Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Healthcare Access topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Park County commissioners continue hearing on Platte Canyon health service district to June 4

3754021 · May 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of County Commissioners of Park County continued a public hearing on a petition to form a Platte Canyon Health Service District after a lengthy presentation and public comment on May 14, 2025; the board voted 3-0 to continue the hearing to June 4 so more public input can be accepted.

The Board of County Commissioners of Park County on May 14, 2025 conducted a public hearing on a proposed Platte Canyon Health Service District service plan and voted to continue the hearing until June 4, 2025 to allow additional public comment and to give the commissioners more time to review the submitted materials. The motion to continue carried 3-0.

The Platte Canyon Health Service Committee — a volunteer petition group that presented the plan — told commissioners the district would give local voters the option to form an elected, unpaid board that could fund and operate a community primary-care clinic in the Bailey/Platte Canyon area. "We are here today to ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the proposed health service district plan so the voters of Platte Canyon area can decide for themselves whether they want to create a health service district," petitioner Mary Ann Weslowski said during the presentation.

Committee members and public speakers told the board the Platte Canyon service area lacks full-time primary-care providers and regular clinic capacity; petitioners said the area population has grown to "more than 10,000 people, almost 11 now." Presenters said the result is residents traveling long distances to the Denver metro area for routine care, heavy reliance on emergency medical services for non-emergency needs and poor preventive-care outcomes in some measures discussed at the hearing.

In presenting the plan, the petitioners described a three-part funding model: patient billing (insurance reimbursements), grant funding and a proposed 1% local sales tax with a 10-year sunset clause to provide stable revenue. Tim Peterson, a committee member, said the group estimated more than $1,000,000 in revenue in the first year from the proposed sales tax. Petitioners emphasized they were not presenting an operational clinic plan; under state law the petitioning committee may seek only voter approval to form a district, after which an elected district board would make operational decisions. "If voters approve the formation of the district, then an elected unpaid board, not this committee, will be responsible for the full operational plan, funding, staffing, providers, services, and clinic location," Weslowski said.

Petitioners also provided specific facility and service information they had obtained: a potential leaseable building of more than 2,000 square feet with three exam rooms, lab space, an existing 400-amp electrical service suitable for radiology equipment, and high-speed broadband for telehealth. They told the board the proposal would not pledge county property or county revenue as collateral, would not impose a property tax and did not propose debt issuance; the funding mechanism described was a sales tax and grants.

Speakers at the hearing included committee members and local residents who described transportation and access barriers on Highway 285, long travel times to the nearest available clinics, and cases in which residents relied on ambulances because local non-emergency care was unavailable. Several health-data points were cited by presenters: petitioners said the Platte Canyon area is designated a medically underserved area and that local suicide and screening statistics underlined needs for additional mental-health and primary-care access.

The commissioners’ procedural statement at the start of the hearing referenced statutory criteria the board must consider. The chair read that notice had been published and that the hearing was conducted "in accordance with Colorado revised statutes 32-1-204" and would consider the criteria enumerated in the statute the chair read aloud (transcript citations as read at the hearing). Petitioners repeatedly said the service plan was prepared to respond to those statutory criteria and to written reasons for denial provided in earlier hearings in 2024.

Public comment included roughly two dozen speakers in person and on Zoom who voiced support for placing the service-plan question on the ballot. Supporters included local volunteer leaders and medical professionals, among them Catherine Fitting, identified as a primary-care practitioner and president of the South Park Health Service District, who said the 1% sales tax supported a sustainable clinic model in South Park and that a similar approach could work for Platte Canyon.

After public comment the board accepted a motion to continue the hearing to June 4, 2025; the motion passed 3-0. Commissioners said they would allow additional public comment at the continued hearing but would not permit persons who had already testified on May 14 to testify again at the June 4 meeting. No final decision on the service plan or ballot placement was made at the May 14 meeting.

The petitioners had placed a set of materials into the record, and presenters said they had submitted letters of support from the Platte Canyon Chamber of Commerce and from the office of the Speaker of the Colorado House (materials were distributed to commissioners and made part of the record). The board announced the hearing would be continued and solicited any additional written comments for the record prior to the June 4 session.

What happened next: The board continued the hearing to June 4 to accept additional public comment and to give the commissioners time for review; no further board action was taken on May 14.