Residents accuse county of failing to enforce judge's injunction at Willow Wisp/ASKG transfer site

Residents at Wednesday’s Park County commissioners meeting urged immediate enforcement action after saying a private transfer-station operator continued activity despite a court injunction and promises to remove infrastructure.

Speakers said the county had received repeated complaints about truck traffic, unsecured waste, nighttime dirt-bike activity and an unremoved leach pipe following a large spill last July. “We are asking you to please think critically and help follow through to stop this situation, reevaluate, and put it somewhere else,” Susie Bates told the board during general public comment.

The board had adjourned earlier in the meeting to an executive session described on the record as being held “for the purpose of receiving legal advice pursuant to CRS section 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e)” and specifically to receive legal advice relating to correspondence from the Willow Wisp Metropolitan District regarding the ASKG waste transfer station. When the public session resumed, commissioners said they had received legal advice but did not announce further actions.

Residents reiterated ongoing concerns in open comment. Stan Bates, HOA president for Wine Crest Estates and a member of the Park County Neighborhood Alliance, told commissioners he believed the county had failed to enforce zoning and operating rules, and that ongoing operations at the site were “against the permanent injunction.” Joe Weidner, identifying himself as a Willow Wisp Metro District board member, said neighbors felt county leaders had “turned their back” and that the neighborhood is organized and prepared to pursue further remedies.

Commissioners did not announce any new enforcement action at the meeting. They adjourned after closing public comment and the previously scheduled agenda matters. Residents asked the board to prioritize safety and to confirm oversight steps and removal of infrastructure the court had ordered removed.

The record shows the county used its statutory executive-session authority to consult counsel about the matter; the meeting transcript does not record legal advice given during that closed session. Residents’ remarks during the open portion of the meeting constitute public statements requesting the board’s intervention and further county enforcement.