last one we completed was in May of 24. We have several of our field And people who are outside of the office, we have actually got a few that are in office in the clerk's office and in this building who are trained on using Narcan as well for the public. So it's been a couple of years, though, and we've had turnover. So I'm looking at getting another one of those scheduled. And then I will be out of the office late afternoon, August 5th through August 7th for warm quarterly meetings in Cheyenne.

Daniel, thank you for the update. I do have some questions for you. So regarding the wage study, so this commission in our last budget work session opted to go for option two. Now, it was disseminated and discussed plenty, I believe, amongst the commission in these forums that this isn't so much and across the board raise, it's actually a targeted elevation of raises to meet market and that no one is going to be losing money. Is that a correct analysis?

That is correct. None of the employees will lose money.

Correct. And just, you know, there could be a situation where you are, where your wage is appropriate. There could be situations where it comes up though. Correct.

That is correct. So we actually have 141 employees who will receive less than a 2% at implementation because they are currently within market. Now, that's just at the implementation. They will still receive their 2% step increase at their anniversary date with their years in that position. We have six employees who are redlined. They are above market. They will receive neither.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

not all employees will receive an increase the market study was to see which positions that we have are within market so which positions are equal with our peers not all employees will receive an increase

It might have been on page 800 because I thought everybody this first year was getting the raise we granted the other day.

Nobody is going backwards, and no, not everybody is getting an increase. 141 will receive less than 2% in July. That's at the implementation because they're within market. Those 141 will receive their step increase at their anniversary date.

madam clerk is that how you understood it mr chairman commissioner laird yes absolutely okay thank you i was confused sorry for my confusion that's okay i'd like to see them all get a raise me too commissioner daniels or anything else for an update no we need okay thank you i appreciate it okay thanks

Ashley, do you care to update us?

Sure. So in the month of June, we did 50 Title 25 hearings. Additionally, we have set the date for the BOE hearings. It's set for September 7th, or I'm sorry, September 2nd. It looks like we will be having seven hearings, and Judge Brooks has agreed to be our hearing officer, and that's on the agenda.

September 2nd is the date?

Correct.

because I'm going to be gone for a week in that zone. Might be here on the second though. I'll have to check.

Yeah, we have it scheduled for one day, so. Okay. and as you know danielle kind of mentioned um we haven't really had a whole lot of interest in the deputy attorney position it is posted pretty much ever a lot of places indeed the bar um the university of wyoming we reached out they have it posted on their stuff um so danielle and i was talking earlier today about possible next steps what can we do uh i know she was going to it again on indeed i'm just going to spend that money but also once school starts back up for uh the university of wyoming i thought about going her and i going to some of the job fairs and stuff that the law school usually puts on um if we don't have any interest before then so that's kind of our game plan right now i think we have it posted everywhere i could really think of posting it um And so it's just kind of a waiting and hoping hopefully we can get some good candidates here at some point. Additionally, staff is working on getting our files scanned into teams. You know, I know this has been a long project. We just have a lot of boxes of old files, files that we need to keep that we're trying to get digitalized so we can actually find stuff when we need it. So my staff has been working on that when they can. Additionally, we're working on updating our Animal Control Act. Last time that was looked at and updated was in 2003. So, Tamara and I are kind of going through that. She's doing some research to see what other surrounding communities have for their Animal Control Act. I'm also going to meet with our animal control people to discuss what's working, what's not working, that kind of stuff. So we're kind of doing that. We received some of the East End Road easements back. We're still waiting on several, but the ones that we have received back are on the agenda for tonight. So we can kind of keep progressing a little bit on that. Additionally, I've been working on several small projects for different county departments. I've had several departments reach out asking for some research questions. So I've been answering those as they come up. And as Danielle mentioned, we did have some employment issues that I had to get involved in. And so I've been working with Danielle and the sheriff or undersheriff with some of those. But yeah, we've been just plugging away at some of these issues.

I have a question.

Yes.

I may be confused again here. I was told that the documentation for the appeal on the gravel pit is still in the clerk's office. And I thought that the briefs were due. So I talked to Jill about it and I may have her confused and she may have me confused. I would have thought all the documentation was down there for the appeal.

So you're talking about for PRISM, right? Okay. So I was going to, update you guys on that uh so we are waiting for prism's response prism's response is due um i think we should be getting it today because they had 45 days when we filed our brief after that we have 15 days to respond to that so we're still but it should be it's at the spring down from the county clerk don't think

That was already the district court clerk. I mean, the district court clerk, yes.

Yeah, the case has to be docketed down. So I thought it was before the briefing, so I'm a little confused too, because the only way you can make references to the brief or make references to the record in your brief is for that to be, you basically, list the pieces that are going to be the record and each party has a chance to do that then it's then the then the record's made and it's sent off to the lightning spring core and i was under the impression that it was set up to them but i don't know why would you call jill because we'll probably turn here and then you can find out because i'm quite certain she told me she didn't think things were down there that's a lot if we're halfway through the briefing

We received a copy of an appeal or a petition for appeal of PNC decision I believe on a case that's going to be heard tonight.

Is that right?

That's correct and I'm hesitant to suggest we go into executive session on stuff that's not executive session material, but I wondered if council felt there were things to talk about in executive session either prior to or maybe during tonight's hearing to the extent it'd be for the provision of legal advice.

um well i know for the let me or this so there hasn't been a final decision of course in this case because it's just the recommendations from planning and zoning that's going to to yeah and so they've appealed i guess they say decision but they're appealing us the recommendation um i know uh Commissioner Coates talked to me a little bit ago, and we were talking about possibly remanding this back to Planning and Zoning so they can address some of these questions that were raised in this. If you all choose to do that, then I was talking to Sabrina, her and I was messaging about having Planning and Zoning basically make a more particular findings, kind of like what we do, what you all do, basically saying that we've reviewed X, Y, and Z, and based on that, you know, this is our recommendation kind of an idea.

Mr. Chairman.

I don't know if that answers any questions.

No, but that's exactly what I thought. When I read that, questions need to be answered under that appeal, and typically you would send it back saying specifically with the letter from you, that these questions they raise in here that they're claiming you did not answer, we would like to have answers to those. They may say they can't answer them, I don't know. But that's what I saw when I read that.

Correct. Commissioner Lerner, thank you for pointing that out. This is the exact point of our land use regulations. It's the exact administrative remedy that I would hope somebody would go through saying, hey, these are issues that need to be raised at the that the P&Z should address before giving a recommendation to the VOCC. So, again, I guess, I wish I knew Clayson's question. Is there anything in particular that sticks out as executive material that we should discuss, or should we just go here?

I don't think at this time there's anything like really executive in here. depending on what you all decide tonight uh you know if you guys decide to approve something then you know we're gonna have to have another hearing basically on this um for the appeal but tonight the appeal wasn't brought to you guys but we did want you all to realize that we did get this that's why um sabrina had sent that to you mr chairman i'm fine playing it by ear

But I don't think it contains enough facts for us to consider an appeal. We're not a fact finder here. We're to decide whether they found the facts, whether they were properly found, and is their decision correct. And if not, then we do something with it.

And commissioner, I think that's why this is kind of difficult because. And normally, yes, because you guys would get additional, or you guys would get the same kind of facts because Sabrina would do her presentation. Like, she always does that explains, you know, this is the application that was brought. This is, you know, what we did and, you know, additionally planning zoning reviewed it and their recommendation, but, um. I'm fine, you know, if you all are okay with playing by ear, I just think at this specific time, I don't think we have to check with her and see if she's going to be able to answer the questions raised in the appeal because they had the information and we don't have it. Commissioner Laird, I do know that Sabrina and I talked about that and she can answer a lot of these questions. But if you guys want planning and zoning, you know, Sabrina and I are open for whatever you guys want to do, to be honest.

I think it'll be great to be informed by our staff when this thing comes up tonight, and then we'll go from there. I agree. We'll just plow ahead then.

All right. I don't think we have anything for executive session, so we'll be in recess until 5.30.

Yep, I sure can.

I'm going to turn off the mic and then we will just wait until 531 commissioners come back in from recess, okay?

Awesome. Sounds good. Thank you, ma'am.

All right, I will call the meeting back to order.

So, can I get a motion approval of the consent agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. All right, and we will move into Our public hearings. I now declare the public hearing open for consideration of CUP 2602. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with state statutes, rules in the attorney county commission and other applicable laws. May we have a report from staff?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. As you mentioned, this is CUP 26-02 for the Blackmoor cell tower. And as part of the rip and replace program required by the FCC, SAC Wireless is submitting on behalf of Union Telephone Company, DBA Union Wireless, a conditional use application. The application is for a new 80-foot self-support tower next to their existing 50-foot tower. The existing Union Tower cannot withstand the structural load of the proposed, thank you, of the proposed upgrade, nor is it suitable for future equipment loading. Therefore, Union Wireless proposes a new 80-foot tower designed to support the equipment and that of up to two additional co-locators. This is located in urban ag, which is a minimum lot size of 10 acres, and the existing land is vacant agriculture with the existing 50-foot tower. So this was a little bit hard to see so on the map I tried to try to map out like the circle kind of at the bottom where this tower actually is and then you can see where 25 and Yellowstone are to give you a reference on where this tower is located. And this is the road that would access this tower. As I mentioned, this is a conditional use permit. The applicant has complied with all of the requirements for the conditional use as was in your packet. Staff finds that Union Wireless has provided the following summary for the telecommunications tower, one 80-foot self-support tower. They did originally have a lattice tower, but has changed to a monopole tower. And the applicant's here, so he can discuss that a little bit further. And I did have printouts for you, and I left them in the office, I just realized. So no printouts for you guys. There's been one ice bridge, antennas and associated equipment and cabling. They originally proposed to keep the existing 50 foot tower. We did have a resident letter in opposition of the REALLY OF THE PROJECT. THE RESIDENT PREFERRED FOR UNION WIRELESS TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 50-FOOT TOWER, AND THE RESIDENT ALSO REQUESTED THE MONOPOLE AND NOT THE LATTICE, AND UNION WIRELESS HAS CHANGED BOTH OF THOSE TO SATISFY THAT RESIDENT AND ANY OTHER RESIDENTS THAT MAYBE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING. THAT RESIDENT HAS SINCE RETRACTED opposition letter based on conversations the resident has had specifically directly with Union Wireless so it's not hearsay or anything they have had conversations. The tower will be structurally capable of supporting Union Wireless and equipment and two additional co-locators. So planning considerations we sent out for agency review. Health Department stated that they do not show a septic located in the vicinity, so they have no concerns. The fire district had no problems. GIS asked about easements. So Union Wireless is working with property owners for easements currently. The PNC sent forward a recommendation of approval based on those easements being in place prior to construction. The assessor said they wanted the Meads and Bounds on the parcel described. The Conservation District did not make a comment and Road and Bridge did not make a comment. We did not send it to YDOT because it's not near YDOT roads. I mentioned the letter from the neighbor. Also, I got comments back from the airport in our 2000 zoning regulations resolution. I was not aware, but it actually had a little verbiage in there that any time a structure built over 50 feet was in the county, that we would notify the airport. So I did talk to the airport director and sent him the information, and he said I don't have any issues with it. So the staff finds the application for a conditional use permit complete and that the request is in compliance. with uh liberal criteria shown above as i mentioned pnz did send a recommendation of due pass to you all with the restriction that the 50 foot cell tower be removed within one year of completion of the new tower and then the easements being secured as well prior to construction and There are some images that the applicant provided. So these aren't quite accurate, as I mentioned, because they're not doing the lattice tower anymore. It's the monopole tower. And I'm happy to run down and grab those pictures if you want them. I just grabbed my laptop and forgot. But if you guys want to see those pictures, I can grab them. And this is looking from the country club golf course. to the east this is what you see now and then what the 80 foot would be next to it and then as far as cell coverages they provided maps with cell coverages and why they need the height for this new tower and as I mentioned the applicant is here if you want to hear from him thank you

Come on up if you'd like to make a statement about this.

Good evening, board. My name is Chris Schlax. I'm with SAC Wireless on behalf of Union Wireless. This project is as a result of the FCC rip and replace program to swap out Chinese made equipment that's deployed in the field. It's deemed a national security threat. And so anything that's out in the field today, they're paying to have projects to remove it. The new antennas and equipment that's going up on the tower, the tower that's out there today cannot structurally support it. And so we need to replace that tower with a new one. So that's kind of the gist of the project. Couple of follow ups from the planning and zoning meeting. So although this is an existing facility, it was determined that the access easement wasn't fully recorded or in place. So that is something union is working on getting in place and is making progress towards. And we are fine with the condition to have that in place before we start construction. We also are in agreement with the removal of the old tower within one year of the new tower being built and operational. We want to make sure that the network on the new tower is up and working before we take out any of the old equipment. And then as part of the access easement negotiations and agreements, it was determined to be in the best interest of the neighboring landowners and the access holders to adjust it to a monopole tower rather than the self-support, which is what you saw in the pictures there. So the monopole tower is going to be a slim single pole with the equipment attached at the top. provides a maybe a little bit slimmer visual look more appealing to some um or that that would be the thought and uh we are in agreement to to make that change as well uh in talking with um the the planner here um that would be part of our submission for the building permit would show that fully in there and I did provide some sketches of what that would look like and I think she's got the printout uh available if needed and I'm available for any questions thank you any questions

All right, thank you.

All right, at this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in favor of consideration of CUP 26-02 to approach the lectern. Second time, this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in favor of consideration of CUP 26-02 to approach the lectern. And the third and final time, this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in favor of consideration of CUP 26-02 to approach the lectern. Seeing none, at this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in opposition of consideration of CUP 26-02 to approach the lectern. Second time, at this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in opposition of consideration of CUP 26-02 to approach the lectern. Final time, at this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in opposition of consideration of CUP 26-02 to approach the lectern. There being no one or no others to speak for or against consideration of CUP 26-02, I now declare the public hearing closed. Discussion or motions?

Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion that we approve CUP 26-02 with all staff findings and recommendations.

action findings second for discussion discussion the only thing I didn't see mr. chairman in the staff recommendation is the monopole so unless I'm missing that then it seems to me that that would be an additional an appropriate additional condition

I'm in favor of adding that to the motion.

Yes, I agree. Okay.

We have a motion, we have an amendment. And that goes along with the easement agreements that were presented by the PNC.

Motion seconded, amended. Friendly, do we have a vote? All in favor? Aye. All right, moving on. All right, I now declare the public hearing for the consideration of CUP 26-03. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with state statutes, rules of the attorney county commission and other applicable laws. May we have a report from staff?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. This, as you mentioned, is CUP 26-03, the gutter-penner cabins, and is our first CUP for our outbuildings. Text amendment. So it's a request for conditional use permit by Trevor and Karen Appener and Lucas Gutter and Stephanie Miller to build two recreational cabins on Casper Mountain. Property is located in Mountain Residential 2 zoning and totaling 8.65 acres. This is the rendering of one of the proposed cabins and one of the other proposed cabins. The conditional use permit went through the seven criteria and staff felt that they met the criteria for the conditional use. The planning considerations staff sent out notice to different agencies as normal, road and bridge reviewed, and so they do not see any impact to county roads. Access will be on a private easement that's gated at Ponderosa Road. So this is where East End turns into Ponderosa, just to the east of there. County Fire did not comment. The Health Department did comments to the health department and the applicant went back and forth several times discussing options for wastewater and the applicant can elaborate on that if you guys want to hear about that but they weren't sure what they wanted to do so there's just a lot of conversation back and forth on what's legal and what's not legal because they are trying to make sure everything's in compliance and everything's legal so they just had some extensive conversations with the health department. But at this time, the health department is okay with the cabins. They're meant to be dry cabins, you know, from the onset. So, like I said, the applicant can elaborate on that one. GIS did not comment. Mapping reviewed and felt no issues. Records reviewed and didn't find any issues. And then the conservation district did not comment. Notice was sent to nine surrounding neighbors and received no public written comments. Staff finds the application to be complete and in compliance with zoning codes. Planning and zoning did recommend a due pass to you all. And that is all. And the applicant, as I mentioned, is here.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? All right, the applicant wants to come up.

Hello, my name is Lucas Gooden, a China County resident. Thank you for your time this evening. This is our proposal, and we support it. And in keeping with all of the framework and county guidelines, health department, our plan is still to move forward within all of their guidance.

Thank you. Anyone have questions for the applicant?

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Grayson.

Thanks for being here tonight. Talk to me a little bit about these being dry structures. As I understand it, that means no work.

CORRECT. IT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL PLAN. IT WAS MADE APPARENT THROUGH THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT THAT MORE PLANNING AND PERMITTING IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR ANY KIND OF IMPLEMENTATION OF FRESH WATER OR WASTE WATER. SO WHERE WE COMPROMISED WAS AT THE ONSET TO INCLUDE AN INCINERATOR TOILET AND OR COMPOSTING, WHICH IS APPROVED, AND THEN RELY ON SOME PUBLIC FACILITIES OFF EAST END in Casper Mountain Park for other needs until probably next summer when an outhouse can be approved with the storage and get put in. So kind of an interim agreement there.

Do you have a water well on your property?

No, we're going to haul up what we need for daily use at this point.

And is that your long-term intention then to have then outhouse and then the whole water.

That'll work for us. Uh, considering we're not planning on living up there, we should only need this structure for a day at a time. Maybe maybe a weekend. So that that that was where we left it. We're comfortable with that. And the health department was too.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Thank you gentlemen. This time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in favor of consideration of CUP 2603 to approach the lectern. And for a second time, this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in favor of consideration of CUP 2603 to approach the lectern. And for a final time, this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in favor of consideration of CUP 2603 to approach the lectern. Moving on, at this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in opposition of consideration of 2603 to approach the lectern. Second time, at this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in opposition of consideration of CUP 2603 to approach the lectern. Final time, at this time I would ask those individuals who wish to speak in opposition of consideration of CUP 2603 to approach the lectern. There being no one or no others who speak for or against consideration of CUP 2603, I now declare the public hearing closed. I would entertain a motion or discussion.

Mr. Chairman, for discussion, I just want to ask staff if she thought it might be appropriate to have as a condition that these be and remain dry structures.

Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, we could put that as a condition. With all the communication with the health department, going back and forth, there are options, you know, like the applicant mentioned with the incinerator toilet or a composting toilet that I don't know that that's considered a dry structure, but that's, you know, if you wanted to build a shop and then eventually you want to put a bathroom in it, is that something you want to restrict?

Is that what you're... Is it your thought, Sabrina, that the health department regulations and enforcement of those regulations will protect whatever concern there might be on that issue?

I believe so.

All right. Any further discussion or a motion? Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve CUP 26-03. gooder pain or cabins finding it meets all the approved criteria required all right motion and seconded all in favor all right all right all right motion passes moving right along all right

Before we open this next public hearing, Ashley, Sabrina, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the lectern here so we can maybe discuss the matter of, briefly discuss the matter of appeal before us. So we did receive an appeal of the, MS-2601, and I believe we have someone online. Is that correct, Michelle, to discuss this? All right. So I think at this point, if the Commission is in agreement, we hear from the individual online with his concerns on this appeal, and then we move forward before we carry on. Does the Commission agree?

Yes.

Sabrina, are you okay with that? Yes. Okay.

And thank you, Gord. I know this is a little funky, the way this is kind of shaken out here, and I don't want to waste anybody's time. Are you wanting to hear from me on the merits of the appeal, or are we using this as the kind of public hearing on the appeal itself?

No, this won't be the... Public hearing for the appeal, this is just basically just, I guess, discussing the appeal here. So we can. I guess move forward with establishing a date for a public hearing. Just kind of just discussing the. Overview of the appeal itself just for record.

Okay, yeah, I won't get too into the nitty gritty. Then I'll just cover the basics of it. Essentially, the appeal is of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Well, first of all, for the record, my name is Thomas Garvey. I'm an attorney at Rogers and Garvey over in Laramie, Wyoming. I represent Robert Grant, Larry McCoy, I'm sorry, Connie and Larry McCoy, and Bernard Schroeder. They're all residents of the Allendale Addition, all affected by the proposed replat. The general basis for the appeal is primarily number one, that there are serious concerns as it relates to the private, well, what were assumed to be public roads for a duration of time within the Allendale addition that are a part of this replat. The problem there being that, and there's a letter in the packet here that I see that I think you guys have access to, from the county attorney's office related to Mr. Solwell's previous request for a vacation of one of the alleyways. The issue essentially comes down to the fact that these roads were never properly dedicated as public roads. And so if they are considered private roads, there are a number of considerations I think that weren't actually considered by zoning and planning. One being whether or not the commission actually has the jurisdiction to approve a replat that involves essentially vacating public roads and making them the property of the of the applicants when the commission has already kind of acknowledged you know the planning and zoning commission at least has acknowledged we don't have jurisdiction over what happens with those roads because they're private and then the other issue becoming okay if they're private roads then to whom do they belong have those people been provided with proper notice of the proposed replat so that they can state any objections and protect any property interests they might have. And then some other concerns flow from that. And again, I'm trying to avoid the lawyerly impulse of just talking everybody to death. There's an access issue, I think, when it comes to the easternmost part of Block 18. If there are no public roads, then I guess there's a an access problem anyway but i think the way that that's developing is the applicants for the reflat have been sending letters to folks that live on that property my clients included saying you know you got to get all your stuff off of what was assumed you know what we assumed was jackson street to make sure that there's access to that that eastern most part of block 18. so access to these other properties hasn't been addressed and it's not necessarily a function of replat that creates the access issue if none of these roads are actually public, but it is an opportunity to address that access issue if somebody's going to replat everything west of there. And then finally, it's the same argument, I think, that appears in some of the letters that the board can see in their packet in opposition related to character of the neighborhood. The idea that these are being that this replat is designed specifically for, you know, to make room for commercial use, to make room for storage units, and not just the intended use once it's actually replatted, but also the difficulty that would result from this replat if they ever wanted to use those new lots for actual residential use because there's no access, because of sort of the strange kind of carve out at least of the, the middle block that used to be at least platted as a road. So that's the overall bit of it. There's plenty of detail to get into it there, but I don't want to waste the board's time. If there's any questions that you guys have, or if you want me to clarify anything there, I'm happy to do it. Or if you want me to speak on what I think the process should be here for dealing with the appeal from reviewing the rules, I'm happy to answer any questions about any of that.

Thank you. Does the board have any questions? All right. No questions this time. I appreciate you speaking to this matter. Thank you. All right. So seeing as we have an appeal request before us, I would entertain a motion to table this matter until we can address the appeal.

or send it back to the Zoning Committee to answer these questions? What about adverse possession and what happened?

Commissioner Lansdowne? Mr. Chairman, the only thing I might do before making a motion to table, which sounds reasonable to me, is just seeing if our legal counsel or...

development director have any um any response to the comments made by the attorney i appreciate that i'm county attorney yes so um as we've mentioned several times when we've brought up issues within allendale subdivision um the roads in allendale was never dedicated to the public We have searched many times. We have never been able to find a actual dedication. So those roads are private roads within that subdivision. As to whether, you know, Commission has jurisdiction to vacate private roads, I would need to do a little bit more research. A quick search, it does say under Wyoming law that when there's private roads within a subdivision, the individual law owners within that subdivision own those roads, the private roads. As for adverse possession, but more of a civil matter, not necessarily for us, it would be something that would work out in the subdivision with those owners. That's kind of what I have right now. Sabrina, do you have anything additional?

I think I would prefer, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, to be able to put in writing you know, outline what the issues were and then be able to adjust those in writing would be my preference.

Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if we have conferred with a title company with regard to, you know, what the Toronto County clerk and recorder's office might have. And then just a question for council, does a dedication have to, to the public have to be explicit and express?

Yes. It has to be, there has to be an acceptance by the county of that dedication typically.

And have we as a county conferred with any title company or had a title commitment or a title search done?

We have not conferred with the title company to my knowledge. At least I haven't since I've been here. I have contacted records. We've poured through the records for the subdivision. It's not on the plat. A lot of dedications tend to be on the plat. It's not there. And we've never been able to find any of those records when we've done a record search.

Do you know if any of the search by the county employees or yourself or your office have included deeds of record?

I believe that Nancy did look at a lot of those.

Okay. Those are all my questions at this point.

Nobody has addressed the statement in here about whether this property was obtained by adverse possession.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, as a point of order, it seems like this would be the proper inquiry after there's a public hearing on this appeal. So I think that there will be an opportunity for everybody to get into that. I just didn't think it was really appropriate for it to be addressed tonight. And respectfully, Mr. Yeah, I hear you.

But I was thinking it was a factual question. Because there's a statement in here about this being that these people have this by adverse possession. Now, you could say you have something by adverse possession, but if it wasn't, as you know, taken to the courts and awarded as adverse possession, I don't know what it is. And I guess that's an issue with this, because it's raising this appeal. I don't know that we're fact finders for whether something's done by adverse possession. There's certainly no evidence other than somebody said it's adverse possession. That's what I thought maybe the Zoning Commission should straighten out.

Mr. Perino, was there a survey done on this property, on these properties, for the boundaries?

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, yes, there was. and did that those survey points encompass all these all of these so the the parcel in green is the application in front of you the major subdivision application there were other applicants own some of the other properties that are to the west and so there were other Surveys done on those as well, which then included Jackson, which is one of the things that the appeal addresses. This particular case does not include Jackson.

All we're talking about is the surveyed area within the green. Yes, so it has been officially survey. Yes. Yes. That did those survey. Do you know if those survey. Markers match the recording as far as I know.

Yes, I wasn't told that they didn't otherwise.

Yeah, and board, I don't want to speak at a term, but if I may, I can, I think I can clear some of this up so that we're not. Again, spending too much time on it if I, if you allow me.

Yes, please go ahead.

The statement in the appeal regarding adverse possession, I agree with the county attorney. That is a civil issue that has to be addressed by the courts. It wasn't my intent, our intent, my client's intent in filing this that somehow it would become your obligation, the Planning and Zoning Commission's obligation to sort out an issue of adverse possession. I don't think either body has the ability to do that. It's just part of the factual contention as to why my clients actually have access that they are actually adversely affected here, and it was a question of standing. So my apologies, I didn't mean to create confusion, but I agree with the county attorney. I don't think this body or the Planning and Zoning Commission can really call balls and strikes on adverse possession.

Thank you, sir. All right, what is the pleasure of the board?

Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion to table this to a time in the future, schedules permitting, including council and staff's time within which to respond. And figuring this all out could be either our second regular meeting this month or our first regular meeting of August.

Motion to table has been made.

I think there's enough questions at this point in time that need to be answered. I'm not saying that the P&Z did not do their job. I'm not saying the staff didn't do their job or anything else. But if we address these specific questions and go through and lay them out and go through Bernie can kind of highlight what those are and address them specifically. I think that would definitely make things a lot clearer, not only for us, but also for the public so that everybody understands exactly where we're at and what we're basing our decision on at that point in time. It is a little abnormal to get an appeal prior to the commission making a decision because the planning zoning is presenting a recommendation and not a final one. opinion that's up to this board. And so I want to make sure that that is clear, that's on the record. But I do think that this is something that we can get some answers or get some questions laid out that we have specific answers to and we can get it taken care of. So with that, I will support and second the motion to table this. Mr. Chairman.

just just briefly i appreciate commissioner north's um reference that this is procedurally different than how these typically come to us typically we have a hearing on that recommendation um this procedurally is is a similar but but separate issue that needs to be dealt with so i hope none of the people that came tonight if there were some that were going to speak to this are frustrated we're trying to do the right thing procedurally according to our own rules and so that's why I made the motion to table not to put it off and put it off it's to just do it right motion and second all in favor aye motion passes it is tabled thank you Sabrina

And we're out.

Thank you. All right, moving on. and we'll have to notice an appeal as well for the public hearing. Sure, so we will do a notice on it for public hearing for the appeal as required by regulations.

Mike, I didn't hear you. Could you go to the microphone? Did you say you weren't served a copy of this notice of appeal? I couldn't hear him.

I found out about it right now. I knew nothing about this. So if you got the notice of appeal, why did they send a copy to the applicant via email? The council knows who I am because he says he has my letters I've written to all their parties.

Maybe he can say why he didn't serve it.

I'd really like to know that.

What was the reason you didn't serve the petition or the notice to him? Simply, sir, just the rules didn't require it and we had to

get it filed pretty quickly. So that's my full answer to that question.

I'd have to check the rules. I don't have in front of a price. You have to serve a notice of appeal. Well, what is saving a trip from Sheridan? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We'll move into public comment. Anyone wishing to speak to the commission? Come on up.

Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Ernie Studer, 2951 Allendale. Do you want any more comment on this matter you just tabled?

You're welcome to make any comment you wish. It will be taken up at a future date, though. Okay. And yes, this won't be part of the actual record for decision on that, so you'll have to repeat everything during that period of time.

Well, 17 times is a charm. I'd like to thank you commissioners for being here and your support staff. They do an awesome job. What I'm here is to ask for a vote against this motion at this time pertaining to this adverse possession issue. May I ask the attorney a question?

Not typically during this, just for comment, not typically Q&A here. Okay.

The adverse possession issues that we have in this area is in regards to five lots versus Van Horn versus McCoy, there's three lots. And Van Horn versus the Grants, they have two lots. They are abutting their – that's where the issue probably – Me and my mother, we have, our lots, we own the property on both sides of the property line, so I guess that's why I'm not getting any notices as these McCoy and Grant's are. I don't believe Mr. Van Horn, they don't have any standing in this issue as far as adverse possession. The previous owners and Sedmac, Kathy Sedmac, sold that to mr van horn mr and mrs van horn and there was no complaints about the fences that exist or any use on the opposite side of the on the east side of the boundary and the previous owners i believe was gallus that sold it to said mac i maybe i could be wrong on that but i think gallus owned it at some time in the past There was no complaints and that was well beyond the 10 year that the Wyoming statute provides. I may have this wrong 34-1-103 and 104. The use has to be open and notorious. It's obvious that the use there and the fences prove this. It has to be exclusive use. and continuous which those conditions are have been met especially since the fence is there that obviously is a continuous use of the the property and we're talking this much space maybe another foot or two i do want to thank the van horns for demarcating our our western property lines i do appreciate that My question, I won't direct it to the attorney, but I'm just wondering for my own information, and you may get this in your research. You said that the adverse possession doesn't affect you as a board. I don't know if that's exactly what she meant, but one of the lots that in issue is owned by the county so I was just wondering about that that's lot 18 block 18 a lot 8 but block 17 lot 6 so I just wanted to mention good of the order. I see we have a representative right there for the Sheriff's Department, but I have had contact with the three or four deputies in the last couple of years. I just wanted to say that the deputies are courteous and they're knowledgeable. One in particular was very good at... deescalating a situation with my mom. She just got kind of upset. She didn't quite understand what was going on back there. That's a long story. I have yet to see a county vehicle run a red light. The city is guilty. There were some state issues. It seems to be coming rampant. I just wanted to say that on record. So thank you for your time. I appreciate it. I thank everybody in the audience. I'm glad that people show up to these things.

You mentioned adverse position. Are you the one claiming the adverse position? I guess it's not affecting me, but yeah.

Well, I researched it because of the situation.

Have you had it in front of a courtroom to declare you... Do you meet the requirements? You can't just claim it yourself. I understand that. You've got to have some court claim.

But the answer to your question is no, but this has all just happened in the last couple weeks.

Well, it just makes confusion. We just want to do the right thing, and then when it gets put in this petition, because I'm pretty familiar with that area up there, and I know that... that the roads are, some of them are not owned by anybody other than maybe you each own to the middle of the road unless you have property on both sides of the road. But I always hope neighbors can figure this out themselves because it can get pretty expensive when you start hiring lawyers. Well, we got the McCoys, all we need is a Hatfield. Yeah.

No, I, everybody... trying to get it figured out they're not they're not trying to pull any nefarious activity or anything like that we just want to get it figured out and i i do understand that you you probably need a court decision on that particular item before any of this if it has any relevance if it yeah it has anything to do with anything yeah but it's raised in a pleading and then you file a pleading and it's not served on the other side that disturbs me as a lawyer i mean

if there's a battle in the casonian board and you're appealing from that i think that probably there is a rule that says you have to notify the other side of the case but maybe not maybe this is one of the rare ones that it doesn't require i i couldn't even answer that i'm surprised i i do understand your point and uh that's not my bailiwick hope you go out and settle it between yourselves quicker and cheaper we'll have a block party

appreciate that uh commissioner laird good evening to everybody anyone else for public comment all right seeing none we will move on to commissioner comments commissioner laird you're asking me for comments yeah commissioner comments

Buy tickets, go to the rodeo and have a darn good time because it's a great rodeo.

Commissioner North.

I'm happy to say that we received a grant from the Easton Foundation to replace some of the archery targets up on the mountain. We just found out about that this morning and That's going to go a long way toward helping our parks. We've got another grant request out right now that we're waiting to hear the final results on that for Bear Trap Meadows shelters. And so I will say we We made the hard cut first, and we're in the final run for some of that funding, so we should know about that in another week or so. So that's definitely something that I'm excited about. Fair and rodeo is always fun. The parade is always fun. I had a good time throwing candy to the kids yesterday, and there were a lot of them out there, more than I've ever seen. It was fun. Unfortunately, it was nice in the morning before it got too hot. So with that, I don't have anything else. Commissioner Gleason?

Nothing tonight.

All right. The only thing I have is the City of Casper was in conversation through email with their fire professionals about a potential cost share to deal with the slash pile on the mountain. That cost share that The total is unknown at this point in time because there's a lot involved. It involves shipping and shredding most of the material in the existing slash pile, possible transport, and then some equipment costs ranging between for the county share between potential if the county wanted to participate between $30,000 and $70,000 to mitigate some of that fire hazard up there. So there is progress being made. The city's working really hard to try to figure out how we address the slash pile. Other than that, it's extremely dry out there, so please be mindful of fire, and otherwise, enjoy the fair and rodeo. Good night.