Clear Creek County commissioners opened a lengthy discussion Jan. 7 on a proposed resolution, 25‑13, to rescind an older county action, R98181, that addressed historic access roads and gates on private property. County Attorney Peter explained that R98181 "did not change the status of any specific road" and that subsequent resolutions and an adopted county road map had left the older language confusing.

The matter drew public comment from Joanne Sorensen of Dumont, who said she had asked the board to table the item to allow time for review of background documents. Sorensen told the panel, "I sent a message to the commissioners, respectfully requesting that this item be tabled because there was a lot of background information that wasn't immediately available regarding all of the resolutions relating to public road." Amy Hunt, speaking on behalf of Ken and Christine Thiesen, said the Thiesens had relied on 98,181 when they bought mining claims and warned rescinding it would "upend settled expectations" and could force property owners into litigation. Hunt said the county had given insufficient notice to mining‑claim owners about the proposed change and urged commissioners to reject the resolution.

County Attorney Peter summarized the staff review of the record. He told the board that in his view 98181 "was an assertion about historic roads without naming any specific roads or documenting any evidence about any specific roads," and that later steps — a township map, a county road map and state statutory procedures — were the proper mechanisms to determine public road status.

Commissioners debated options. Several said they agreed the old resolution caused confusion but that more public engagement and a targeted work session would be prudent before rescinding it. One commissioner noted the issue could affect public safety and access during wildfire or evacuation. The commissioners requested staff to take several specific steps before the next substantive discussion: meet with former commissioners who took part in drafting the earlier resolutions, add the county's road SOP (standard operating procedure) as an addendum to any future resolution, expand the list of objective historic resources (for example, mineral surveys and USGS historic maps), and to research whether building or land‑use codes could help prevent unauthorized gates across travelways.

Rather than voting, the board made no motion on 25‑13. The chair directed staff to place a work session on the topic on the board's tickler and to return the item no later than the end of the second quarter for a public work session that would include community members who participated in the original process. Staff and commissioners emphasized that rescinding R98181 would not itself change the legal status of any particular road and that any determination that a road is public would continue to require evidence and formal process.

Ending: Commissioners agreed to notify potentially affected property owners more broadly and to prepare a frequently asked questions document summarizing what rescinding the old resolution would — and would not — do. The board closed the agenda item without adopting R25‑13 and left the issue for further study and a scheduled work session.