Two commissioners vote to approve Tipi Retreat

On February 4, Commissioners Paul Galovich and Bob Aguair held a public hearing of remedy for Michael and Michele Stevens and their Tipi Retreat on Coyote Run Road.Commissioner Tom Ryan recused himself from the hearing.

Chairman Tom Ryan

Chairman Tom Ryan said to the other commissioners regarding the Stevens’ matter, “I think it’s a new application, and I think it should be going before the Planning Commission and coming through the process. And I think we’re violating that process. I think there’s going to be good information presented here on both sides. And I think if we’ve gone through a process that we have in place, it’s been validated by the judge. I think it would resolve this matter. But I don’t believe violating the proper process is going to resolve it. I think that it’s going to create us more liability before we get done.”

Chairman Ryan added that wasn’t sure if the hearing was legal or not and said that it wasn’t proper, because of this he recused himself before the hearing began and stepped out of the meeting room. 

After public comments and a presentation from the Stevens’, Commissioners Galovich and Aguair presented their previously prepared absolute and relative checklists. Their absolute checklists showed no failures, with Galovich’s relative checklist scoring a 54 and Aguiar’s scoring a 55.

The motion

Commissioner Galovich said, “I move, all things considered, again, this being an opportunity of remedy to bring a correction to the former application process, the judge’s system declared as flawed. I move the approval process through this meeting, this day, for the approval of the land use change for Michael Michele Stevens, consisting of approximately 60 acres at the end of Coyote Run Road from agricultural land use to commercial land use for the purpose of the 12 tipi campground. Understanding that Hot Springs County and Michael and Michele Stevens / Tipi Retreat Creek will pursue no further legal actions against one another and impose no penalty. Also, understanding the Hot Springs County legal representation will work with Tipi Retreat’s legal representation to inform the Wyoming Supreme Court that a mutual resolution has been achieved.” Commissioner Aguiar second the motion.

County Attorney Jill Logan 

During the discussion of the motion, County Attorney Jill Logan said, “On January 7, 2025, this commission decided to quit paying the outside law firm that was handling this on behalf of the county. Since that time, my office has not been asked to provide any legal opinions, advise on anything at this time, which is understandable because it’s kind of a weird situation. We’re working with the previous board that was driving the bus one way. Just switching over to this board does create a little bit of a conflict for my office, and I want to keep working with this board moving forward on other matters. So I have essentially sort of been, I guess, administratively recused from this in that respect. So I just wanted that clear for the public. So if there are questions there, that’s a little bit more clear.” 

Logan said regarding her ethical obligations that she “be recused from representing the board in this matter. We did hear earlier that both Commissioner Galovich and Commissioner Aguiar have obtained legal advice from outside.”

Commissioner Galovich then clarified some questions from the members of the public and said that the $40,000 fine imposed on the Stevens’ does not have to be paid. Additionally, he said that regarding the intent of the road’s use be resolved between private property owners and not the county. 

It was then time to vote on Galovich’s motion as it reads, “I move, all things considered, again, this being an opportunity of remedy to bring a correction to the former application process, the judge’s system declared as flawed. I move the approval process through this meeting, this day, for the approval of the land use change for Michael and Michele Stevens, consisting of approximately 60 acres at the end of Coyote Run Road from agricultural land use to commercial land use for the purpose of the 12 tipi campground. Understanding that Hot Springs County and Michael and Michele Stevens / Tipi Retreat Creek will pursue no further legal actions against one another and impose no penalty. Also, understanding the Hot Springs County legal representation will work with Tipi Retreat’s legal representation to inform the Wyoming Supreme Court that a mutual resolution has been achieved.” Commissioner Aguiar second the motion.

Commissioners Galovich and Aguiar voted and passed the approval of the motion. Galovich also instructed Michele Stevens to submit in writing that they agree with the motion as she asked them how to move forward.

Statement from

Commissioner Galovich

Prior to the Public Hearing for the Tipi Retreat Land Use Change, Commissioner Galovich read a statement to have a discussion about Public Process. His letter can be found in its entirety in the Community Chatter section on page 4 of this paper.

At 10:25 a.m. Commissioners Galovich and Aguiar opened the public hearing. The Stevens presented their request and many others commented during the public hearing.

Michael and Michele Stevens presented two requests. One was for a reexamination of the absolute and relative policy scoring from December 21, 2021, based on new evidence and judicial instruction. Second, a consideration of mutually ceasing further legal action noting the urgency as they approach the Wyoming Supreme Court deadlines. Michael Stevens then provided a historical background of their Tipi Retreat.

Michael said, “Regarding our first request, we formally withdraw the previous administrative ten acre commercial carve out proposal that the county planner of that time suggested to the board. And here’s why. As noted by the Honorable Judge Bill Simpson on May 2nd, 2024, in the petition for judicial review from a decision by the Hot Springs County Board of Commissioners, Civil Action Number 20 2340, on page 13 of 21, the court will further note that there is no provision in the board’s rules or in state law for an administrative subdivision of land, as the board has identified its action, particularly where the administrative division came, as an ad hoc categorization created by the planning director. With this new evidence, we request the Tipi Retreat land use change apply to our entire parcel and not just the illegal ten acre ad hoc administrative subdivision of our land as proposed by the Planning Director.”

Michael also said that regarding the three absolute policies identified by the court, the first two were scored as arbitrary and capricious and do not require modifications because the Tipi Retreat is not a subdivision. For the third policy, Michael presented a report from a Wyoming state licensed engineer confirming compliance to the absolute policy. He also presented a letter from former Fire Chief Mark Collins, “further validating our road safety and accessibility.” Michael additionally presented a letter from a “private road expert” and licensed Wyoming attorney out of Sheridan to provide clarification on a private road easement. Michael said that they have the legal right to access their property on Coyote Run Road with “no use restrictions whatsoever.”

Commissioner Galovich and Michael Steven discussed how a licensed Wyoming engineer reviewed the road to the Tipi Retreat property. Galovich said, “I could not find anything in his review that he said would otherwise prohibit you.”

Commissioner Galovich also said he discussed the easement with an attorney and “that the easement has no restrictions.” Additionally, he said during public comments that if, “have an objection to the fact that this easement and its use, if you have something in writing that would prevent its use presented at this time, because I’ve searched diligently to find something that would say if there was restrictions in the use of this easement, and I can find nothing there. Therefore, based upon that, unless you can produce something to me that gives me evidence that this easement can’t be used for that purpose because of specific language. I’m going to ask each of you that have an opinion about that. Your opinion is your opinion without substantiating evidence that you could present before us as commissioners this day. I’m going to say it’s strictly opinion.”

Commissioner Galovich discussed the matter of remedy for the Stevens and that the land use plan was modified in 2022. He added, “to be able to reconsider is not a violation of plan.” Regarding the possibility of another lawsuit and being sued, Galovich said, “one must be able to prove that there was an entire disregard for someone’s property rights.”

Public comments

Diane Winter

Commissioner Aguiar opened the meeting for public comments. Diane Winter was first and said, “I’m not here to speak against the Stevens’...I’m against the process.” Winter also said, “I have concerns about future issues. If I understand correctly, the commissioners decided to override a court decision after a lawsuit that costs everyone, including the Stevens’ money, and then basically decided not to follow the plan. If this is the case, then what are your options for the next major decision that you’ll have? The county plan provides a guide for planning for the Planning Board. I worked on that board and the commissioners. If you have no plan, then you have no remedy for future decisions and ultimate lawsuits. Without the plan, you have no enforcement mechanisms in the future.”

Adam Estenson

Chairman of the Land Use Planning Commission Adam Estenson read a statement to the commissioners. Part of his statement said, “On November 26th, 2024, the Honorable Judge Simpson did not remand the matter back to the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the court’s ruling, we believe that the matter was effectively resolved and the previous application was closed…In May 2023, the judge did remand the matter back to the Board of County Commissioners. The county commissioners gave a finding of facts in August 2023. In May 2024, Simpson made a ruling that, ‘the decision of the county commissioners is affirmed’, and we’ve already confirmed here today that was based on the one absolute policy, but it’s absolute, so it must be met. So in his final ruling, in November 2024, he reaffirmed and stated the board’s decision was effective on December 21, 2021. The decision remained in effect until the court remanded the matter in May 2023. The board made new findings and a new decision in August 2023, which the court affirmed in May 2024.”

Estenson then expressed support that the Tipi Retreat submit a new application to start with a blank slate according to the land use plan to be evaluated “fairly and objectively, without prejudice from previous outcomes.”

Estenson added, “We believe this approach would align with the county’s established land use process and standards, while providing the applicant with a clear path forward that represents the integrity of our land use plan. At this time, the Land Use Planning Commission is deeply concerned about potential liability and arbitrary precedents that may arise from holding a public hearing to review the previously denied application.” Not following this method of policy and procedure in using the land use plan, Estenson said it “could expose the county to significant legal risks, including claims of arbitrary, capricious governance,” and “could open the county to substantial legal challenges.”

Estenson continued and said that the Land Use Planning Commission members “have concerns that the Board of County Commissioners will open themselves to another lawsuit of arbitrary and capricious, from either the Tipi Retreat or the adjacent property owners, by not taking this matter back through the proper steps.”

Additionally, Estenson said that Judge Simpson’s injunction on the Tipi Retreat still stands that he did not remand it back to the commissioners a second time, along with a fine. Estenson also asked Commissioners Galovich and Aguiar, “What’s your intent with the land use plan and the Planning Commission going forward?”

Bo Bowman

Former County Planner Bo Bowman, who was the planner during the time of the Stevens’ application emphasized that following the land use plan is “a legislative process” and the purpose of land use planning is “preventing adverse impacts for one property type on property use to another.” Bowman said, regarding access to the Stevens’ property, “That’s not a road. It’s a common driveway and belongs to the sum total of the owners whose property it crosses.”

Shawn McWilliams

Shawn McWilliams expressed support for Michael and Michele Stevens. He testified of bringing a rig to drive a well on the road and that it is “big enough to handle a small vehicle traffic.” He added that the Tipi Retreat could help tourism in the county. “Why are we fighting this? Thermopolis, the town is dying. We can bring some revenue into this town…Let’s get excited about some things happening in this town instead of killing it.”

Phil Scheel

Former County Commissioner Phil Scheel, who was on the board during the time of the Steven’s application, said to Commissioners Galovich and Aguiar, “You have violated the land use plan, the Tipi Retreat, land use change issue is being deliberated at the Wyoming Supreme Court. Michael has not submitted a land use change request. You have no application to approve or deny, so you can’t make any decision to approve the former application today. That application has already been evaluated. So in order to hear this case again, they must reapply, as I’m sure that you have already been advised by the county attorney and the county planner and the Land Use Planning Commission. They have not been prohibited from applying again. If they do, then they can take their application back through the entire land use change process. You can’t allow anyone, not even your friends, to bypass procedure.”

Additionally Scheel said, “One of the rules of county commissioners is to manage the county’s money. Let’s examine your fiduciary responsibilities. While it’s true that the county has spent over $160,000 defending ourselves. You need to understand that this money was spent defending our county policy. If you now choose to let them have their way after the judge has ruled that they did not follow the rules or meet the criteria, you are opening yourselves up to all kinds of litigation. If you also choose to forgive the $40,000 penalty, which doesn’t even come close to covering the cost of our defense, it will be a failure of your responsibility to the county’s taxpayers.”

Scheel then said with passion to Commissioners Galovich and Aguiar, “So let’s talk about solutions. Don’t be foolish holding this kangaroo court. Hot Springs County land use is a policy. One of the only ways the county commissioners can actually sort of legislate, given that authority by the state legislature. If you think the plan doesn’t work well, amend it or, hell, repeal it all together. Don’t be arbitrary. Listen to the legal advice of the county attorney. I’m not an attorney. Neither are any of you. You are rookie commissioners. Do not use your newfound power to help your friends or pick winners and losers by deciding whose property rights are important. These neighbors actually own the land. Have you no respect for your office’s? Or your sworn county duties?”

Hubert McAllister 

Hubert McAllister spoke in support of the Stevens’ and said, “I think that we are, by not resolving this issue for as long as we have and raising up all of this money for attorney’s fees. I think we’ve done this county a disservice.” He expressed that the parties involved should have settled the matter without using lawyers and spending money on legal fees. McAllister expressed that the matter must be resolved.

Lee Campbell

Former County Planner Lee Campbell discussed that there are essentially two reasons for denying a land use change for a subject. One is the subject must have legal access and second, there could be a geological or safety item. Additionally, Campbell said that this denial of an application is the third time in Hot Springs County that it’s happened. Regarding the Stevens’ application, Campbell said it “hasn’t had crystal clear access to their property.” Campbell provided three remedies for the matter. First, the Stevens can approach their neighbors and purchase access across the land to upgrade from residential to commercial. Second, the commissioners can extend the county road to cross the Stevens’ land, reaching BLM land and establish a trailhead. Third, go through civil court and determine if there is or is not a restrictive easement.

Rick Culp

Rick Culp, who has adjoining property with the Stevens, spoke against the Tipi Retreat. He expressed a story about various time conflicts with the Stevens. However, he deferred his time to another speaker.

Gary Frazier

Gary Frazier is a landowner on Coyote Run Road and he said that the Stevens want to withdraw their original application for 10 acres to commercial operation, “If they have or if they have withdrawn part of their original application, you cannot rule on that original application. It has to start over.” Frazier also argued that the Stevens “do not have an easement. They have what’s called access.” He added, “I have no objection to their access to the road. What I’m going to talk about today is that because it’s a commercial new development involving significantly greater amounts of traffic, you cannot approve the permit by your own land use planning and road access management plan. It is in black and white, and I’m giving you the numbers. This is not an opinion.”

Frazier also discussed in great detail about the potentially increased traffic into the Stevens’ property with the possible number of tipis increasing beyond 12 units since the request for the 60 acres to be used, not the original 10 acres. Frazier also discussed the grade quality of Coyote Run Road and its tilt. He also said that since the Stevens’ original application there has been increased damage to the road. Additionally, Frazier disputed the claims allegedly from the Stevens online that they own the road. He said, “They don’t own the road. They have access.”

Lisa Vice

Lisa Vice, a property owner on Coyote Run Road, said, “I feel sitting here that you’ve made a decision that has nothing to do with what any of the other people besides the Stevens have said. I understand that when you take an oath of office to serve as our commissioners, you agree to be impartial. Can you really say you’re being impartial today?”

Vice also said to Commissioners Galovich and Aguiar, “You both have agreed with each other to go beyond the system that we have set in place. We have the Land Use Planning Committee, we have the regulations. And for some reason that I can’t understand that I haven’t heard clearly. Explain to me, you don’t think we need to follow that. And so to me that means there’s an impartiality issue, because if I come along with a problem with the Land Use Commission, am I going to be given a public meeting that you to decide upon, or am I going to have to go through the process? It just reeks of that to me. And I don’t really understand your idea of the land use regulations. Why aren’t you following them?”

Letter from Shurie Scheel

Vice also read a letter from Shurie Scheel which expressed that the matter is a property rights issue for the Stevens and their neighbors and that “The Stevens do not technically have an easement, which makes this issue extremely complicated,” and “They do not own the road or the property that the road sits on. It also does not technically convey to them all the rights that an easement would.”

Shurie Scheel’s letter also said, “I believe it would be wise for you to take a step back to consider this from all angles before you make a decision, please consider the property rights of the Stevens neighbors as well as the Stevens, to make them to accept this property change and force them to allow commercial traffic through their property is a violation of their property rights.”

Jack Baird

Former County Commissioner Jack Baird, who was on the board at the time of the original Stevens application, said, “I think something that has been overlooked in all this today is that we have a legal land use plan that was upheld by the court. That was the first thing the Stevens sued us over is our land use plan was not any good. So the county defended that, and we won. So you guys need to look at the land use plan and follow it.”

Les Culliton

Les Culliton, the current County Planner said, “I do have to state a little disappointment. Since this has come back forward in front of this board, neither Commissioner, nor the applicant, has been in my office for discussion. I would think if you want to remedy this, you need to understand what the land use plan says and what the state statute talks about.”

Culliton also discussed he had evidence of a county Road Assessment Management Plan (RAMP) manual to provide and that he failed 29 of the 37 absolute policies in the checklist. However, he said, “Now, a lot of those could be resolved with a simple conversation, I believe, but there are a couple in there that really need to be looked at deeply before a decision is made.”

Commissioner Galovich and Culliton held a discussion about the land use plan and the use of the RAMP manual.

Letter from neighbors on Coyote Run Road

County Clerk Becky Kersten read a letter from landowners of Coyote Run Road and neighbors of the Stevens. They were Rick and Chris Culp, Gary Frazier, Martin Oravec, Jr., and James and Sherry Barber. In the letter, they expressed concern about the February 4 meeting as they were not directly notified by the commissions of the meeting nor asked for their perspectives. They learned about the meeting through the local newspaper and word of mouth. The letter said, “We feel that this was a violation of the process outlined in the Land Use plan. We feel that the county should have notified us directly, and that we should have been invited to speak or provide input, and another party to the matter.”

The letter also said, “We understand that this matter is in the courts now and it is our understanding that it was appealed by Michael Michelle Stephens to the Wyoming Supreme Court. Our first preference would be for the commissioners to wait to take action on this matter until you hear the decision made by the Wyoming Supreme Court. After reading Jackson Simpson’s order, it seems that he upheld the commissioner’s original decision and fined the Stevens $40,000 for the violation. It does not make sense to us that the county would now want to sidestep that order from a judge.” The letter also asks that the Stevens reapply for a land use change. That ended the public comments made during the meeting.

As previously stated, commissioners Galovich and Aguiar voted and passed the approval of the motion, as is, “I move, all things considered, again, this being an opportunity of remedy to bring a correction to the former application process, the judge’s system declared as flawed. I move the approval process through this meeting, this day, for the approval of the land use change for Michael Michele Stevens, consisting of approximately 60 acres at the end of Coyote Run Road from agricultural land use to commercial land use for the purpose of the 12 tipi campground. Understanding that Hot Springs County and Michael and Michele Stevens / Tipi Retreat Creek will pursue no further legal actions against one another and impose no penalty. Also, understanding the Hot Springs County legal representation will work with Tipi Retreat’s legal representation to inform the Wyoming Supreme Court that a mutual resolution has been achieved,” and that wrapped up the public hearing.