An advisory about who we are today, and how we should prepare for the future
The Planning Commission unanimously adopted its work product, a Strategic Master Plan, for Park County at a public hearing on April 17, 2025. Click here to go to the document.
I understand that public interest in the minutiae of county government isn’t compelling for most, and therefore, not many citizens make it a point to keep a watchful eye on what county government is up to. This is especially true at present with the minute-by-minute, play-by-play machinations of Trump and his minions at the national level.
That said, the hinkier MAGA-centric county government gets, the more we ought to monitor its machinations, compelled to point out to our friends and neighbors the egregiousness with which it struts its dismal dogmatism with impunity and aplomb.
However, once you focus less on the politicians and look instead at the heart of county government —its employees, its appointed boards and commissions —you recognize that there is something else besides shameless demagoguery, political posturing, and lockstep adherence to MAGA ideology going on.
At the April 17, 2025, meeting of the Park County Planning Commission, the Strategic Master Plan was adopted by a unanimous vote. The Commission and Development Services staff worked very hard for four and a half months on the document, widdling it down to a reasonable length, removing items, adding items, debating the worth of this and that, and finally agreeing that they’d done their best, affirming the same by a voice vote, and pushing the document on to the Board of County Commissioners to approve or not.
Adoption of a Strategic Master Plan by Colorado county planning commissions is required by state statute. The SMP is the work product of the Planning Commission, without binding input or influence from county commissioners. Statutes also emphasize the SMP is an advisory document only and may or may not be approved by county commissioners.
The SMP was necessarily developed by gathering as much citizen input as possible, verifiable demographic data, verifiable geological data, maps, graphs, and all things pertinent to the creation of a useable document that reflects the current status of the county (people, places, and things) and what can be reasonably projected to enhance the county’s inevitable future growth.
The SMP is not a political document.
The members of the Planning Commission, along with their dedicated staff, are not seers, but rather citizens who have volunteered to serve the county. The Board of County Commissioners appointed them. They took their statutory charge seriously and worked diligently to fulfill the requirements mandated of them.
We owe them our thanks. We salute their dedication: Scott Dodge (Chair), Garrison Genschrock, Susan Jones, Cyndie Sherriff, Greg Johnson, Cathy Leslie (Alternate), and Development Services Planning staff.
The next step in the process resides with the Board of County Commissioners to either approve the SMP or not.
County Commission or other governing body approval of a Colorado county’s Strategic Master Plan required to be completed by the county’s planning commission was added to the applicable statute in 2024. And I’ll go out on a limb here: No one knows precisely what that means.
Our MAGA-centric Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the SMP lock, stock, and barrel. If they do, so what? The statute does not say the SMP is dead in the water if the BOCC rejects it. It remains an advisory document that a governing body can choose to follow or disregard in whole or in part.
Our MAGA-centric Board of County Commissioners may provide a litany of changes and edits to the document. So what? The statute does not require the Planning Commission to accede to those modifications, nor does it preclude them from modifying the SMP to include them.
Insofar as the Board of County Commissioners may take portions of the SMP and incorporate them into ordinances for land use or other purposes, what was produced by the Planning Commission would, therefore, become law. If certain portions of the SMP are found to constitute a best practice absent from existing ordinances, why wouldn’t the BOCC codify them in the best interest of Park County?
Again, I realize this may not be very interesting for most of us. And I regret that more of us were not sufficiently interested in the process to stay with it like a dog on a bone.
I attended a few of the Planning Commission meetings via Zoom. I have read the SMP drafts, the final document, and the pertinent statutes. I’ve posted about my observations and conclusions.
Unfortunately, there was little citizen participation in the public hearing on April 17, 2025. What participation there was consisted nearly exclusively of naysayers.
What I fear may happen is that our MAGA-centric Board of County Commissioners will accede to Chair Dave Wissel’s, and certainly Amy Mitchell’s, demagogic rhetoric when considering the SMP as adopted by the Planning Commission. Indeed, their narrative may mirror that of Gary Fisk, who, by his admission, had not attended any of the Planning Commission’s meetings, either remotely or in person, and, it appears, does not understand the statutory purpose of a Strategic Master Plan. Alternatively, Wissel and Mitchell may parrot Heather Prewitt’s argument that we cannot do this because we cannot afford it, or her misinterpretation of what the advisory document consitutes.
Heather Prewitt is a longtime resident of the county, a certified public accountant, and a former member of the Platte Canyon School Board, who resigned her elected position in a dispute over sharing data. She is also an adamant foe of any health service district in the Platte Canyon area. She remotely opposed the SMP, especially the inclusion of health and emergency services-related items, stating that the Planning Commission did not approach the development of the SMP from the perspective she believes they should have.
Gary Fisk has a long history of community involvement and sharing his opinions on various matters. He also spoke out remotely against the SMP on April 17, 2025. (Fisk probably wouldn’t object to being called MAGA-centric. I once described him this way: “Through historical observation, Fisk’s life’s work seems to be the constant clarion call: No New Taxes.” He also believes that if voters reject a program-specific tax increase in a particular year, it should never be proposed again for that program; a bleak perception of community that provides no opportunity for enlightened growth or evolving opinions.
If you’ve listened to the above, you’ll note Prewitt cites Stephen Covey, author of “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” and the Boston Consulting Group’s “Four Steps to High-Impact Strategic Planning in Government.”
Incidently, The Boston Consulting Group tells us “To improve the social, economic, and environmental well-being of citizens—today and tomorrow—governments must be responsive, agile, and capable of creatively solving complex problems. Yet many public sector organizations remain hierarchical, bureaucratic, and built for a bygone era.”
“Built for a bygone era.” An era where, as Dave Wissel would have it, the Code of the West was the operative document for the black and white world where only good and evil persisted; a time when the only good Indian was a dead one.
Whether you’re a believer in Stephen Covey’s conclusions, or think a company like the international Boston Consulting Group which had a reported net income last year of $13.5 billion, and provides no list or reference to county governments in the US who have hired them, is relevant to the conversation about Park County’s Strategic Master Plan, here’s a couple thoughts.
Prewitt says that “The Boston Consulting Group and their document titled 4 Steps to High Impact Strategic Planning for Government, states that through the strategic planning process, organizations reconcile their responsibilities with their resources and set strategic priorities. I don’t see any evidence that we have considered one.”
While Prewitt believes because the Boston Consulting Group said it, we should emulate it. (I’m reminded of a Dave Wissel quote. “What’s the definition of an expert? Someone who lives more than fifty miles away.”) If, as a county, we were to adopt the Boston Group’s advice, we would settle for the status quo and call it good enough for government work.
I suggest that the conversation should be directed towards the value of possibilities, suggestions, hopes, guidance, ideas, and even dreams, which constitute the advisory language encompassed by the SMP. Indeed, I’ve taken a good look at the Boston Consulting Group’s available information, its graphs and charts, operative philosophy, AI possibilities, and workflow strategies and come away with a question: That’s all well and good, but if you ain’t got no money, believe taxation is the devil’s tool for the subjugation of a free people, and, like BOCC Chair Dave Wissel, believes Elon Musk’s DOGE model should be brought to Park County, what’s the point?
Perhaps the SMP could be seen as the community conscience of Park County. We are who we are; we acknowledge our limitations, but we must nurture the hope that we can improve and do better in the future. A community conscience is not only about land use; it’s also aspirational, a view to the future, an attempt, however imperfect, to acknowledge and address the human element — We, the People.
Prewitt appears aghast at the SMP advisory language, which argues for support of the county’s health, safety, and welfare entities, including fire districts. Should an aspirational strategic master plan mention those essential components of a civilized community? I think it should.
Prewitt says, “…it [the SMP] seems to be promoting additional government entities such as TIF districts, housing authorities and healthcare districts. I see references to those at least eight times in this document, and I’m not sure why the Planning Commission would be advocating for expanded local government.”
From my perspective, as I’ve noted, why not incorporate community conscience into the document? Why not envision tax incentives for projects that will enrich the county? Why not take a closer look at affordable housing? Why not allow citizens in any particular section of the county to at the very least present a ballot measure to their neighbors to determine if local health services are something they need or want?
Reviewing Gary Fisk’s comments, this is his bottom line: “…I have not attended any of your meetings, but I think this Strategic Master Plan draft today should be dismissed in its entirety and the Planning Commission should be dissolved and a new Planning Commission selected to write a better deal.” Fisk goes on to repeat much of the MAGA-centric manifesto we’ve heard from him before.
Fisk tells us that “You know any Communist Party Chairman in the world could have said that: collective community infrastructure. The draft never even mentions private ownership. If infrastructure is a possibility, only collective community infrastructure?”
Here’s where Fisk cherry-picked those words from the SMP:
1.4.3 Retirement and the Aging Population Across the county the population increased for people over 65 from 7.5% in 2000 to 22.8% in 2023. As nearby population centers (Denver/ Colorado Springs and Summit County) become more and more expensive, Park County’s population will grow, and as people see the County as a place to retire, the elderly population is expanding. Planning for the interests and needs of the County’s aging population are changing, with age making solitary rural living more difficult and highlighting the need for improved collective community infrastructure.
Again, does the conscience of a county require consideration of it’s aging population? Indeed, consider this: In consideration of Park County’s aging population would a TIF incentive encouraging an enterprising developer to take heed of that proverbial light bulb flashing over his shoulder: “Hey, there’s a bunch of old farts up in the hills with nice pensions and fat IRAs, social security, and lots of equity who are gonna need assisted living, or, hell, a fullblown nursing home up there. C’mon, Ivan, lets head out and strike a chord for capitalism.”
Alas, Fisk’s argumentation is essentially political in nature. It’s the demagouery of one who struts their opinions onto the public stage because they feel entitled to do so. That entitlement, that MAGA-centric ideological entitlement has no shame or conscience. In another time it would have determinedly concluded the only good Indian is a dead one.
Which brings me to my final point. The Park County MAGA-centric Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing to discuss the adopted Strategic Master Plan. If you’ve watched the BOCC as long as I have, you may anticipate what that will encompass. Wissel will attempt to control the narrative, with Mitchell bobbing her head and making um-uming affirmations. At the same time, Gemmer will do what he usually does: sometimes there’s a hint that he might disagree but invariably circles back with, “I agree with that.” And what he agrees with is whatever Wissel or Michell said. The Park County Board of County Commissioners is a troika, three heads as one. Well, with Lucas Meyer as county manager, let’s call it three and a half heads.
Remeber the Rosalie song and dance? Remember the county manager’s hiring process, involving all that smoke and all those mirrors? Indeed, do you remember the Platte Canyon Health District proposal? Now that one takes the cake for rolling out the ignominous rhetoric of political regimentation. We, the People didn’t have a chance in hell with any of them. MAGA does not cotton to other than their own beliefs, ideas, proposals, or alternative facts.
Or the commissioners may surprise me. Naturally, whichever way they go, they will laud the good work of the Planning Commission and its staff, and express their gratitude for their service. Then one of three things happens: 1) They emphasize the SMP is advisory only, approve it, and summarily forget it; or 2) Wissel will set the narrative, put on his pedant hat and give us 10,000 words about where the SMP goes wrong, Mitchell will put in her um-ums, and Gemmer will chime in with his expected, “I agree,” and they’ll either reject it in toto; or 3) table it so they can edit, revise, delete, add, and eventually make it their own, something that reflects their values, their ideology, their perception of what’s black and white in the county with no equivocation about silly-assed notions the SMP represents the conscience of the community.
I don’t know when the BOCC will hold a public hearing on the SMP. I hope you will attend. I hope the Planning Commission and staff will defend their work product.
The Plan is below:
