Connect with us

News

Sheridan County Approves License Agreement With City

Avatar photo

Published

on

Sheridan County’s Commissioners have approved a license agreement with the City of Sheridan for an open trench installation of a water transmission main and utility access road.

According to the License Agreement, the installation will be at County Road #82 and County Road #121, aka the intersection of Kittering and Gulch Roads.

County Engineer Ken Muller spoke on the fee waiver request.

The fee to be paid by the city to the county for the installation was to be $1,608 but the county commission voted to waive the city’s fee for the installation.



5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Avatar photo

    Dennis Fox

    March 28, 2024 at 11:14 pm

    Focus on the multiple failures of the chairwoman running the show last summer, that resulted in the Board’s Failure to Fill the Vacancy.
    Maybe that will get the people some much needed Justice and send a simple message to the Board: Do your Job and Abide by the Law…or suffer the consequences.
    So far, Justice has NOT been served and all Four Failed commissioners are still unaccountable for their blatant Lawlessness.

  2. Avatar photo

    Dennis Fox

    March 30, 2024 at 1:22 pm

    The chairwomen:
    -Failed to understand that a Judge was NOT part of the normal vacancy-filling process.
    -Failed to use the right voting procedure: A simple Roll-Call would have worked just fine.
    -Failed to “Second” ANY of the Nominees.
    -Failed to call for a re-vote.
    -Failed to withdraw into another Executive session to discuss.
    -Failed to continue the meeting until the seat was filled.
    -Failed to Fill the Vacancy, which was a Primary Legal Duty.
    In short Commish Chris was the Primary Reason the Four Failed to do their statutory duties.
    Had she done any of these things correctly or uttered the word, “Second” the seat would’ve been filled with no Judge Involved, to do the commission’s job.
    Commish Chris bears the most blame for the $84,000 bill to taxpayers. Not to mention her disregard for the hundreds of hours poured into the Party nomination process.
    She failed and should be held to account, by removal.

  3. Avatar photo

    Michael Johnson

    April 2, 2024 at 11:08 am

    As we look at the Wyoming Statute it seems you only quote the section that suits your argument (almost lawyer like) but if you read it in its entirety, its quite obvious that the commissioners followed it completely. It does not state as to why the commissioners fail to fill the vacancy, only if they fail to fill it. They then, as the statute says, turned it over to a judge. They did what the statute directs them to do.

    The word “shall” is somewhat misleading in its meaning as the Supreme Court of the United States itself says that when the word “shall” appears in statutes, it means “may”.

    “Shall vs May” Supreme Court decision 1995
    Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word “shall” is confusing because it can also mean “may, will or must.” Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word “shall.” Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word “shall” appears in statutes, it means “may.”

    Wyoming Statute 18-3-524 outlines the process for how political vacancies are filled in Wyoming.

    Within 20 days of receiving notice of a vacancy, the chairman of the county central committee belonging to the party previously represented in the vacant seat shall call a meeting of the committee. At the meeting, the committee shall select three people qualified to fill the vacancy.

    Next, the law states that the county commissioners “shall fill the vacancy within 20 days after receiving the list from the county central committee by appointing one of the persons whose names are submitted by the county central committee.”
    The law goes on to state that if the commissioners fail to fill a vacancy within 20 days, any qualified elector of the county may file a petition with the clerk of the district court of the county in which the vacancy occurred and request a judge to fill the vacancy.

    Which is exactly what the commissioners did.
    There were some recent letters to the editor of the SP that were really very well written and covered this subject and the SCRP and really brought to light some very interesting things. Where is the SCRP getting their funding to pay their legal costs? Deep, Dark Pockets? Perhaps.
    More to Follow…

  4. Avatar photo

    Dennis Fox

    April 3, 2024 at 5:52 pm

    Sending it to a Judge is a “contingency plan.” It was designed for one event only. A two-member Board that is hopelessly deadlocked at 1-1. There’s absolutely no reason on earth that 4 moderately intelligent Adults can’t pick one out of three. School kids do it all the time.
    Chair abstains and let’s the three vote. A 3-0 vote or 2-1 vote fills the seat.
    Only a 1-1-1 vote fails, and that’s when the Chair steps in and breaks the tie, 2-1-1. Again, seat filled, job done. It’s straight out of Robert’s Rules and works every time it’s tried.
    But that exactly why they failed. Commish Chris never even TRIED to Broke the tie. She never said one simple word, “Second.”
    Her failure to break the tie or try another vote or method is the reason it went to a judge and the reason we HAD to hold the commissioners accountable for their deliberate FAILURE.
    It’s not hard to understand. It’s the LAW.

    • Avatar photo

      Michael Johnson

      April 8, 2024 at 9:10 am

      Sending to a Judge is not a contingency plan. It’s amazing what you read into (make up) in the Statute to suit your own needs. Where is it written that sending it to a Judge is a contingency plan? Dennis the Menace you FAIL to supply proof of statements that you make.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *