Part 1 of The Land Use Code Takeover Series
High Country Advocate Staff Report
Marjo Curgus holds two jobs in Chaffee County. She directs the Chaffee Housing Authority at $110,000 annually and chairs the Planning and Zoning Commission.
On November 6, 2024, the Planning Commission—with Curgus presiding—voted unanimously to recommend a new Land Use Code containing Section 4.5.2.2, which exempts the Chaffee Housing Authority and Chaffee Housing Trust from infrastructure dedication requirements costing thousands of dollars per residential unit. Everyone else pays.
Curgus approved code language benefiting her employer. County Commissioners adopted it without recusing her. Citizens raised the conflict publicly before the vote. Officials ignored them.
This is the documented timeline of how a conflict of interest compromised Chaffee County’s Land Use Code adoption.
The Dual Roles
Marjo Curgus served on Chaffee County’s Planning and Zoning Commission since at least 2022, initially as Vice Chair. By 2024, she had advanced to Chair.
On July 18, 2024, the Chaffee Housing Authority Board voted to appoint Curgus as Interim Executive Director at $103,500 annually. She replaced Becky Gray, who left in June after three years.
On September 19, 2024, CHA made her appointment permanent and increased her salary to $110,000.
Throughout this period, Curgus continued chairing Planning Commission meetings reviewing the draft Land Use Code. She presided over public hearings in September, October, and November 2024.
The Land Use Code rewrite had been underway since January 2022. By the time Curgus took the CHA position in July 2024, the draft code was in final stages. The Planning Commission’s recommendation vote came November 6. Final adoption by County Commissioners occurred November 19.
Curgus held both positions simultaneously during the critical final months when the code moved from draft to adoption.
The Financial Benefit
Section 4.5.2.2 of the adopted Land Use Code addresses “Dedication Requirements.” This chapter ensures “that land development, including subdivision is served by appropriate supporting infrastructure and the land required for that infrastructure is dedicated to the County.”
Section 4.5.2.2(B) lists “Exceptions to requirements of this Division.” Subsection 3(b) specifically exempts: “Affordable housing development that includes units… Owned by Chaffee Housing Authority or Chaffee Housing Trust.”
Infrastructure dedication requirements include roads, water systems, sewer systems, drainage facilities, parks, and trails. These requirements impose significant costs on developers—engineering studies, construction, land dedication, legal fees.
The exemption saves CHA and CHT thousands of dollars per residential unit developed. Given CHA’s planned projects, including The Crossing development in Buena Vista, the financial benefit is substantial.
No other housing developers receive this exemption. Private builders of affordable housing must meet full infrastructure requirements unless their units are owned by CHA or CHT.
The Policy Violation
Chaffee County’s “Procedures – Conflict of Interest and County Boards” document, Section 3.1.1, defines conflict of interest:
“The Official or Employee represents (directly or indirectly) the Applicant or direct competitor of the Applicant in any aspect of its business as an owner, employee, director, officer, agent or consultant for pay or commission. The representation is not limited to the matter being considered by the Official or Employee.”
Curgus meets this definition. She is the Executive Director (chief executive officer) of CHA—employed for pay. She chaired Planning Commission meetings that voted to recommend a Land Use Code containing provisions specifically benefiting her employer.
The procedures require recusal when conflicts exist. They place responsibility on both the official and the appointing authority.
Curgus did not recuse herself. County Commissioners did not recuse her.
The Public Record
On November 4, 2024, Buena Vista resident Blane Clark addressed the conflict during the first Public Comment Session on the draft Land Use Code. Clark stated:
“Due to Ms. Curgus being the Interim Chief Executive Officer of CHA and at the same time being the Vice-Chair of the County P & Z Commission she should have recused herself from any vote or discussion on the LUC rewrite and if she didn’t recuse herself, the Commissioners’ had the fiduciary duty to recuse her.”
Clark specifically cited the county’s own conflict of interest procedures.
Two days later, on November 6, 2024, the Planning Commission held its final meeting on the Land Use Code. Marjo Curgus chaired the meeting. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend the code to County Commissioners.
The November 6 meeting minutes show Curgus presiding. There is no record of recusal, no discussion of conflict, no acknowledgment of Clark’s November 4 comments.
On November 19, 2024, County Commissioners adopted the Land Use Code unanimously in a 3-0 vote. Commissioners Keith Baker, Greg Felt, and Rusty Granzella approved the code containing the CHA/CHT exemption.
Commissioner transcripts from the November 19 meeting show no discussion of the Curgus conflict. No commissioner raised concerns about her dual roles. No commissioner questioned whether she should have been recused.
The Official Response
On January 16, 2025, Wayne Clark (Blane Clark’s son) submitted a formal complaint to the County Commissioners regarding Curgus’s conflict of interest. The complaint detailed her dual roles, the financial benefit to CHA, and the violation of county conflict procedures.
According to reporting by Ark Valley Voice, Commissioner P.T. Wood responded that the Chaffee Housing Authority “is a separate entity and Curgus has no personal gain” from the exemption.
This response ignores the plain language of Section 3.1.1, which explicitly covers employees of organizations benefiting from county decisions. The conflict procedures don’t require “personal gain”—they require only that the official “represents” an entity “for pay.”
Curgus represents CHA for $110,000 annually. CHA benefits financially from the exemption. The policy violation is documented.
No other official response appears in the public record. Curgus has not publicly addressed the conflict. The Planning Commission has not revisited its November 6 recommendation. The County Commissioners have not reconsidered their November 19 adoption.
The Timeline That Shows the Problem
January 2022: Chaffee County begins Land Use Code rewrite with consultant Logan Simpson.
2022-2024: Marjo Curgus serves as Vice Chair, then Chair of Planning Commission during code development.
July 18, 2024: CHA appoints Curgus as Interim Executive Director at $103,500.
September 19, 2024: CHA makes Curgus permanent Executive Director at $110,000.
October 28, 2024: Draft Version 3 of Land Use Code released.
November 4, 2024: Blane Clark raises conflict issue during first Public Comment Session.
November 6, 2024: Planning Commission (chaired by Curgus) unanimously recommends code containing CHA/CHT exemption.
November 14, 2024: Final revised draft posted with major changes.
November 19, 2024: County Commissioners unanimously adopt code.
January 16, 2025: Wayne Clark files formal complaint.
September 2025: “Glitch bill” amendments needed to fix code problems.
The timeline shows Curgus assumed her CHA position three months before the critical Planning Commission vote. She chaired meetings during the final review period when public comment was heard. She presided over the vote recommending a code that exempts her employer from requirements imposed on everyone else.
She had both the responsibility to recuse herself and the authority to do so. She did neither.
The County Commissioners had the authority—and according to county procedures, the duty—to recuse her. They did neither.
Why Officials Allowed It
Blane Clark raised the conflict issue publicly on November 4, 2024—two days before the Planning Commission vote. Officials had notice. They proceeded anyway.
Three explanations exist:
Officials don’t understand their own policies. Commissioner P.T. Wood’s January 2025 response to Wayne Clark’s formal complaint claimed CHA is a “separate entity” and Curgus has “no personal gain”—therefore no conflict exists.
This ignores county conflict procedures which explicitly cover officials who “represent” entities “for pay or commission.” The policy doesn’t require personal gain. It requires only employment by an organization benefiting from county decisions. Curgus represents CHA for $110,000 annually. The conflict is textbook.
They valued adoption over integrity. Three years into development, with consultants paid and grant deadlines looming, stopping the process meant delay and potential loss of Strong Communities funding. Two commissioners were leaving office. The political calculus favored adoption over addressing the conflict.
They wanted this outcome. Commissioners appoint Planning Commission members and CHA Board members. They appointed Curgus to both. They adopted the code with the CHA exemption. They reappointed her to another Planning Commission term in January 2025. At every decision point, they could have intervened. They didn’t.
The conflict wasn’t a bug in the process. It was a feature.
What Happens Next
The conflict isn’t ancient history. It happened in real time, with citizens testifying before votes occurred. Officials chose to proceed anyway.
Citizens can respond:
- Demand recusal every time Curgus chairs meetings involving housing or development
- File formal complaints documenting policy violations with written responses
- Attend meetings to keep the conflict in the public record
- Support primary challenges against officials who ignored conflict procedures
- Document everything for potential legal challenges to codes adopted through compromised processes
The “glitch bill” amendments already in progress provide another test of whether officials will allow Curgus’s continued involvement in code decisions benefiting her employer.
This is Part 1 of The Land Use Code Takeover Series. Coming next: The same consulting firm writing codes for multiple Colorado mountain counties.
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. 