How Colorado’s Mountain Counties Are Being Systematically Reshaped
High Country Advocate Staff Investigation
Marjo Curgus holds two jobs in Chaffee County. She directs the Chaffee Housing Authority, earning $103,500 annually, and chairs the Planning and Zoning Commission.
In November 2024, the Planning Commission—with Curgus presiding—voted unanimously to recommend a new Land Use Code exempting the Chaffee Housing Authority and Chaffee Housing Trust from infrastructure requirements costing thousands of dollars per residential unit. Everyone else pays full price.
Curgus approved code language benefiting her employer. County commissioners adopted it without recusing her. Citizens raised the conflict publicly months later. Officials haven’t responded.
This documented conflict is where this investigation begins. Over the next two months, the High Country Advocate will publish a five-part series examining how land use codes across fifteen mountain counties—from Jackson to Archuleta—are being rewritten through state grants, consultant networks, regulatory mandates, and processes that bypass democratic accountability.
The Chaffee conflict isn’t isolated. It’s symptomatic.
The Same Consultant, Multiple Counties
Fairfield & Woods, a Denver law firm, wrote Chaffee County’s code after the county terminated planning consultants Logan Simpson in fall 2023—two years into the project.
Fairfield & Woods is now writing Eagle County’s land use regulations. Same consultant, same timeframe, same type of project.
Are they using the same template? Do both codes contain identical provisions? How many other mountain counties hired them?
When one consultant writes codes for multiple counties, cookie-cutter provisions proliferate and local customization disappears.
The Counties Without Codes Face a Deadline
Saguache and Conejos counties are among only five in Colorado operating without building codes. That ends in 2026.
State law now requires all counties to adopt building codes by 2026. Counties choosing neither the 2018 nor 2021 editions get the strictest standards automatically.
Xcel Energy is funding consultant Hope Medina to pressure the entire San Luis Valley—Saguache, Conejos, Rio Grande—toward code adoption.
Why is a utility company funding code consultants? What happens to property owners when codes are imposed on previously unregulated counties? The investigation will examine the mandate, the corporate involvement, and the death of rural autonomy.
The Grant Money With Strings Attached
Between 2023 and 2024, Colorado distributed over $1.4 million in Strong Communities Planning Grants to mountain counties:
– El Paso County: $250,000
– Gilpin County: $200,000
– Crested Butte: $200,000
– Cripple Creek: $99,000
– Archuleta County: $59,200
The money comes from federal stimulus funds via Colorado House Bill 22-1304. But counties must adopt state-defined “land use best practices” to receive and keep it. They must demonstrate “good faith efforts” or return the money.
This creates financial leverage. Counties commit to provisions the state endorses. Consultants work from state-approved frameworks. Similar provisions appear across counties because the funding mechanism requires similarity.
The Timeline That Connects Them All
Chaffee County: Started January 2022, changed consultants fall 2023, adopted November 2024—amendments needed by September 2025. The final draft got 30 days of review, with major changes five days before adoption.
Eagle County: Launched 2024 rewrite using Chaffee’s consultant.
Archuleta County: Amending multiple code sections throughout 2024-2025.
El Paso, Gilpin, and others: Received Strong Communities grants in 2023-2024, launched code updates.
Saguache and Conejos: Face 2026 state mandate.
This convergence isn’t random. State template codes updated in 2024. Grant deadlines hit 2023-2024. Regulatory mandates loom. Consultants market aggressively. Something is driving simultaneous rewrites across 200 miles of mountain counties.
The Common Provisions Appearing Everywhere
Certain provisions appear repeatedly: Affordable housing exemptions from standard requirements. Infrastructure waivers for select public entities. Wildlife preservation zones. Density restrictions. Setback changes reducing buildable area. Parking reductions. ADU incentives. Transit-oriented development standards in counties with no transit.
These provisions restrict private property owners while exempting certain organizations. They impose urban planning concepts on rural areas. They appear across multiple counties simultaneously. They align with state templates and grant priorities.
Who requested them? Not property owners. Not rural residents testifying at hearings.
The Democratic Process That Wasn’t
Chaffee County claimed “nearly three years” of work and “nearly 25 public hearings” shaped its code. Draft Version 3: October 28, 2024. Major revisions: November 14. Adoption: November 19.
Thirty days from draft to adoption. Five days from final changes to vote.
Public hearings drew standing-room-only crowds. Hours of testimony. Concerns about conflicts of interest, regulatory takings, property rights, constitutional violations. The code passed unanimously. “Glitch bill” amendments needed within nine months.
Extensive claims of public engagement. Rushed final approval. Limited meaningful review. This pattern appears across multiple counties.
What’s Really Happening
Five mechanisms are reshaping mountain county land use:
State template codes from the Colorado Division of Local Government, updated 2024, provide “streamlined” versions counties adopt wholesale.
Consultant concentration means the same firms write codes for multiple counties, carrying provisions from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Grant funding creates financial incentives to adopt state-defined best practices. Counties need money. The state has it. Access requires compliance.
State mandates—like building codes for Saguache and Conejos—force adoption of previously rejected regulations.
Administrative processes allow major policy changes without legislative action or public votes. Technically public, structurally designed to minimize citizen influence.
Each operates independently. Together, they’re rewriting policy across fifteen counties spanning 200 miles.
What The Investigation Will Reveal
Article One: The Marjo Curgus conflict—timeline, financial benefit, policy violation, and why officials allowed it.
Article Two: Fairfield & Woods from Chaffee to Eagle, comparing codes and examining single-consultant control.
Article Three: State pressure on Saguache and Conejos, the 2026 mandate, Xcel Energy’s role, and rural autonomy’s end.
Article Four: Strong Communities money across mountain counties—what counties promised, what best practices they adopted, whether grants drive policy.
Article Five: The synthesis—how mechanisms connect, the coordinated nature across 200 miles, and whether this is how democracy should work.
* Topics may change as the investigation continues.
Why This Matters
Land use codes determine what you can build, where, how big, and at what cost. They affect property values, development patterns, community character, and rural livelihoods.
When codes change through consultant-dominated processes, funded by grants requiring state compliance, and rushed through approval with limited public input, property owners lose rights without democratic accountability.
When the same provisions appear across counties during the same period using the same consultants and funding sources, the question becomes: Are counties making independent decisions? Or implementing a state agenda?
When conflicts go unaddressed, public comment gets ignored, final changes happen days before votes, and amendments are needed within months—democracy has failed.
This investigation will document systematic failure across Colorado’s mountain counties. The evidence will show what’s happening, who’s driving it, how it’s funded, and what it means for property rights and local control.
The Marjo Curgus conflict is the entry point. The larger story is about how policy gets made when democratic processes become theater and administrative mechanisms replace accountability.
Colorado’s mountain counties are being reshaped. This investigation will show you how.
—
**Coming in Article One:** The documented conflict of interest that proves Chaffee County’s process was compromised. The timeline, the benefit, the violation, and the officials who let it happen.
—
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 