Park County won’t join appeal, will not pursue separate enforcement after court voids Willow Wisp transfer-station approval

Park County commissioners voted 3-0 on Jan. 28 not to join an appeal and not to take separate county enforcement after a Park County District Court reversed the Board’s approval of a planned waste transfer station in the Willow Wisp area.

The Willow Wisp Metropolitan District and neighboring residents had urged the county to enforce the court’s order and shut down the transfer-station operation. Jacob Hollars, outside counsel for the Willow Wisp Metropolitan District, told the board the district had video evidence the facility continued operating “as if nothing happened” despite the injunction, and warned the district might seek contempt proceedings or other court remedies if the county did not act.

The court ruling reversed the Board of County Commissioners’ previous approval of a planned unit development (PUD) for the facility, returning the parcel to its prior residential zoning and, according to speakers, rendering heavy industrial operations there unlawful. Willow Wisp Metropolitan District President Kimberly Merriman and the district’s counsel, Katie James, asked the board to remain neutral on the appeal and to enforce the court order; they described past spills and ongoing threats to neighboring water supplies and quality of life.

Why it matters: The ruling affects land-use authority, local water-supply concerns and neighboring residents. The board’s decision not to intervene leaves enforcement and sanctions tied primarily to the district court and to the private parties who brought the suit.

In public comment, Jacob Hollars said the district had filed videos and photographs with the court showing continued operation. “Despite this judgment, ASCAG continues to this day to operate as if nothing happened,” Hollars said. Kimberly Merriman said neighbors had documented trucks and spills and asked the county not to join any appeal. Katie James, general counsel for the district, told commissioners the operation “is operating illegally” under residential zoning and reiterated the district’s request that the county enforce the court’s order.

County Attorney Erin Smith told the board there were two distinct requests before the commissioners: (1) whether the county should join the applicant’s notice of appeal, and (2) whether the county should pursue separate enforcement action. Smith advised the board that pursuing an appeal or separate enforcement could require additional county expenditures and that the district court’s order already provides an enforcement pathway.

Commissioners discussed fiscal constraints and the likely costs of an appeal and enforcement. The board voted 3-0 first to decline to join any appeal and then, in a separate 3-0 vote, to decline to take separate county enforcement action at this time. The board recorded no timeline or additional conditions for revisiting enforcement.

Public commenters representing neighborhood groups urged immediate county enforcement, including red-tagging the site and requiring cleanup. Stan Bates, speaking for the Juan Crest Homeowners Association and the Park County Neighborhoods Alliance, said the community had documented the matter extensively and asked the county to “shut down the facility, to red tag the facility” and to clear the site.

What the board did not do: Commissioners did not join the applicant’s appeal and did not authorize county-led enforcement actions; they did not direct staff to issue county cease-and-desist orders as part of the meeting record. Commissioners also did not set a timeline to revisit the matter during the meeting.

Next steps noted on the record: County legal staff and the plaintiffs’ counsel indicated enforcement and compliance proceedings remain possible through the district court system; the Willow Wisp Metropolitan District’s counsel said the district may pursue contempt or other court remedies if the injunction is ignored.

Ending: Commissioners recessed for an executive session to receive legal advice earlier in the meeting and announced their public actions when they returned. The board’s votes were recorded 3-0 on both motions.