Council - Regular Meeting

March 9th, 2026 Pine Bluffs Town Council meeting. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. First item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. I move to approve the agenda as presented. Second. All those in favor?

I opposed hearing none. Motion carries. Second item on is the consent agenda. All items will be approved in one motion to approve the consent agenda. I move to approve the consent agenda. I second. Hearing a motion and a a second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor? I

opposed hearing none. Motion carries. The new business and action action items. Review and discussion. An ordinance to amend chapter 6 article 12 entitled bail schedule. What is that, Kim? Um, that's our our it's our bond schedule. It's our fees for uh various infractions of the law. Okay.

Um and uh at the last meeting you all had discussed the need to look at some of our current fines uh as especially as they pertain to uh dog bites. Okay.

And so I had uh I had a few questions. Uh Chief Smith is here and he could probably talk to some of these fines. Um, in the past this was updated via resolution, but uh, Alex and I are are clear clearing up some inconsistencies on how we've handled that in the past. So, um, moving forward, this will be done with an ordinance. Uh, but as there are several notes that I I've put in here uh, pertaining to things like um, you know, do we do we want to list these other ones in with traffic citations? Do we want the dates to still fall in line with the Wyoming Supreme Court? Um, and uh some of the other other things that are in there. Just like I said, just some other questions on um whether or not you approve some of the fine increases uh again from the dog bites, but we also have fine increases for controlled substances and um the purchase and use of controlled substances by minors and things like that. So, um Chief Smith, can you

Yep. Um the we'll start with the dog bite. Get to it. Um I think it went from 85 to I think our brief discussion was that um up in the 150 range. So that's where I put it. Again, we can lower that for dog at large. That's for dog at large. dog bites went from 150 to 4. There you go.

Um I think if your dog bites someone um in an aggressive manner, I think it should be a pretty hefty fine. Um and I think uh that would be appropriate. I think again um I went on the high end. we can always come down a bit, but um I think uh when you come to court and talk to a judge, if you're willing to mitigate and work with the judge, the judge is willing to lower that anyway. So just in past, you know, I'd rather go on the high end and be able to work with the judge than um it be a little bit lower. And and uh

didn't we also discuss that previously the first offense there was no court appearance you wanted to add the there would be a court appearance even on the first offense was that part of the that is covered under our animal ordinance. Okay. So that's a different that's a different ordinance. Correct. Yes. This this particular ordinance just specifies the dollar amounts of various fines. Okay. So we crossed out penetration of skin and added dangerous or vicious dog. Is there a reason that we like took out the penetration

because the ordinance actually uh reads that even if it and I think mayor you had mentioned it even if the dog goes at someone in an aggressive manner and makes the attempt to bite it's it still falls within that ordinance and the way it was written was penetration of skin. It doesn't matter whether it penetrates the skin or not. So, I want to reward that just so it's a lot more clear because we charged people with it in the past and they well my dog didn't break the skin. It doesn't matter. So, just to clear up some of the wording of that, that was the and then the nuisance part on the dog at large as well. Um

that that's lumped into if your dog's barking and won't won't be quiet, you're also part of the nuisance um part of part of that animal ordinance as well. Okay. Um, the other thing I'd like to clear up real quick on that animal ordinance is that um, you had brought up uh, Councilman K Curry, you had brought up that the ordinance had stated something about female dogs and all that. The if you got that from our website, we actually didn't have the most upto-date version of the ordinance on the website. So, uh, we have since that has since then that has been also confusing me as well.

So, Did you guys read that? It was weird. Perfect. Thank you. The the chapter 4 ordinance. Is that what you're the dog in heat running a large be shot? Yeah. I hope we wouldn't do that.

No. I see your note about the 25 miles per hour. A little bit off topic, but we did as a WHAM region decide to make that as a priority topic to send to inter room because we've all had this happen lately where we want to put something at 25 and we need a traffic study. So, we were asking for maybe some legislation that allows us to drop it to 25 um from 30 without a traffic study and and not below 25 just because then at that point it could look like you were setting speed traps in your community.

You're talking about you talking about statewide. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that would be great because a traffic study is an unnecessarily unnecessary expense in some cases. From from my understanding, maybe Kim can correct me if I'm wrong. Um, if we change this ordinance from 30 to 20, one flashing, we do not need a traffic study per right. Um, so we can change the ordinance to Okay. Uh to reflect the change of of uh of the 25 zone that we no longer have. Great. Well, I think these look good, guys.

So, that would be the only thing we'd just strike the 25 m per hour and put in a 20 m 20 mile per hour wind flashing. Um, and that would just replace the existing uh fine schedule. I think that's a good solution. I agree. And that does uh adhere to the Supreme Court standards. I think these look good.

Um, mayor and town council. So, uh, we will be doing this in the form of a resolution I mean in the form of an ordinance update. Um in the past we have updated this after revisions have been made by the Wyoming Supreme Court to their bail schedule. Um and they do that effective July 1st of every year. So, if we were to finalize this ordinance prior to that, and then there's a change by the Wyoming Supreme Court for July 1st of 2026, then we would be looking at reworking another ordinance right away in a few months. So, my suggestion is that we kind of maybe start the process of getting this ball rolling but not finalize an ordinance until right after the first of the fiscal year.

Okay, I'm I'm good with that. Yeah.

Uh, Mayor Town Council, I want to make a another point to the tobacco use. um with that fine also going up

creating a mandatory court date which we usually did anyway and then um there's a program through the school if it if it involves the school that they can sign up for. Um it's not mandatory, but it's something that we have partnered with Larry County School District on. Um and then the that ticket would go away essentially if they did that program. Um or uh and and then the um the fine would either go down to 25 or the judge dismiss it outright. So there's two different ways you could go there. Um, and then the sale to a minor, um, it's 320. I'd like that to go to the to the max of 450 as well. I think if you're going to sell

to a minor, it needs to be the highest we can go. I think that's a great What about Go ahead. Go ahead. The top of it, we've got open container with the note about alcohol sell to a minor. Could we just add alcohol or tobacco down here and take them both to the maximum?

Uh, yes. Yeah. I didn't even Yeah. Page eight. So does the let's say you have a repeat offender on the on the tobacco offense does it change after the second offense. So the first offense they can go through basically an education program and have the fine reduced. How is it affected on the second offense?

Um I don't know if that fits in our aggregating statute. I have to check that which then um which then can double the fine by the judge. So the judge can double the fine um for I'll I'll double check you on that one. find out exact specifically how it is addressed. I was there's so yeah, there's only a certain amount of statutes that fit um into that pool and I'm not sure if that's in there or not, but I'll double check on that. Okay.

That can be done with a lot of traffic violations as well.

We usually don't unless it's a an extremely ongoing issue. I'm learning so many things. I didn't know we had a court fee. all the other uh uh bail schedules I felt were um fairly accurate. I don't know if there's anything that you guys uh looked at and thought it needed to go up or down, but

I think they look good. Austin, thank you. I didn't see anything that stood out either, so I was I was okay with where they were standing. your camera.

Good to me. I have an odd question, Austin, maybe you can answer while we're waiting.

Why does it say um it has specifically drawn out defrauding an inkeeper? Where is that at? What? Uh, let's see. Page there's some weird buttons on the list. Eight. I think I don't have page numbers. What statute number is it? Uh, let's see. Um 8-120. I'm just curious. I think that's from our original ordinance. What was left in there? But okay, that's actually pretty common. Is it okay? Out on the Yeah.

Well, I know, but it seems odd to be just drawing attention to like one inkeepers are a big deal. It it it does happen quite often. It's um I've um had that issue. I would say most of the time we'll site that under county though um because it they have a little harsher punishment than we would have um because it's it's essentially um theft by deception. So uh the theft by deception statute for the state carries more punishment than our ordinance. So um we would usually go that route instead. So

would it be the same for like a restaurant then if you like skipped on the bill? Would it fall under that or is there a separate one? Um, under our ordinance, it would it would just again we would charge under the state of of theft by deception or theft by uh not deception, but uh oh, I forget what the actual wording is, but it's it's theft. It falls into the theft statute. Thank you. Yep. So, we do we need a motion to approve this as Oh, I think we This was just a discussion open discussion on it to see if we were kind of moving in the right direction.

And Alex, I'll get with you to make sure we're covered legalitywise on the Supreme Court side. Thank you, Austin.

Yep. Thank you. The second item on the new business and action items is review and discuss an ordinance to amend chapter 4 entitled animals. Um, mayor and council, I have just included the most up-to-date version of this ordinance. It was really just put in here for discussion. If you had an opportunity to look at it before today's meeting, um, we could discuss it further. Otherwise, it was just me reintroducing this ordinance so that we could move forward with some of the changes that have been discussed in the past.

Okay. I I did read the whole thing and I did notice that there really wasn't there wasn't any teeth in the ordinance and so I really think we do need to update it and put some real life penalties into the particularly in regarding the vicious animals that are attacking people in the town.

Yes. Um and uh Leanne has also read through it and um you know we we found a few inconsist inconsistencies in there that need to be addressed um administratively uh for the update. Uh but I think one of the things that we're a little bit uh confused on is you know the the bail schedule it falls under chapter six which uh really has to do with traffic. And so, uh, you know, part of my question to Alex was, you know, do we name these in this ordinance or should we be extracting those fines out and having a fine section in the animal ordinance as well as in uh, chapter 8, uh, which is another area where we have specific fines listed. So, uh, not sure what the outcome of that is, but I I think we probably need to not have them in the traffic section

unless they're horses.

Unless they're horses. Yeah, I think I think uh the town administrator has a good point there that there are this is not the only example of that, but they've been embedded in the bond schedule uh primarily as an aid to the PD. So they just have one thing in front of them. So, uh, but there are sections that have penalties associated with them. Uh, and they're quasi civil penalties. I mean, uh, I mean, they're obviously a criminal violation or we wouldn't cite them, but they're not in quite the same mode as as some of the things that you see there. So, I mean, you can you can move them, put them in. That's why you don't see anything here in the animal section is because they're not there. They're over in the

traffic in the in with the bond in the bond scope. Where's the appropriate place to have them? Well, and like I said, I mean, there I don't know that there's an inappropriate place for them to be, but I think we had everything kind of condensed into one place because otherwise, you know, these guys got to hand write in what stuff is and look up the code section and

which doesn't affect us now. We since we do have e e reporting um we that doesn't really affect us. All I have to do is contact E-Force to, you know, have them put the appropriate change of bond uh in in our database so that when we write a ticket, it populates it for us automatically. So uh so we wouldn't that that that won't even be an issue anymore. But I think administratively, we just need to figure out do we want to stick it over here in section four instead of it being clear over in section 8 with traffic.

So for clarity for the average citizen of Pine Bluffs. Would it be clear if it was actually in if it was in section four and it had its own schedule at the at the end? That would probably I know um because then you'd actually see what it is and Yeah. And if you're looking at the the animal ordinance, you'd see that there is a fine associated so much based on I know if I were looking through it and trying to find it. I wouldn't necessarily know to go searching in the bond schedule to find the fine associated with my

well and that's why I said earlier for for traffic there's an aggregating um penalty that that can up the fine uh or double the fine for second third offenses. So again that when if section four is stuffed over in there as well I don't know if that qualifies or if that's just traffic. So again, that's more discussion that we need to have. If it's not, then I would I would say to to mitigate, you know,

have some of that um effectiveness, you could essentially create that in the section four as well for for the animal stuff. So because that already exists, I've seen it done both ways. Uh, but that's a good point about the uh computerenerated tickets. I had thought of that, but um, of course that presumes that you got your computer with you. Yeah. I mean, can you put those on your phone? Yep.

Okay. So, if you're strolling down the street and some vicious dog comes out and bites you, you can look them right up on the phone and Yeah. Punch out a ticket.

I mean, we got our tablets, so we just Okay. We'd scan in a driver's license. We'd type it in. We'd figure out on the bond schedule, you know, what what the fine actually is. If it's dangerous dog, and if it's, you know, a second offense, then it's automatic court date. And they got to talk to the judge anyway. And well, I dangerous dog, sorry, is an automatic court date anyway. So, then they talk to the judge about, you know, their behavior and stuff. Uh, dog at large is where I was going with that. dog at large. If it's a second offense, then you know, again, if if that fits into aggregation, then we can uh site him into court or charge him double. But

can we pull it out of traffic? Can we still do the doubling or tripling of fines for second and third offenses or is that specific to traffic only? I think that's what I need to talk to Alex about just to kind of look at that and see how that ordinance was written. Um because I don't know how it's written right now. It's all in the it refers it to the bond schedule. So I would say yes, but I don't know if that only recovers traffic. So that's something I need again I need to kind of research a little bit more.

I I I guess I would think as long as it's doesn't impose uh an additional burden on the peace officers. Um, I kind of like it in the chapter where the offenses are spelled out because you can put the elements of the offense in there, the elements of the crime.

Um, so the average Joe looking at that can go right there and see everything that they need to see to, you know, to figure out where it came from. And that's one of the biggest questions we get on cases that we end up dealing with opposing council is a lot of times they want to know how in the world did you come up with that fine number? And so um you know it's one thing traffic you know that's pretty straightforward right in the state statute for the most part but something like this it wouldn't be. So I think you know they it might be more workable for the defendants to have it colllocated with the actual offenses.

I would be in favor of that too, Kim. Okay. I think it brings some clarity to it. Yes. And there's several of them. Yes. And there there's also some places in the code where uh it's left open. I mean, municipalities have $750 to work with for the most part. That used to be a lot more money than it is today.

Yeah. Um but u there are some places in there where it's just a statutory max and there's very little guidance for the court in terms of how to manage that. We're fortunate because we have a judge with a lot of experience so he kind of has a good feel for where the fine ought to be but we see that in some places as well. Okay, we're not going to vote on this either.

No, no. Yeah, this again just kind of open for discussion so we could figure out which way to move. Yep. Anybody have anything they want to add at the moment? Sounds good. Okay. Then we'll move on to visitor comments. Have any visitor comments?

Hearing? None. We'll go on to department reports. Nope.

I don't have anything either. I actually have really good news that came out of um legislative session. On Thursday, the governor signed the bill that would give 8% of all sales tax to counties, towns, and cities in the state of Wyoming. So, this is the first time that we have kind of a um a stable a stable solution to direct distribution. we will not have to at least for the we shouldn't need to uh gravel every two years to um be funded. And this actually puts us right about where we're at now, Kim. So, I think right now we're at like 15 149.6 and this possibly puts us at like 151.2 or something. I'm going to get that number wrong, but um that will give us a really good place to start. I'm sure the Department of Revenue will have more numbers on that now that the bill is signed, but big wins across the board for that. Um thank you for the county commissioners and the Association of Municipalities for their work on that. And that's all I have.

So, does it stay stable? Is it a fixed? It's a It's an 8% fixed. Yeah. But can the county say 8%? Oh, we want 8% and the town's get nothing.

No. Um there's this really complicated formula called the Madden formula that's built into that. And if you can figure out how that math works out, then um you probably deserve some sort of math award because it's really complicated. But every um based on population, we're all given a base amount. And then there's this weird matrix of if you're from your population going up from there. Also, if you're a hardship county, you have some more. Like Niabera gets more. Weston County gets more because they're hardship counties and they don't have other ways to source revenue.

So, what what designates you as a hardship county? I don't actually know that answer. Mark, do you

I can't comment on it. No, I I You were doing good on the You were doing good on the project where it comes from. And yeah, and it's fairly complicated and I know a lot of really smart people who don't completely understand how that works. But I bet if we asked Brett from the Department of Revenue to stand here, he'd make it make sense and then he'd walk away and we wouldn't really still know what he's talking about. Um,

yeah. So, I I'm happy to show pull that up for you, but there is a base number and then we're all given more based on population and location. And the county has their own thing and the municipalities have theirs. And really, the county should never be able to say that they want something that we have or something that Albin's getting. Um, it's there as long as we're an incorporated community. Okay. We can get but we can get extra money if we if we I think determine ourselves to be a hardship.

I have a feeling that's going to be a really tough cell. That's what I was all those data centers moving in to make that really right. Yeah, the rain might maybe we could pull it off with a drought year but drought year. Yeah, that would work. We're well on our way. Yeah, we are 64 in March. I have nothing new. You have nothing new. Nothing new. How about you, Alex? I have nothing new. About you, Kim?

Um, I have a couple of things. We start our department uh budget meetings this week. Um and so again after that we're going to look at u starting budget uh workshops with um the governing body. And so I'll I'll just basically send you a link out to my calendar so that you can pick a day and time that works for you. Um we had put uh some vehicles out for bid. Uh, one of them we bid locally. Um, and it was for our old 2008 ambulance. Um, it actually sparked a lot of interest in the contractor world and using it for a contract vehicle, whether it be construction or plumbing or whatever. So, I thought, well, great use for this. It's a 2008 F350 chassis, uh, diesel and, uh, very low mileage. had less than less than 55,000 miles on it. Uh we received two bids, but um I think the the recommendation is going to be to not accept either one of them. And as the governing body, you have the right to do so. Uh one bid came in at 5151, the other one came in at$7,000. Um so while we didn't specify um a minimum dollar amount uh we did specify that the governing body has the right to refuse um any and all bids. So I am leaving that up to you if you would like to accept the high bidder out of that. That would be the 7,000 or I can rebid it and specify what the the uh minimum amount would be.

I was going to say maybe we should put it back out there with a recommended minimum bid on it and I agree. And see if we get any hits on that. Okay. Because $7,000 for a diesel vehicle that's got 50,000 miles on it. Outrageously low. And an ambulance. Yeah. An ambulance, no less. So I agree. Absolutely. So I I would I would say let's put it back out there again.

Okay. Um, and do you all have a a minimum in mind for something like that? Um, I realized the age of it uh when I was looking up like a blue book value on it. You can't really look up a blue book value on an ambulance, but you can look it up on an F350, which I think was uh in the high teens. Um but again it's you know is there a way that you can hit the municipalities the towns and stuff around the state? Yes I can. Yeah that might be something they'd be interested in. Yeah. Yeah I agree.

We are we've listed our other couple of vehicles that we have like we have an older dump truck that we're getting rid of. Um and oh gosh one other vehicle. Anyway, we have those listed on the public purchase website. There you go. So, we could put that on the public purchase site as well. Okay. AI very quickly for what it's worth says 10 to $25,000. Okay. That narrows broad.

Does does it have a mileage clause in there or is that just based on year and because based on the year, the mileage is outrageously low. I'll change the mileage.

Oh, that increased that to like the minimum was at 15. Maybe that's something that we had to do. Minimum of 15. Yeah, put a minimum of 15 on it. Okay, we'll do. Okay, that seems more reasonable to me. Yeah, I agree. That's all I have.

That's all you've got. Do we have a workshop? And for the the next meeting, um, mayor, I will not be uh in town. I'm I'm happy to join virtually, but I will not be in town. So, I wasn't sure if you wanted to hold a workshop on the 23rd um or just push it off to the first meeting in April. I will also be probably out of the country. Oh, well, then we should push it up. Yeah. So I think it would be best if we could reschedu the workshop. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

So it looks like our Yeah, we'll have a just a regular meeting on Monday, March 23rd. Then no workshop. Okay. Um will a workshop work for everybody on Monday, April 13th at 4:30? Okay. Yeah. I don't have any reason that won't work. I'm good with that also. Okay. Sun is killing me. The sun coming into the blinds.

Yeah, it's bright. And the regular next regular council meeting then is Monday, March 23rd at 6 PM. You'll be gone and I'll be gone. So we'll make it a quick one. Have to make it a nothing. Hi, bro. So do I hear a motion to adjurnn? Second. All those in favor? I opposed hearing none. Motion carries.