Tipi Retreat owners address commissioners

At the January 7 Hot Springs County Commissioners meeting, Michael and Michele Stevens addressed the board to discuss the Tipi Retreat matter. Michael read a letter and said, “Honorable Commissioners, we stand before you today with two straightforward requests that could help resolve our ongoing situation and benefit our entire community.”

“First: Opportunity for Remedy. The timeline of events is clear. In December 2021, this board issued a Cease and Desist Order to The Tipi Retreat and denied our Land Use Change request. However, the board did not provide the legally required Findings of Fact or offer us the opportunity for remedy as required by the Land Use Plan,” stated Michael.

He added, “After nearly two years of legal proceedings, Judge Simpson found two of the three remaining claims against us to be ‘arbitrary and capricious.’ The final claim simply indicated that the county could have requested a Wyoming licensed engineer’s report on our private road–a straightforward matter that could have been easily addressed had we been given the opportunity for remedy.”

Michael continued and said, “Therefore, we respectfully request that this Board: 1. Grant us the opportunity for remedy that should have been provided in 2021. 2. Schedule a re-hearing of our Land Us Plan Change Request during the February 4, 2025 Commission Meeting to allow sufficient time for all required public notices.”

Additionally, Michael said, “Second request: A Notice of Appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court was filed on December 27, 2024, but this is not the path we prefer. Despite our repeated attempts to mediate and find common ground, we have been unable to secure a meeting to discuss potential solutions. The current situation is costly for everyone involved: It consumes tax payer dollars; It drains county resources; It prevents economic growth; It divides our community.”

He continued, “We proposed a simple solution, both parties agree to drop their claims; The board follows the established Land Use Plan procedures and we work together to begin healing in our community.”

Michael said, “The path forward: Let me be clear, pursuing this case to the Wyoming Supreme Court would likely establish important precedents protecting property rights and due process for all Wyoming citizens. The arbitrary denial of land use rights without proper findings or remedy opportunities affects not just us, but potentially every property owner in our state.”

Michael added, “However, we stand here today offering this board an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by supporting economic growth, protecting property rights through proper procedure, following established Land Use Plan guidelines; Managing taxpayer resources responsibly; Healing our community through positive action,”

He also said, “The choice before us is significant: We can proceed to the Supreme Court, where a ruling could strengthen property rights statewide but at a considerable cost to our community. Or, we can work together now to find a solution that respects both the law and our community’s needs.”

Michael continued and said, “While we are prepared to pursue our legal rights to their fullest extent, we believe our community would be better served by working together to resolve this locally, setting an example of good governance for other counties across Wyoming.”

He added, “In closing, we ask you to consider what kind of legacy you want to leave: A community divided by lengthy legal battles or a community strengthened by fair process and mutual respect. The solution is within our reach. We simply need to follow the established Land Use Plan and work together in good faith. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Michael and Michele Stevens, The Tipi Retreat.”

Chairman Tom Ryan responded and said, “I agree with everything that you said. The one part that our plan was found to be legal. And to be clear, we didn’t sue you, you sued us to start with…in finding us arbitrarily on two of the three counts, that’s on the absolute checklist. And all it takes is one to deny the request, and the judge upheld our order. And two, I think we have to make a decision. They awarded the county $40,000. So then that has to be the decision of this body that they want to forego the $40,000. That’s what you’re appealing. But that money’s out there and it’s basically been awarded to Hot Springs County. So we would have to decide that we didn’t want the $40,000… The appeal is about the decision and whether our plan is legal again.”

Michele Steven said, “You said you thought you understood why we sued. So why do you think we sued?”

Chairman Ryan replied, “I assume you didn’t like our decision.”

Michele Stevens said, “Because you didn’t allow us remedy. And the land use plan offers remedy. You didn’t follow the land use plan.”

Chairman Ryan responded, “I’m not going to speak to that. I had no idea what you were coming to talk about. We’ll take your decisions or your offerings. I don’t think we should make a decision today. An attorney hasn’t seen any of that. The Land Use Planner hasn’t seen any of that. So we’re sitting here going, what are they going to come talk about? We’ve been for years trying to get this resolved…It just goes on. I just don’t think that we should make a decision. That’s the decision of this board to do that. I’m okay with that. But I think they ought to be informed of all the ramifications of that.”

Michele Stevens responded, “We didn’t ask you to make a decision today. We asked to be reheard to follow the land use plan to have remedy…For February 4th so that there would be time to do public notice and be re- heard per the land use plan, which states that remedy should allow us to change what we need to change, and what the judge stated is the only thing you could have asked for was for certification of the road. That was the only absolute that you won on, and we had certification of the road from the previous county commissioners. But he said you could have asked for an engineer’s certification, which we do have now.”

Chairman Ryan said, “We need to have time to see what that is. But let’s go through the process and we’ll let the planner get a hold of you and say that it’s worth that. As far as the other $40,000 and the previous decision. It has to be these [commissioners] do we want to give up the $40,000. The Supreme Court will decide it or not if they make the case.”

Commissioner Paul Galovich discussed that the Stevens are presenting the avenue of remedy and that damages would be expensive. He said, “When you think about government forces, I am reading a book now that talks a lot about property rights from our founding forefathers. And, when you have a government authority that basically dictates what you do and what you can do for your property, there needs to be an avenue of recourse, an avenue of rebuttal. Because if not, you just have to by our choices, that’s all there is to it. That’s not the Constitution of the United States, you have the right of rebuttal. You should have the right to be able to come back and say, ‘I disagree with that decision because it affects my property.’”

Commissioner Galovich continued and said, “According to John Adams, our property is as sacred as the laws of God, and so there should be an avenue of rebuttal. I’ve even mentioned this to the state attorney general. Where’s the avenue of rebuttal in relationship to a county commission board that sits and then dictates or orchestrates the restrictions of somebody’s property? If they don’t have an avenue of rebuttal, what are they left to do? And he simply said, ‘Go get an attorney.’ And so that was the avenue of rebuttal that was offered. Unless you mutually join together to discuss those options to bring resolve. And so, as mentioned, what that does is just cost a lot of money and pay a lot of lawyers because you didn’t provide an avenue of rebuttal. And now we can come back and to say, I think we can meet your disagreements. Let’s see if we can come to a mutual understanding.”

Commissioner Galovich added, “As I read through Judge Simpson’s, remand letter and talk about the opportunity to be able to come back and resolve these things without having to go through the court system, I believe there’s some much more thoughtful approach. Therefore, I would move that we make a motion, that there be a public hearing held on the first official board of county commissioners meeting for the month of February, that day being February 4, 2025, for the purpose of providing remedy for The Tipi Retreat, Michael and Michele Stevens. Evidence will be presented and the resolution to be determined in that public setting. Notifications of public hearings will be posted.”

Commissioner Bob Aguair second the motion. Chairman Ryan asked for discussion. Commissioner Galovich said, “We will follow due process and fill out the absolutely relative checklist. The Land Use Planning Committee already approved that two years ago, I think we can move forward with this. I think we can resolve it. I am not in favor of the county going forward to the Supreme Court. And I think that we should come to a mutual agreement.”

Commissioner Aguiar added, “I think it’s about time we come to a resolution on this issue. I’m glad to see something is coming forward. I think the community wants it. When I campaigned, everybody said they wanted a resolution one way or the other. Just put it to rest. So I’m glad this has finally come to a point where we can all sit down together and agree on something, or maybe agree to disagree, but finally get a resolution.”

During the vote, Commissioners Galovich and Aguiar voted for the motion, while Chairman Ryan voted against. The motion passed.

Commissioner Galovich also said, “I would also like to make another motion. I move that any future outside legal expenses that being, other than our county attorney Jill Logan’s office with regard to Tipi Retreat, be approved by the Hot Springs County Board of Commissioners prior to services rendered.”

The commissioners voted and passed the approval of the motion unanimously.

Commissioners Galovich concluded the discussion and said, “As a matter of note, we have spent, as of sixth of this year, a total county expense of $167,670.24 to the law firm.”