The Park Hospital District board postponed action Tuesday on an amended memorandum of understanding with UCHealth after members learned their meeting packets contained the wrong version of the agreement.
The correct amended version is now posted on the Park Hospital District’s website.
If adopted, the amended agreement would allow the district to retain $425,000 of the approximately $4.6 million it expects to collect in property taxes in 2026 to cover administrative expenses and legal fees incurred this year.
The district levies 7.505 mills, or $75.05 a year for every $10,000 of assessed property value.
Under the Dec. 1, 2025, affiliation agreement with UCHealth, the district is allowed to retain only $200,000 annually and must remit the remaining tax revenue to UCHealth, a private nonprofit organization, to operate the local hospital, emergency department, physicians’ clinic, and urgent care clinic, which are all now branded as UCHealth facilities.
Beginning in 2027, the administrative allowance would return to $200,000, adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index.
The agreement also would require the district to send property tax revenue to UCHealth each month as it receives the funds. The previous agreement did not specify a payment schedule.
The additional $225,000 funding would help the Park Hospital District to pay legal expenses that exceeded the $200,000 administrative allowance incurred before the end of June.
The board halted discussion minutes after Tuesday’s special meeting began when Treasurer Brigitte Foust informed fellow board members the meeting packet included the wrong version of the memorandum.
“It’s the older version, and the board cannot properly deliberate anything that the public hasn’t seen,” Foust said.
The board scheduled another special meeting for Aug. 18 at 8 a.m. to consider the correct version of the agreement and plans to vote on it during the regular monthly meeting on Aug 26 at 5:30 p.m. at Town Hall. Board members also expect to adopt a revised 2026 budget at that time.
The board had called the special Tuesday morning meeting to approve the agreement so it could revise its 2026 budget. After Foust identified the error, board members agreed to postpone both items.
Board Secretary Janet Zeschin suggested adding a date or version number to future drafts to prevent similar problems. She noted the document posted on the district’s website was the fifth version negotiated with attorneys from Hall Render.
Foust said she will distribute an updated budget after the board approves the additional funding.
Board members declined to discuss specific budget items, including projected legal expenses and the cost of terminating retirement plans associated with Estes Park Health, until they approve the agreement.
“My calculation is that we’ll have enough for 2026,” Director Steve Alper said.
“First we need to approve the MOU,” Foust said. “We still haven’t gotten the final legal fees, but our estimate is pretty on target. I would like to have some assurances from Hall Render that the legal fees truly can be allocated to the plan.”
Before adjourning, the board discussed Director Tom Leigh’s concerns about Hall Render’s role in negotiating the agreement.
“I still have issues about whether the legal fees were appropriately approved by the board,” Leigh said. “I haven’t seen documentation showing when the board authorized spending that money, and that raises questions for me about the legality of the MOU.”
Leigh also questioned whether Hall Render had a conflict of interest.
“The MOU serves two purposes,” he said. “It creates a mechanism to transfer money to UCHealth and provides a way to pay legal fees that exceeded what had been budgeted. I think that raises a conflict in this matter.”
Board Chair Cory Workman and Alper disagreed, saying Hall Render appropriately negotiated the agreement because the firm also represented the district during negotiations that led to the UCHealth affiliation agreement.
They pointed to board resolutions approving both the letter of intent and the final affiliation agreement, although those documents are no longer for review on online.
“We have a deal for 50 years, and we have enough money to pay our costs,” Alper said. “To go back and debate individual charges is going to be expensive and time-consuming, and I don’t see it being productive.”
Instead, Alper said the board should focus on serving the community.
“We could have done it better, but now it can’t be undone,” Foust said. “So, let’s move forward.”