Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Growth Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Park County tables $50,000 growth‑policy planning grant after debate over $25,000 county match
Summary
Commissioners debated a Department of Commerce planning grant to update Park County’s growth policy (grant ~$50,000, county match $25,000). Public commenters and commissioners disagreed over who should do the review; the commission tabled the item pending counsel and directed the planning board to lead review discussions.
Park County commissioners on Dec. 23 debated a $50,000 Community Development Block Grant (planning grant) that would fund an update to the county’s growth policy but requires a $25,000 county match.
Kristen, a county planning/grants staffer, told the commission the grant would cover data work and drafting and that Park County would provide $25,000 in cash plus in‑kind staff hours. "Growth policies do not have any environmental issues as a planning document," she said, noting she signs environmental certifications for planning grants.
Members of the public urged different approaches. Carrie Kale of the Park County Environmental Council said she supported moving forward with the planning application and described the grant as an opportunity to plan in a hybrid manner. By contrast, Sabina Strauss (Gardner) told commissioners she was “concerned about the county match,” saying, “I don't see how the county can spend $25,000 when we have roads that are in need of repair.”
Commissioners split on the proposal. Commissioner Vermillion said the county sometimes must invest now to avoid larger costs later: “I believe that spending a little now will save us more in the long run.” Commissioner Waltz cautioned against spending money the county does not have, saying, “There’s gonna come a time when you have to quit spending money you don’t have.”
A motion to submit the planning grant application did not receive a second and was dismissed. The commission then considered directing the county planning board to review the growth policy and determine whether additional community members were needed. Several public speakers and board members reminded the commission that state statute assigns the planning board responsibility for reviewing the growth policy and urged the commission to empower that board to do the work.
Commissioner Waltz moved to table the question until commissioners could consult the county attorney; the motion carried on a voice vote. County staff said the matter will return to a January agenda after counsel has advised on the statutory and procedural steps.
What’s next: The commission expects to discuss the planning‑board direction and any grant submittal in January after legal review.
