[0:00]

[5:09] We're just.

[5:09]

[10:17] Council Member.

[10:17] Ballard, this is Celestino.

[10:19] Would you like to do a sound check.

[10:20]

[10:23] I'm here.

[10:23] Can you hear me.

[10:24] I can hear you.

[10:24] Thank you so much.

[10:26] Council Member stout, would you like to do a sound check.

[10:30] Sound check check, check.

[10:31]

[12:11] Just calling in and.

[12:12]

[13:08] All right.

[13:09] It is 5:30 and we will bring the May

[13:14] city council meeting to order.

[13:17] And with that, we will go ahead and stand

[13:21] for the Pledge of Allegiance in a moment of silence.

[13:24]

[13:29] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

[13:34] and to the Republic for which it stands.

[13:37] One nation under God, indivisible,

[13:41] with liberty and justice for all.

[13:43]

[13:55] You may be seated.

[13:56]

[13:58] OK Mr. Up here.

[14:01]

[14:05] OK we're just waiting for the screens to finish.

[14:13] As we are going to kick off our evening with a presentation

[14:18] from the business incubator center,

[14:20] and we have chief executive officer delita here to present.

[14:26] There she is.

[14:26] She just walked in.

[14:28] Walked right up.

[14:31] Yeah perfect timing.

[14:32]

[14:49] Are you ready.

[14:50] All right.

[14:51] Good evening, everyone, and thank you for having me here.

[14:53] It's hard to find parking today.

[14:57] I'm looking at everyone here, but I'm really happy to be here

[15:01] and to do three things today.

[15:05] Start with a presentation about the business incubator

[15:08] and what we have done in this past year,

[15:12] and also celebrate 40 years together

[15:14] of partnership, and then share with you

[15:18] a recognition that puts the business incubator

[15:21] center in Grand Junction on the global map of entrepreneurship.

[15:26] I'm the CEO of the business incubator center.

[15:30] Thank you for having me.

[15:33] So this year, the big turns 40 and our theme

[15:37] has been ever since we started rooting.

[15:43] We want to talk about how we are able to help through this vision

[15:47] that the Grand Junction, City of Grand Junction and the people

[15:51] of Grand Junction set in place 40 years ago to help businesses

[15:55] root in our community and transform this amazing place

[15:59] that we all call home.

[16:01] I want to acknowledge that the business incubator center

[16:03] would not have existed without the city

[16:07] of Grand Junction support.

[16:09] As a matter of fact, since our founding in 1986,

[16:13] the city of Grand Junction was with us

[16:16] as a founding board member, and we're

[16:19] very proud of this partnership.

[16:21]

[16:26] Another quick note on the history the city of Grand

[16:29] Junction played a pivotal role.

[16:32] This partnership has run uninterrupted over 40 years,

[16:36] and the mission has always remained the same

[16:38] over these years, helping small businesses take root, grow,

[16:43] scale and start in our communities

[16:46] so they can stay here so they can create opportunities

[16:50] and so they can transform and grow our city together.

[16:53] So it's a chance for us to come together in this year

[16:59] and celebrate what that vision has meant

[17:01] and how it is transforming our communities for many years

[17:05] to come.

[17:06] We believe that our entrepreneurial infrastructure

[17:09] is strong in our community, and this

[17:12] is built because the community wanted to see a future here,

[17:16] and that we are able to diversify the economy together

[17:20] because we want to see sustainability

[17:22] happen at every level.

[17:24] So we're very happy to do this work in partnership.

[17:28] So how do we do it.

[17:30] The book operates through these five pillars that you see here.

[17:34] That's how we deliver our programs and mission

[17:37] on a day to day basis.

[17:39] First with business development.

[17:41] That's where basically our SBDC and business development team

[17:45] sits, as well as our Camino Al éxito

[17:49] Spanish language entrepreneurial support program.

[17:54] This is where the coaching and mentorship and the training

[17:57] happens for all the entrepreneurs.

[18:00] Second, our space and tools, which is the facility itself,

[18:04] the spaces that incentivize opportunities for entrepreneurs

[18:09] to start and launch and help operate their businesses

[18:14] from specialized tools.

[18:17] Third, business funding and loans.

[18:19] Getting the important capital in entrepreneurs

[18:22] hands so that they can continue investing in hiring people

[18:27] and building facilities and making sure

[18:29] that their businesses can grow.

[18:32] For with the grants and incentives,

[18:35] this is where mainly the enterprise zone, the state tax

[18:39] incentive lives and other incentives so we can help

[18:43] our community holistically reinvest those taxes

[18:48] into our communities.

[18:51] And then innovation and labs with the makerspace

[18:54] as a prototyping facility that allows innovation to thrive

[18:59] and people to be able to take their ideas

[19:02] from idea to commercialization.

[19:04] So these five pillars is what makes BIC

[19:06] a true one stop shop, where you can see the hub

[19:11] for Entrepreneurship thriving.

[19:13] By having our arms wrapped around the entrepreneurs

[19:16] and their ideas to make sure that they

[19:17] are able to sustain and thrive beyond the Five Pillars

[19:23] that you just saw.

[19:25] We also advanced targeted initiatives

[19:28] that address specific emerging opportunities for our region.

[19:32] Sometimes these are gaps in the regional economy,

[19:36] and sometimes these are areas that we strategically approach

[19:40] in order to make sure that we can see acceleration

[19:43] for business activity.

[19:45] And these efforts, they can focus

[19:48] on sectors and sometimes regional areas

[19:51] or specialized attention.

[19:53] And we do this work together with public partners,

[19:57] stakeholders, federal and local government partners,

[20:02] because the bics mission is to strengthen

[20:06] the key economic pillars in our communities

[20:10] in order to see that diversification happen.

[20:15] So currently, three initiatives at the BIC and the first one

[20:19] focusing on sustainability with agro West and the future of AG

[20:24] in our communities.

[20:25] The second one, Camino Al éxito, which means path

[20:27] to success in Spanish, which delivers our resources

[20:31] to Spanish speaking founders.

[20:33] And then the third one is circular economy Development

[20:36] Center, which is a partnership with CDP

[20:40] in order to support markets and systems, to reduce waste

[20:43] and to create new economic value for small businesses.

[20:49] This is something I'm very, very proud to show you here.

[20:52] Our partnership creates amazing impact for our community

[20:56] and this is how it translates on the ground.

[20:58] In 2025 alone, we have served 647 entrepreneurs.

[21:04] We have helped 112 of them launched through our campus,

[21:09] and we supported the creation of 393 new jobs.

[21:14] We were able to deploy directly $6.25 million

[21:18] in dollars to help entrepreneurs buy tools and form assets.

[21:27] Together, these entrepreneurs were

[21:28] able to generate 12.3 million in New dollars to our community.

[21:34] And those are families that are able to create paychecks

[21:40] and storefronts and generate the tax base that we all appreciate.

[21:46] These numbers compound year over year because

[21:48] of that infrastructure that delivers these activities

[21:51] and these services and the support

[21:53] that sustains year over year.

[21:56] Our overall time impact figures show

[22:00] that BIC is the engine that creates a lot of the support

[22:06] that our community needs.

[22:08] We have so far helped 35% of all Mesa County businesses,

[22:13] and we have helped create thousands of jobs year over year

[22:17] since our founding.

[22:20] Something I'm very proud of is the number 3.29 billion.

[22:25] That's how much was created in capital

[22:27] investments in our community.

[22:30] And these are direct effect.

[22:31] We are able to tell you exactly where

[22:33] these investments happened.

[22:35] For each dollar invested in BC, for each public dollars invested

[22:40] in BC, we have generated $346 in direct economic impact

[22:45] in return, which have helped contribute

[22:47] to the growth of our city and region together.

[22:50]

[22:53] Now, one of the big wins of this past year

[22:57] is one of the big projects that is a state tax

[23:02] incentive, the enterprise zone, and it was up for redesignation.

[23:07] So we led the analysis application

[23:10] and the approval process with the state's

[23:12] economic Development Office.

[23:15] And we worked strategically to make sure

[23:17] that the majority of the zone remains within Mesa County,

[23:22] allowing businesses to generate a lot of those credits

[23:26] that they are able to reinvest in our communities.

[23:30] However, initially, some areas, including downtown,

[23:34] fell off the map.

[23:36] We were able to approve further a grandfathering process

[23:43] to help these businesses downtown to remain

[23:45] in the zone for 10 years.

[23:48] But this is where the work that the BIC team has done diligently

[23:55] creates a ripple effect.

[23:57] We went back and looked at our track data and generated a case,

[24:02] and we submitted that request to our edit,

[24:04] and we were able to include all of downtown of the city

[24:08] of Grand Junction into the map.

[24:11] I'm happy to share that today we are

[24:13] successfully back in the zone.

[24:16] So majority of Mesa County small businesses

[24:18] can continue enjoying this amazing tax

[24:21] credit for the next 10 years.

[24:25]

[24:28] In 2024 5, we were honored to also receive

[24:31] two amazing visits from Senator Hickenlooper and Governor Polis.

[24:37] At their request, they wanted to come tour the back, meet

[24:41] with entrepreneurs, and discuss pressing matters

[24:43] to small businesses that they might be able to help solve,

[24:49] or they needed to learn more about.

[24:52] And we're happy to be able to facilitate

[24:55] these kind of direct lines between entrepreneurs,

[24:58] small businesses and emerging industry leaders

[25:00] and partners with our policy makers.

[25:06] In 2025, we also launched an ACT study.

[25:09] We partnered with CMU to create an economic impact study for AG

[25:14] in our communities, and we chose five counties

[25:17] to generate this study.

[25:20] The findings will help us generate policies.

[25:24] It will give us a clearer picture, a data driven picture

[25:27] of where we are today and where are the pain points

[25:31] that we need to focus on.

[25:35] This is in hope that this study will

[25:38] help create solutions to help sustain an industry

[25:42] for generations to come.

[25:44] If anyone wants to read the full study,

[25:46] it's on our website incubator.org.

[25:49] Feel free to grab that study or just walk into the incubator

[25:52] and we'll be happy to hand you one.

[25:57] This is the QR code for our most recent annual report

[26:00] that I hope you have with you.

[26:02] And there are some amazing success

[26:05] stories we are not able to share all 647 in our annual report,

[26:10] but.

[26:11] So we picked six of them to share with you.

[26:16] Please find the annual report on our website

[26:20] and read those amazing stories.

[26:22] Yes, that is the rec center in picture number two.

[26:26] And yes, those are big clients that are helping build it.

[26:30] So we're very happy and proud to see this partnership create

[26:33] a compounding ripple effect.

[26:35]

[26:40] And earlier this year, BIC received the 2026 mbia

[26:45] Dinah Atkins Randall award.

[26:49] The International business innovation association has won

[26:53] top recognition a year to give.

[26:55] And that recognition was given to the business incubator center

[26:59] as the best incubator in the world.

[27:02] It was selected out of more than 1,200

[27:06] incubators from 33 countries.

[27:08] Reese and what this means for our community,

[27:13] that we have entrepreneurs that are worthy of our service,

[27:17] and we are extremely proud to be here

[27:19] to help support our community in a meaningful way

[27:22] that we are able to do.

[27:24] This also means that the world is looking up to our communities

[27:27] for the creative solutions that we're

[27:29] able to help, and the partnership and the models

[27:31] that we can generate together.

[27:34] So we see this as a benchmark and as a start for us

[27:37] to be able to continue growing our community together.

[27:40]

[27:43] If possible, to do a plug and invite everyone

[27:46] to our 40th anniversary kickoff at ramble

[27:50] bean on June four at 4:00 PM.

[27:55] We're hoping to toast together this partnership

[27:58] and to celebrate our entrepreneurs

[28:00] from our communities, and to also

[28:03] continue this impactful, meaningful work

[28:06] to help people root in our communities further.

[28:10] I'm happy to field any questions you have and I'd love to see you

[28:14] all there on June 4 and to celebrate our 40th

[28:18] year together this year.

[28:20] Thank you so much for 40 years of partnership

[28:22] and looking forward to 40 more.

[28:25] Thank you so much.

[28:26]

[28:33] I just want to say thank you to Lita.

[28:35] The work that you and the business incubator center do

[28:37] is amazing, and you can see it throughout our entire community.

[28:41] And thank you so much.

[28:42] And I see a lot of you are here today.

[28:45] So thank you for being here.

[28:46] And it's really exciting that we have this partnership.

[28:50] And you look like you were leaning in.

[28:53] I think we have some other yeah, I just

[28:55] want to say thank you as well to Lita,

[28:57] the board, all staff members.

[29:00] The effect that you have on our community is truly incredible.

[29:04] The business incubator is the American dream.

[29:06] It's that path forward, that path to success,

[29:09] that opportunity that we don't all have.

[29:12] And I think she's understated it a little bit the best business

[29:16] incubator in the world.

[29:18] I mean, what an incredible award to receive.

[29:21] That was also up against business

[29:23] incubators that had substantial funding

[29:26] within the tech industry.

[29:27] So this is it's really, truly a pretty amazing accomplishment.

[29:31] So thank you so much to Dalida and the team and the board.

[29:34] You guys are all pretty incredible.

[29:37] And I just wanted to Ben and I co sit on the board for the city

[29:47] and it's an amazing board.

[29:50] So if they're the number one incubator

[29:52] they're the number one board in the world

[29:54] to by my measure right.

[29:57] Kathy agrees.

[29:58] And number one staff I mean I've known several

[30:02] of the staff for a long time.

[30:03] They're there.

[30:04] Awesome small, small segue sat next to Diana Connor

[30:11] yesterday, who is the owner of must love seniors,

[30:15] and she was at the Chamber breakfast yesterday,

[30:17] and I don't know how we got talking about this,

[30:20] but she said I wouldn't be in business

[30:23] if it wasn't for the incubator.

[30:25] She goes to everything the incubator puts on,

[30:29] and she now supplies 126 assisted

[30:33] living beds in our community, mostly for Medicaid people.

[30:39] And, the value from that is just unfathomable.

[30:43] So it was a great story yesterday.

[30:45] Congratulations to all you guys.

[30:48] We really appreciate you a lot.

[30:50]

[30:58] OK with that, we are going to move into proclamations.

[31:03] And before we do that, I did want

[31:05] to just note that we have council member stout

[31:07] and Ballard are attending remotely.

[31:10] Council Member stout will be joining us in person shortly.

[31:13] She's on her way and remote until then.

[31:16] And with that, we'll move into proclamations.

[31:18] And our only one tonight is proclaiming may 17th

[31:22] through the 23rd as national EMS week

[31:25] in the city of Grand Junction.

[31:26] And it will be read by Council Member Nguyen

[31:30] and received by EMS chief division Chief Mark McIntyre.

[31:37] City of Grand Junction.

[31:38] State of Colorado.

[31:39] Proclamation whereas this year, as we recognize the 52nd

[31:43] anniversary of the first national EMS week,

[31:46] we honor those who came before us,

[31:47] especially those who challenged the status quo and raised

[31:50] the bar for all of us.

[31:52] And whereas the member of the members

[31:55] of emergency medical services teams

[31:58] are ready to go beyond the call to provide

[32:00] life saving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days

[32:03] a week.

[32:04] And whereas access to quality emergency medical emergency care

[32:09] dramatically improves the survival

[32:10] and recovery rate of those who experience

[32:13] sudden illness or injury.

[32:14] And whereas emergency medical service providers have

[32:18] traditionally served as the safety net of America's health

[32:21] systems, and whereas emergency medical service teams consist

[32:26] of emergency medical technicians, paramedics,

[32:29] firefighters, dispatchers, Emergency Nurses, emergency

[32:33] physicians, and others.

[32:35] And whereas the members of emergency medical service teams

[32:40] engage in thousands of hours of specialized

[32:42] training and continuing education to enhance

[32:44] their lifesaving skills.

[32:46] And whereas the community of Grand Junction

[32:49] benefits daily from the knowledge, skills,

[32:51] and selfless service of these highly trained individuals,

[32:55] and whereas it is appropriate to recognize

[32:57] the value and the accomplishments of emergency

[33:00] medical service providers by recognizing emergency

[33:03] medical Services Week.

[33:05] Now, therefore, on behalf of the Grand Junction City council

[33:09] and community members of Grand Junction,

[33:11] we recognize the week of May 17 through May 23, 2026

[33:16] as emergency medical Services week

[33:18] in the city of Grand Junction and encourage the community

[33:22] to observe this week with appropriate programs,

[33:25] ceremonies and activities.

[33:26]

[33:30] Thank you.

[33:31] My name is Mark McIntyre.

[33:32] I'm the EMS Division Chief here at the Department.

[33:34] With me tonight is Deputy Chief Gus Hendrix.

[33:37] And we would like to thank you for recognizing

[33:40] the efforts of our EMS crews.

[33:42] As you all EMS is by far the busiest division on the fire

[33:45] department, accounting for approximately 80%

[33:48] of our call volume.

[33:49] Despite the challenges call volume creates,

[33:52] our crews respond to every call with an extremely high level

[33:55] of skill and professionalism.

[33:58] This year, through your support, the Department was able to move

[34:01] EMS staff to the 4896 schedule.

[34:04] We also started transitioning our fleet to 4x4 diesel

[34:07] ambulances and were able to send five additional providers

[34:10] to paramedic school, which almost

[34:12] brings us up to our paramedic goal of 60 for the Department.

[34:17] In addition, the Department added a new community

[34:19] paramedic program in an effort to start proactively

[34:22] addressing the call volume.

[34:24] I'm happy to report tonight that even in the short time frame,

[34:27] the program has been in service.

[34:29] We have seen a decrease of 911 utilization of enrolled patients

[34:33] by between 60 and 100% and an overall EMS call volume

[34:37] decrease of about 1% to date.

[34:41] Now, that doesn't sound like a lot on paper,

[34:43] but considering our usual EMS goes up by about 5.4%

[34:47] every year, decreasing is.

[34:49] One is a pretty big task for us.

[34:51] So we're very excited about how it's

[34:53] been going for the short time.

[34:55] So all of these things that we have accomplished

[34:57] were 100% possible due to the support you have shown our EMS

[35:01] division over this last year.

[35:03] So thank you for your support and thank you

[35:04] very much for this recognition.

[35:07] Thank you.

[35:07]

[35:17] OK with that, we will be moving into public comments.

[35:20] Individuals may comment about any topic

[35:22] except those listed on the regular agenda

[35:24] under the public hearing section.

[35:25] Speakers will have three minutes to make comments,

[35:27] and when seconds remain will see the yellow light

[35:31] and hear a beep.

[35:32] Once your time is up, you will see the red light

[35:34] and you will hear continuous beeps.

[35:36] We do ask that everyone be respectful.

[35:38] No laughing or booing or cheering

[35:40] as people are making their comments

[35:41] and that we're just being respectful of one another.

[35:44] And to start off, we have Tammy powers, crystal

[35:48] frost, and Kristen Seidel.

[35:50]

[36:16] Where is it.

[36:17] This one.

[36:18] This one.

[36:18] OK Hi, my name is Tammy powers.

[36:25] I moved to Grand Junction about seven months ago.

[36:27] I absolutely love it here.

[36:29] I'm a positive energy.

[36:31] Figure out solutions.

[36:32] Stop disagreeing about problems type of person.

[36:35] I arrived here from San Francisco,

[36:37] where I lived for 15 years.

[36:38] I owned a bicycle shop, was a member of the San Francisco San

[36:41] Francisco bicycle coalition, and due to my bike shop

[36:44] being on Treasure Island, often attended

[36:47] meetings for the Transbay Joint Powers authority.

[36:49] Before that, I lived in Boulder, Colorado for 17 years.

[36:52] I owned a bicycle shop, was involved

[36:54] in the Boulder off-road alliance,

[36:56] and often attended City council meetings.

[36:59] Before that, I bicycled by myself around the entire United

[37:02] States.

[37:02] In 1992, I paddled from California

[37:05] to Cape Cod, down to Key West, then back to California.

[37:08] I'm active in any community I live in.

[37:10] I have already attended a Grand Junction City council workshop.

[37:14] It was about a month ago and I was in my motorcycle gear,

[37:16] so I doubt you recognize me.

[37:18] Before that, I attended an urban trails committee

[37:21] and by the end of that meeting, I was compelled

[37:23] to volunteer for that group.

[37:24] I was convinced that I should share

[37:27] with this slice of heaven on the Western slope

[37:29] my years of knowledge and experience.

[37:32] I believe it was more than a week

[37:33] ago that I submitted my online application for the UTC.

[37:37] I was acknowledged, received with a positive reply

[37:41] that I would be considered for the 2027 recruitment,

[37:43] which I had no problem with.

[37:45] But only a few days ago, I read in the business times

[37:48] that the city council and the UTC are,

[37:52] I guess, miscommunicating about a subject

[37:56] to do with indoor parking.

[37:58] And with all my years and miles of bicycling,

[38:01] I've never been to a town that had readily

[38:03] available indoor parking.

[38:05] So I think there's other ways to state that.

[38:08] There's bicycle lockers and there's bicycle cages

[38:12] that can really do benefit.

[38:14] So why bicyclists in this town are begging for indoor parking

[38:18] is beyond me.

[38:19] But if you have the power to disband the UTC,

[38:22] you have the power to up my application to the top

[38:26] and let me get in next month.

[38:27] And we could talk reasonably about solutions, because that's

[38:30] what I believe in.

[38:31] When everybody can win in the community and we're

[38:33] all getting along and we're thinking about solutions

[38:35] and not talking about problems.

[38:37] So thank you for listening and please put me on the UTC.

[38:40] Thank you.

[38:41] Thank you.

[38:43] Crystal hi, guys.

[38:49] I'm back.

[38:51] I'm still in the community, sober and at Sunshine community.

[38:55] I just want to remind everybody, in the last three weeks,

[38:58] someone has died off the streets.

[39:00] I was at dollar store and a homeless man

[39:03] collapsed right outside of it.

[39:05] And then I was at another place today volunteering.

[39:09] And I want to say her name.

[39:11] She just recently got out be in jail,

[39:13] and she had to go right back to being homeless.

[39:15] She dug a hole and she laid down in it.

[39:17] Now she's in the hospital.

[39:19] So please, I don't know what to do.

[39:22] If you need me to talk to anybody,

[39:23] I'm willing to sit down and have a conversation with anybody.

[39:27] But we need to start to do something with homeless.

[39:30] It's getting worse every day, and

[39:32] no one around the state of the United States is doing anything.

[39:35] So let's be the first.

[39:37] Let's put Grand Junction on the map.

[39:39] Thanks Thank you.

[39:42] Kristen mayor, council members.

[39:48] My name is Kristen Seidel, and I am the Vice Chair

[39:50] of the homeless coalition and the program

[39:52] and outreach coordinator for mutual aid partners.

[39:55] I understand that council has received complaints

[39:57] from concerned citizens about the state of our public spaces,

[40:00] especially near the river.

[40:03] As someone who loves recreating on the river and the river

[40:05] trail, I understand the importance

[40:06] of having clean public spaces for everyone to enjoy.

[40:10] As you can imagine, the lack of dumpsters and trash service

[40:13] along the river corridor makes maintaining these spaces nearly

[40:16] impossible for folks who are sleeping there, having been

[40:19] pushed down to the margins of our society

[40:21] for a variety of reasons.

[40:23] Rather than changing language in our ordinances

[40:25] that will have little impact on addressing these valid concerns,

[40:28] I recommend that the city engage in proactive strategy instead

[40:32] of doubling down on possible punitive measures that push

[40:35] people further away from engaging with services,

[40:38] further away from attaining jobs and housing,

[40:40] and which break down the relationships

[40:41] which service providers have worked so hard to establish.

[40:46] We should be focusing on solutions that

[40:47] will actually improve the situation for our community

[40:50] as a whole.

[40:52] Let's provide our houseless community members

[40:54] with tools that boost autonomy, so that they

[40:56] can take responsibility and be accountable for the spaces

[40:59] that they occupy.

[41:01] A change in language will only alienate people further.

[41:03] I know this because I engage with these folks

[41:05] on an almost daily basis, and this is what they tell me.

[41:09] True preventative measures would be access to housing

[41:12] or safe shelter, but I acknowledge that is

[41:14] not a realistic short term ask.

[41:17] However, there are some real solutions

[41:19] that can be implemented right now solutions that will greatly

[41:21] improve the situation for which you've

[41:23] been receiving complaints.

[41:25] As part of the basic needs and outreach work group,

[41:27] we have been providing campers with trash bags and sharps

[41:30] containers, and they have been using them,

[41:34] but with no safe disposal areas, these

[41:36] efforts cannot be successful.

[41:38] One man reported that he would bag his trash

[41:40] and by the next morning, raccoons

[41:42] had gotten into the bags and the trash

[41:44] was again scattered everywhere.

[41:47] A tangible way that City council can support the community right

[41:50] now is by providing support with dumpsters at strategic locations

[41:53] along the river trail, and by placing porta potties

[41:56] to decrease the human waste that would end up in our waterways.

[41:59] Otherwise, these solutions are a win for everyone.

[42:03] If you've ever gone for a run on the river

[42:05] trail after drinking your morning

[42:06] coffee that a porta potty along the trail is a welcome sight.

[42:12] Infrastructure for sanitation is much cheaper

[42:14] than the almost half a million that the city

[42:17] spent on camp cleanup over the last three years.

[42:19] I would rather see a fraction of that money

[42:22] be used to hire a task force of our unhoused neighbors

[42:25] to engage in regular cleanups near the river.

[42:28] Giving someone in our community a job

[42:30] instead of hiring expensive contractors.

[42:33] Regular maintenance is simply a smarter strategy until there are

[42:37] accessible, long term housing solutions for the most

[42:39] vulnerable in our community.

[42:40] We have to grapple with the reality

[42:42] that when people have nowhere to go,

[42:44] that does not make them disappear.

[42:47] Thank you.

[42:49] Next, we have Shayla, and then that will be followed

[42:54] by Madeline and Andy Hamilton.

[42:57]

[43:06] Hi my name is Shayla.

[43:08] I know that you guys are going to hear a lot of complaints

[43:13] about the concerns about the river and the change of language

[43:19] regarding the river and policing on the river and the camping

[43:24] along the river.

[43:25] So I'm hopefully going to give you

[43:27] a little bit of a different story, which is that my family

[43:33] moved here in 2010.

[43:35] I was 10 years old.

[43:36] I have five younger siblings, but in 2010 it

[43:41] was just myself 10 years old and my three

[43:44] younger brothers 8, 6 and up.

[43:47] They would have been four at the time, and my parents,

[43:51] and we were houseless at the time,

[43:53] so we did not have anywhere to stay.

[43:55] And we were not accessing the homeless shelters.

[43:58] We were living out of our car and we were camping.

[44:02] So for a while, we stayed at campgrounds until we no

[44:06] longer had the funds to do so.

[44:08] And so when the school year started for the 2010 2011 school

[44:11] year, my mother, who worked for the D51 school district

[44:16] as a teacher, her principal loves to tell a story about how

[44:21] she had a teacher who she would regularly pick up from being

[44:24] camping along the river with her four children,

[44:26] and she would pick them up and pick

[44:28] them up for school every day and drop them off at school.

[44:31] And so I just wanted to tell you about this because I think when

[44:35] we think about the houseless community,

[44:37] we have a picture in our mind about who we're thinking about.

[44:41] And when we think about who.

[44:42] Staying in homeless shelters, we have an idea

[44:44] of who we're thinking about.

[44:45] We think that families are potentially staying

[44:48] in the shelters, or they have somewhere to go,

[44:50] or that we have programs for them,

[44:52] and that is not always the case.

[44:55] And so my family luckily, was in an incredibly

[44:59] privileged position.

[45:00] We were only houseless for probably six months or less,

[45:05] and at the time I was completely unaware of the situation.

[45:08] It was just our longest summer camping that I

[45:11] had ever experienced, right.

[45:12] It was one long, glorious adventure,

[45:15] and it wasn't until I was much, much older

[45:16] that I realized that we simply did

[45:18] not have anywhere else to go.

[45:20] So we lived along the river.

[45:25] And so I do want you guys to really,

[45:29] really consider what you're doing.

[45:31] I have watched Whitman park close.

[45:33] I have watched as I'm an employee of Mesa

[45:38] County public libraries.

[45:39] I have watched as our houseless population

[45:41] has had nowhere else to go, as the shelters have closed.

[45:46] And as they have had, as they have had slowly run out

[45:49] of places to continue to go.

[45:52] And so to continue to police them

[45:54] when there's nowhere no meaningful

[45:55] alternative is just simply unacceptable.

[45:58] So that's all I wanted to say.

[46:00] Thank you.

[46:02] OK next.

[46:03] Madeleine hi, my name is Madeleine Mejia.

[46:13] I have been living in Grand Junction for since 2022,

[46:17] and while I am a community member,

[46:20] I don't see I quite yet can say I'm proud to be a community

[46:23] member, especially with everything that's going on

[46:26] with our unhoused population.

[46:30] I'd like to say that I'm terrified for the future

[46:32] that our city might be taking, and the way that it's going

[46:37] to push our unhoused community.

[46:39]

[46:44] Last year, when they released the PIT Count,

[46:47] it showed that since 2019, our unhoused population

[46:52] had gone up over 108% That's not a kind number.

[46:57] That's not a number that shows our city's

[46:59] really been trying to meet.

[47:00]

[47:03] I don't think the way that our city

[47:06] might be thinking to enforce and interpret the municipal codes.

[47:12]

[47:15] To me, they feel like.

[47:17]

[47:20] It feels like putting a bucket underneath a leak in my house.

[47:24] It may solve the water on the floor, but I still have a leak.

[47:30] And leak here for us is again our crisis

[47:35] with the unhoused community.

[47:37] It's not going to fix anything.

[47:39] Not really in the long run.

[47:42] Research shows I got this from the Colorado

[47:45] State of homelessness report from last year.

[47:47] And over and over and over again, I keep seeing housing.

[47:52] Affordable housing, permanent housing.

[47:55] This is what this is.

[47:57] What solves the issue is getting those things back.

[48:01] As we've stated, we've got a whole park that's

[48:03] city owned that is not being used, not for the unhoused,

[48:07] not for the public.

[48:08] So I don't know.

[48:09] Instead of seeing an empty lot every day when I drive home

[48:12] and to work.

[48:14] Maybe we could put up some property there.

[48:16] I feel like we just keep taking and taking

[48:20] from our unhoused community.

[48:22] We had again, Whitman taken away.

[48:24] We've had the Resource Center shut down early without really

[48:28] a real effort being given.

[48:30] I was here for that meeting as well.

[48:32] Standing in opposition to close that early.

[48:35] I don't feel there was a real reason to shut that down.

[48:37] I still feel very strongly about that.

[48:40] There was also Royce Hurst did a hounds.

[48:46] Sorry homeward hounds initiative.

[48:52] And that did actually set over five years.

[48:54] It helped over about 300 unhoused individuals stay

[48:58] with pets.

[48:58] And we've unfortunately lost that too once

[49:00] that shelter was closed down.

[49:03] We've lost homeward bound on North Ave,

[49:06] and now you are attempting or possibly attempting to cut

[49:10] away the only lifeline left.

[49:12] Please don't do that.

[49:13] Thank you.

[49:14] Be kind for us.

[49:15] Care about your community.

[49:17] OK Andy Hamilton.

[49:19]

[49:22] Followed by Andrea Hamilton.

[49:24] And then Stefania.

[49:27] Hi there.

[49:28] My name is Andy Hamilton and I live

[49:29] at 2021 Capitol Avenue in city council District C. I believe.

[49:33] I don't usually come to these meetings in large part

[49:36] because I feel powerless.

[49:37] I feel like most of the time you've already decided what

[49:39] you're going to do, and me sharing my viewpoint about it

[49:42] won't change your mind.

[49:43] Tonight, though, I decided I couldn't succumb to the feeling

[49:45] of powerlessness and that I needed

[49:47] to come support my neighbors, both housed and unhoused.

[49:50] We'll see how that goes.

[49:51] I'm referring to city ordinances number 12.04.080 and 12.08.140,

[49:58] which speak to quote, camping on public property

[50:01] and on the riverfront trail.

[50:02] These ordinances prohibit camping when

[50:04] shelter is available elsewhere.

[50:06] But let's be clear that here camping

[50:07] is describing the day to day living

[50:09] of our unhoused neighbors.

[50:10] I'm here to urge you not to remove the language surrounding

[50:13] shelter in these ordinances.

[50:15] Doing so further criminalizes and penalizes

[50:18] homelessness and poverty, and is especially

[50:20] cruel in light of the lack of shelter in our community.

[50:23] My primary objection to changing these ordinances

[50:25] is a moral argument, and wish I thought

[50:28] that would be sufficient to change your minds.

[50:30] But I don't trust that will work.

[50:32] So let me present a fiscal argument for my moral position.

[50:35] According to data from the United States Interagency

[50:37] Council on homelessness in 2017, when things were much cheaper,

[50:42] each homeless person, each chronically

[50:44] homeless person cost taxpayers between 30,000 and $50,000.

[50:48] Each person and each of these costs

[50:50] was primarily from interaction with the criminal justice

[50:52] and health systems.

[50:54] It seems to me that further criminalizing

[50:56] the day to day living of people with literally

[50:58] nowhere else to go will only increase the amount of time

[51:01] and money spent by EMS and law enforcement,

[51:04] and thus the taxpayer cost.

[51:06] Due to this council's decision, the further criminalizing

[51:09] and punishing homelessness and poverty

[51:10] will waste more money, time and resources

[51:13] heartlessly punishing a symptom of a much deeper core issue.

[51:17] I would respectfully remind you and all of us

[51:20] that statistically, we are all about one bad month

[51:23] away from experiencing catastrophic poverty

[51:25] and homelessness ourselves.

[51:27] The increased precarity of our own survival in these times

[51:30] should open our faculties of empathy, compassion,

[51:33] and solidarity, and therefore we should reject further changes

[51:36] to these ordinances.

[51:37] And since I worry that won't cut it, it's cheaper too.

[51:41] Please do not modify these ordinances.

[51:43] I understand that there's an argument that modifying them

[51:45] will bring them into alignment with Supreme Court case law,

[51:48] but I would argue that just because something is legal

[51:50] right now doesn't mean it's right or the direction

[51:53] that we should go.

[51:54] Let's resist our culture of anger and division.

[51:57] Open your humanity and engage your physical senses

[51:59] to realize that further criminalizing homelessness

[52:01] and poverty is wrong from a human point of view,

[52:04] and an unwise use of our tax money as well.

[52:06] Thank you.

[52:07] Thank you.

[52:10] Thanks Andrea.

[52:14]

[52:18] Hi my name is Andrea Hamilton.

[52:20] This is my first time speaking at City council meeting,

[52:23] so forgive me if I'm a little nervous,

[52:26] but I am here to encourage you not to change the ordinance

[52:31] language at this time.

[52:33] I really liked the earlier comments

[52:35] about providing services to people,

[52:37] rather than further limiting the spaces in which

[52:40] they are allowed to exist.

[52:42] I think the further cutting of services in our community

[52:47] is incredibly demoralizing.

[52:49] I have lived here my entire life.

[52:51] I went away to school, and I wanted

[52:53] to come back to my community and serve my community,

[52:56] and my sister was like, why would you

[52:58] want to stay in Grand Junction.

[52:59] I'm like because I love it here.

[53:00] I love our community.

[53:01] And it's breaking my heart to see

[53:03] what's happening to my unhoused neighbors in my community.

[53:07] And I think further saying, you're not

[53:11] allowed to exist in our community,

[53:13] you're not allowed to exist in this space.

[53:15] And shrinking and shrinking the spaces that people are allowed

[53:19] to be is horrifying to me.

[53:21] So I really like to urge you to consider

[53:24] that providing services, rather than saying people

[53:29] are not allowed to exist when there is

[53:31] no other place for them to go.

[53:34] But yeah, so I think that covers it.

[53:38] Thank you.

[53:40] Stephanie I'll take her extra minute.

[53:46] Mayor Council members, my name is Stephanie vasconez.

[53:50] I am the executive director of mutually partners,

[53:52] as well as part of the leadership team of the Mesa

[53:55] County collaborative for the unhoused

[53:57] and a co-facilitator of the people experiencing

[54:00] homelessness advisory board.

[54:02] This is one of the five work groups that make up

[54:05] the unhoused strategy and implementation

[54:07] plan, a multi-year investment.

[54:10] The city of Grand Junction, funded and adopted in 2024,

[54:14] which has brought together city, County for profit and nonprofit

[54:18] partners to tackle a community wide challenge

[54:21] that we know cannot be addressed through

[54:23] shelter or outreach alone.

[54:25] It underscores that long term progress depends deeply

[54:29] on coordinated commitment to supporting affordable housing,

[54:33] behavioral health outreach and prevention, together

[54:37] with strong partnerships, ongoing public engagement,

[54:41] and leadership that recognizes houselessness is a shared

[54:44] community responsibility.

[54:47] I'd like to thank council staff and our city manager

[54:49] for supporting the neighbor to neighbor team led by Shari price

[54:53] and Ashley chambers, which is doing outreach

[54:55] at least twice a week, and who we've partnered

[54:58] with consistently since 2023.

[55:01] It has resulted in individuals accessing detox services,

[55:04] choosing in-patient treatment for substance use,

[55:07] moving into assisted facilities and supportive housing,

[55:10] even reuniting with loved ones.

[55:13] A major highlight to share is the unhoused community

[55:15] river camp cleanup, which took place last month.

[55:19] 6,700 pounds or three tons of trash removed from encampments

[55:23] by our unhoused neighbors living along the river

[55:26] corridor in one week, per the data provided

[55:29] during Monday's workshop.

[55:31] The city.

[55:31] The city paid $460,000 for contractors to remove 119

[55:36] tons of trash over three years.

[55:39] By my calculations, and I'm not great at math,

[55:41] our efforts could lead to the removal

[55:44] of roughly 174 tons of trash in one year versus the 119

[55:50] over the three years.

[55:52] Now, let me switch gears.

[55:54] When you have 37 million people in the US living in poverty,

[55:58] how can that be a personal failing.

[56:00] There's a system that perpetuates

[56:02] poverty and the greatest country in the world.

[56:04] And here in Mesa County, less than 53,000% sorry,

[56:08] less than 53% of households can afford current rent prices

[56:12] in GJ, and less than 71% of households can afford

[56:15] current home prices in 2020.

[56:17] The US Government Accountability Office

[56:19] found that for every $100 increase in rent,

[56:22] homelessness rises about 9% nationwide.

[56:25] In Grand Junction, the rate is significantly higher at almost

[56:28] 15% I am running out of time.

[56:31] You rely on our expertise of service providers.

[56:33] You partner with us to amplify your community impact.

[56:36] So much so that the state of Colorado

[56:38] has asked us to present on the success

[56:40] of the homelessness response system

[56:41] we've built over the last three years.

[56:43] So today, I ask you to take a step back to truly consider

[56:46] the implications of changing this language

[56:48] versus the real application.

[56:50] Thank you.

[56:52] OK we're going to hold our applause, please.

[56:56] As we discussed, if there's any last comments

[56:59] that were not signed up, you can make your way to the podium.

[57:01] I see Mr. Kopp on his way.

[57:03]

[57:11] Good evening, Madam Mayor.

[57:14] Council at the risk of repeating what others have said,

[57:21] tonight's discussion about the camping ordinance

[57:23] highlights a reality many in this community

[57:26] already understand.

[57:28] Grand junction is caught in a policy gap.

[57:32] For years, the city has operated under an ordinance tied

[57:35] to the available shelter beds.

[57:38] Now, the North Avenue emergency shelter has closed.

[57:41] And according to the city attorney,

[57:42] the ordinance has become effectively unenforceable

[57:46] for most of the time.

[57:48] At the same time, residents are seeing growing

[57:50] camps along the river corridor.

[57:53] Increased environmental concerns.

[57:56] Wildfire risks.

[58:00] Public safety issues and repeated cleanup operations,

[58:03] again costing taxpayers nearly half a million

[58:06] over the last three years.

[58:10] So the question becomes, what exactly

[58:13] is the long term strategy.

[58:15] Not today, not tomorrow, long term.

[58:19] Because simply moving camps from one location to another

[58:22] every few weeks is not solving homelessness.

[58:27] Pretending that there are no impacts

[58:28] on neighborhoods, businesses, parks and public spaces

[58:32] is equally unrealistic.

[58:36] The issue requires balance.

[58:39] Compassion matters.

[58:42] Public safety matters, Environmental Protection

[58:47] matters, and accountability matters.

[58:53] Frankly, Grand Junction deserves a policy built around all four.

[58:59] I believe council should consider a middle of the road

[59:01] a middle ground approach.

[59:05] Let's update the ordinance so it is indeed legally enforceable

[59:08] while simultaneously exploring temporary, structured

[59:12] alternatives that include sanitation oversight, security,

[59:19] and behavioral standards.

[59:23] Not permanent encampments.

[59:25] Not lawless camping zones, but transitional solutions

[59:30] that recognize reality while still

[59:32] protecting our public spaces.

[59:36] Because enforcement without alternatives creates an endless

[59:39] churn.

[59:41] Alternatives without accountability

[59:43] fail just as quickly.

[59:45] There are individuals in these camps who are elderly, disabled,

[59:48] struggling with addiction, or dealing with mental illness.

[59:51] There are also legitimate concerns from residents who

[59:54] expect safe parks, clean riverfronts and responsible use

[59:57] of taxpayer resources.

[1:00:00] What residents are asking is not cruelty,

[1:00:03] and what struggling individual need is not chaos.

[1:00:08] What Grand Junction needs is an actual strategy.

[1:00:11] Thank you.

[1:00:13] Thank you.

[1:00:14] I appreciate that, and moving on.

[1:00:16] I'm not seeing anyone else over at the podium.

[1:00:20] So we will go ahead and close public comment and move

[1:00:24] on to the city manager report.

[1:00:27] Thank you.

[1:00:27] Mayor members of council, just one item tonight.

[1:00:30] Tomorrow we will release the next month's revenue report.

[1:00:33] And for the 12th consecutive month,

[1:00:35] sales tax collections exceeded the same month in the prior

[1:00:38] year, with April collections increasing 6.8% Year to date,

[1:00:43] collections are up 5.7% compared to 2025.

[1:00:48] Lodging tax collections for April increased 24.2%

[1:00:52] and are up 10.7% year to date.

[1:00:55] And just note that April tax collections reflect

[1:00:58] sales activity that occurred in March,

[1:01:00] and will post this report on the city's website,

[1:01:04] at GJ city.org tomorrow.

[1:01:06] Thank you.

[1:01:07]

[1:01:10] And then we will be moving on to boards

[1:01:13] and commission liaison reports.

[1:01:15] And we will start with council member beilfuss.

[1:01:17]

[1:01:20] You guys are leaving for my report.

[1:01:22] What's going on.

[1:01:23] Hey, get back here.

[1:01:27] All right.

[1:01:28] You have to go.

[1:01:30] I no, no offense taken.

[1:01:36] I worked, I had a lot going on the last two weeks, most of it

[1:01:40] having to do with crisis management

[1:01:44] and planning for the homeless, which we'll talk

[1:01:47] a little bit more on tonight.

[1:01:49] I also covered urban trails committee meeting.

[1:01:53] Great report from Trent about all

[1:01:55] the projects going on in the city, which is very expansive.

[1:01:59] It's hard to imagine that people can

[1:02:00] keep track of all this stuff.

[1:02:02] I will say I think there's one, maybe two people

[1:02:06] moving on that committee.

[1:02:07] So you might keep your application up to date.

[1:02:15] The other cool thing I did was attend the enterprise zone

[1:02:20] class that was put on at CMU.

[1:02:23] And enterprise zone ties very closely

[1:02:26] with economic development in the area.

[1:02:28] And the state is redoing the enterprise zones.

[1:02:32] And so we actually got to weigh in

[1:02:34] on making the case for Mesa County and Grand Junction

[1:02:39] continuing to have six zones.

[1:02:42] I think we have the most in the state for a city our size.

[1:02:45] And it was very interesting.

[1:02:47] It's not only business, but it's also residential zoning to.

[1:02:51] So there's a lot of incentives that go with this designation

[1:02:55] and it really helps us a lot.

[1:02:57] So it was a great event and hopefully

[1:02:59] we'll get something out of it.

[1:03:01] They're going to act fairly quickly.

[1:03:03] Thank you.

[1:03:06] Council Member Kennedy.

[1:03:07] Yeah, I have a few reports.

[1:03:09] And council member beilfuss mentioned the meeting,

[1:03:14] the enterprise zones, and we did have Governor Polis in town

[1:03:17] to speak with us on that.

[1:03:18] And it was really great to be able to have

[1:03:21] input into where those best opportunities are

[1:03:25] within our community.

[1:03:26] And we had a lot of conversation with that.

[1:03:28] And we revisited some of that conversation

[1:03:29] this morning at our meeting.

[1:03:33] So, so one of the things to understand about opportunity

[1:03:36] zones is it really incentivizes not just

[1:03:40] housing, but also businesses.

[1:03:42] And really what it encourages somebody

[1:03:45] to invest in a very particular area based on demographics,

[1:03:49] based on economics.

[1:03:51] And for those that are making that investment,

[1:03:54] let's say they're building an apartment complex.

[1:03:56] It allows them to sell it after 10 years

[1:03:59] without paying capital gains taxes and recapturing

[1:04:02] depreciation, which is a great incentive

[1:04:05] to get us important infrastructure in areas

[1:04:07] where we really need it and create jobs

[1:04:09] in areas where we need them.

[1:04:10] So that was fantastic.

[1:04:12] One of the other things, or a couple of other things.

[1:04:14] With GEP, we always get an economic report or the director,

[1:04:18] Curtis Englehart is here.

[1:04:20] Thank you for being here tonight, Curtis.

[1:04:22] But it's always exciting to hear about the wins that gap has.

[1:04:27] One of the things that they do is encourage

[1:04:29] businesses to come to the Grand Valley,

[1:04:32] creating that economic growth.

[1:04:34] This is the fifth.

[1:04:35] The fifth business win for the year was fought in home,

[1:04:39] which is a local manufacturing.

[1:04:40] It is not with necessarily expanded within the city limits

[1:04:43] of Grand Junction, but it is on the old Haliburton

[1:04:45] campus, which is where our regional materials

[1:04:47] recycling areas are.

[1:04:49] So that's pretty exciting to see that happen.

[1:04:53] They're bringing 97 new jobs to Grand Valley,

[1:04:56] average wage of around 77,000, supported

[1:05:00] by over $1 million in job growth incentive credits.

[1:05:02] So a couple other things.

[1:05:04] New prospect.

[1:05:04] There was a new prospect with a company called avatar off roads,

[1:05:09] which is an outdoor recreation manufacturer out of Salt Lake,

[1:05:12] and they had been looking to build or to move to delta,

[1:05:16] but had a site fall through and our office cold called them.

[1:05:20] And we have a great prospect in them now, so that's exciting.

[1:05:24] Two other things that I think that are exciting,

[1:05:27] that are happening at gap is there is another one

[1:05:31] that's a health care technology company that they're looking at.

[1:05:34] And then this is what I want to learn a little bit more about.

[1:05:36] And I think it's really exciting now considering

[1:05:40] our water situation.

[1:05:41] But there's a company called canal sense, which

[1:05:43] is a startup with a prototype device

[1:05:46] for managing irrigation water flows more efficiently.

[1:05:48] So these are all great things that your Grand

[1:05:52] Junction economic partnership is doing right here.

[1:05:54] And that's why the city partners with them

[1:05:57] and has that relationship with them.

[1:05:58] Because it is important to us, thriving as a city.

[1:06:02] One another committee I have, and I'll

[1:06:04] try to keep this one short since I

[1:06:05] went a little long on that one.

[1:06:07] And not just because Curtis is here,

[1:06:09] but I'm on the Grand Junction Regional Airport.

[1:06:13] Airport commissioner with them.

[1:06:16] One part of our meeting recently, or this week,

[1:06:20] was talking about all of the additional grants.

[1:06:24] We've really been successful in grants so far.

[1:06:30] We just received a grant for $5 million,

[1:06:32] which covers 100% of the costs for updating our airport tower,

[1:06:36] which is in really rough condition,

[1:06:38] like those controllers up there.

[1:06:40] And it gets so hot and so cold, and it

[1:06:43] looks like the one you walk in there, it's like the 1970s.

[1:06:46] It is like an avocado colored couch and the whole thing.

[1:06:50] The airport improvement program grant

[1:06:53] has totaled $12.2 million so far for the runway program,

[1:06:58] so that's also exciting.

[1:07:00] Anyway, lots of good things happening at the airport

[1:07:02] as well.

[1:07:02] Thank you, thank you.

[1:07:04] Mayor Pro Tem, the DDA will be meeting next week,

[1:07:08] so I currently have no report.

[1:07:10] OK council member Nguyen no report.

[1:07:12] OK great.

[1:07:13] So with that, I have a couple quick updates.

[1:07:19] So part of when Governor Polis was in town for the enterprise

[1:07:26] zone conversation, he also made a special visit

[1:07:31] to the Grand Junction housing authority's project,

[1:07:33] which is called the current.

[1:07:36] And this was a celebration because of all the hard work

[1:07:39] that we have put in as a community to hit our prop 1,

[1:07:43] 2, three goals, which is very impressive.

[1:07:46] And it was a very daunting number

[1:07:48] that we were able to reach.

[1:07:50] And so we were the first city of our size

[1:07:53] to meet that goal in the state.

[1:07:55] And for that reason, he was able to come.

[1:07:58] He came out to celebrate that with us for a quick few minutes

[1:08:00] before he went on to speak at the enterprise event.

[1:08:05] And I just think that's very telling of all the hard work

[1:08:09] that we've been putting in as a city and our housing

[1:08:11] division and staff.

[1:08:13] So I just wanted to acknowledge that and make sure that everyone

[1:08:16] else is aware of it as well.

[1:08:18] And then one last thing that I would like to address is.

[1:08:26] Just a quick thank you for our former mayor, Cody Kennedy,

[1:08:30] for his year of service with us and all

[1:08:33] he did for our community.

[1:08:34] And personally, as Mayor Pro TEM,

[1:08:36] I got to work very closely with Cody,

[1:08:38] and I feel just that he really helped prepare me for my turn

[1:08:44] now.

[1:08:44] And I appreciate all of the advice and long,

[1:08:48] many hours of phone calls and all the hundreds

[1:08:51] and hundreds of hours that you've put into connecting

[1:08:53] with our community.

[1:08:54] So thank you.

[1:08:56] Thank you.

[1:08:56]

[1:09:02] OK, now we will move on to our consent agenda.

[1:09:06] The consent agenda includes items

[1:09:07] that are considered routine and will

[1:09:09] be approved by a single motion.

[1:09:11] Items on the consent agenda will not be discussed by City council

[1:09:13] unless an item is removed for individual consideration.

[1:09:19] Do I have a motion.

[1:09:21] I'd like to remove a couple things.

[1:09:24] A couple things.

[1:09:25] Yeah OK.

[1:09:27] Two 2ai, I and three and three a.

[1:09:38] So just to clarify for.

[1:09:45] 2ai I and we are discussing the scheduling

[1:09:52] of these events because this is that's what

[1:09:54] this is on the agenda for.

[1:09:56] Is that what you would like to discuss.

[1:09:57] OK Just wanted to make sure.

[1:09:59] So you remove them.

[1:10:03] Did you make a motion to approve consent.

[1:10:06] Except for those.

[1:10:09] I make a motion to approve all the consent agenda

[1:10:15] items except and three a.

[1:10:21] Is there a second.

[1:10:22] Second we have a motion on the floor

[1:10:26] from council member beilfuss and a second

[1:10:28] from council member Nguyen.

[1:10:32] All in favor.

[1:10:34] Aye Aye.

[1:10:36] OK, that sounded all opposed.

[1:10:41] That motion passes 7 to 0.

[1:10:45] So with that, we would move into addressing to a which is

[1:10:54] legislative, and it's an introduction of an ordinance

[1:10:57] amending GM, GGJ Mc 12.0, 4.060 and 12.04 0.08 regarding

[1:11:06] the prohibition of enforcement of camping on public property

[1:11:08] when no overnight shelter is available, and setting a public

[1:11:12] hearing for June three.

[1:11:13] So we are discussing the setting of the hearing for June three.

[1:11:17] Great yeah, well, like everybody else,

[1:11:21] we received a lot of emails about the issue,

[1:11:24] and the homeless provider community

[1:11:28] has asked me to ask for a continuance for at least

[1:11:33] one meeting, maybe two, to prepare

[1:11:36] more response to the whole thing and to talk

[1:11:39] to some of the people.

[1:11:40] I mean, some of it was exceptionally strong.

[1:11:45] How the public defenders spoke about the implications

[1:11:50] of the camping thing, and I think

[1:11:51] we should have a chance to talk to them

[1:11:54] and get ready for the second reading.

[1:12:00] And 2, I also has the camping with it.

[1:12:05] So I just so we're discussing two I first

[1:12:08] and then we can discuss well they go together

[1:12:11] because they both have the camping

[1:12:12] but they're separate agenda items right.

[1:12:14] Yeah so so just to clarify.

[1:12:17] So setting the public hearing for June 3,

[1:12:21] there would still be at least a 30

[1:12:24] day time frame before and before it could be implemented.

[1:12:29] So right.

[1:12:29] Yeah I understand that.

[1:12:30] But it would already be approved.

[1:12:33] So we want to prepare for preparing to contest.

[1:12:38] Well to discuss it.

[1:12:40] Yeah discuss it in the legal implications and

[1:12:44] the personal and socioeconomic.

[1:12:48] So before we get too far into this,

[1:12:51] I know regarding legal implications,

[1:12:53] we have looked at that many times

[1:12:56] and our interim city attorney has addressed those as well.

[1:12:59] I know we are discussing just the scheduling of the item,

[1:13:02] not getting into the discussion of the item.

[1:13:04] So do you.

[1:13:06] Do you have a suggestion.

[1:13:09] Well, I mean, if we can put it out a month,

[1:13:12] that would be great.

[1:13:13] That would help a lot.

[1:13:15] Is there any other thoughts from council on.

[1:13:18] Yeah I have some thoughts.

[1:13:20] One thing that I think people are missing here

[1:13:23] is that there is available shelter space

[1:13:25] right now, according to our recent update

[1:13:27] that we got from pathways.

[1:13:28] I mean, they emailed us and they said they had is it 69.

[1:13:32] What I think they said they were at 62 bed, 62 beds in their 112.

[1:13:37] So I think that's a consideration.

[1:13:41] Because with that, then it makes it a moot point

[1:13:44] as far as that goes.

[1:13:47] It's and it doesn't change anything.

[1:13:51] We heard from the chief as far as 17 TICAs in three years.

[1:13:54] So it's not like they're out there writing a bunch of tickets

[1:13:57] as has been.

[1:13:59] And I don't mean to get into that.

[1:14:01] Other than to speak specifically to this three or to this item,

[1:14:07] rather, that is to the postponement.

[1:14:11] So for the June three public hearing,

[1:14:14] any other discussion on the matter.

[1:14:18]

[1:14:22] I don't have a strong feeling either way as far as timing.

[1:14:27] Yeah I mean, with the middle of June 1 be enough time,

[1:14:32] we can live with that.

[1:14:35] But I mean, I just want to say there's hundreds

[1:14:39] of people homeless out there.

[1:14:40] It's not just about having 12 beds available for them,

[1:14:43] it's for they don't have lines of communication.

[1:14:47] The people that are the providers

[1:14:49] are there communication, and they need time

[1:14:52] to talk and work with them.

[1:14:55] So really quick before.

[1:14:57] Again, we're not getting into the discussion of the item.

[1:14:59] We're just talking about the scheduling of the item.

[1:15:01] And we do have I believe it's council member

[1:15:04] Ballard with something to say.

[1:15:08] Yes thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:15:10] I guess the scheduling I'm willing to entertain it

[1:15:17] if I understand fully what needs to be accomplished between us

[1:15:22] now and the second reading.

[1:15:25] Now, all I'm hearing is that this needs to be extended longer

[1:15:29] for preparation purposes.

[1:15:31] But I'm confused.

[1:15:33] What preparation tasks need to be done between now

[1:15:38] and the second reading.

[1:15:40] So maybe some clarification on that from the motion.

[1:15:47] I would just say that the people, many of the people

[1:15:49] that we want to talk to that reached out to us

[1:15:51] are professional people with regular jobs,

[1:15:55] and it's hard to schedule them a lot of time.

[1:15:57] So we're just giving ourselves a little buffer to be able to have

[1:16:01] meetings and talk to them.

[1:16:03] Likewise, the providers are working 24/7.

[1:16:07] So really quick to clarify, are you saying that the preparation

[1:16:12] is to inform the providers that this is happening so that they

[1:16:16] can work to accommodate that.

[1:16:19] Or are you saying that you need time

[1:16:20] to meet with them so that they can prepare

[1:16:22] for how to contest this.

[1:16:25] Those are two different preparations.

[1:16:27] We're not building up a big reason to contest it.

[1:16:30] I think that we want to be realistic

[1:16:33] about the being humanistic to the people that it's affecting.

[1:16:38] And because of the amount of input

[1:16:41] that we had from very high level legal people and providers,

[1:16:47] we want some time to talk to them about the implications

[1:16:50] and what might be some ways to work

[1:16:54] with the homeless population.

[1:16:58] Council Ballard, Mayor Pro TEM, sorry.

[1:17:01] Yeah, I'm in support in moving forward with the second reading

[1:17:04] on the fourth just purely for the reason

[1:17:08] that I don't see this necessarily

[1:17:11] as an anti homeless move, an anti unhoused move,

[1:17:14] because before the shelter closed

[1:17:17] we had many river camps, lots of people camping along the river.

[1:17:21] Our police recognized that if they go down by the river

[1:17:24] and they stir things up down there, it moves people downtown.

[1:17:28] They stir people up downtown and moves them back to the river.

[1:17:32] So we recognize that there's truly an issue here.

[1:17:35] So this isn't a matter of trying to be inhumane

[1:17:38] or a sweep to clear the riverfront

[1:17:40] or trails of everything.

[1:17:42] All this really does is give our police the ability

[1:17:45] to enforce laws with the truly problem camps that need to be

[1:17:51] addressed, that are both a public health issue as

[1:17:55] well as a safety issue.

[1:17:57] So I do we might be getting into the.

[1:18:00] Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[1:18:01] So we're just talking about the scheduling of the item.

[1:18:04] So it sounds like you're in favor of scheduling it

[1:18:06] for June three.

[1:18:07] Yeah that's why I'm in favor.

[1:18:09] Yes OK.

[1:18:10] I'm sorry.

[1:18:10] Go ahead.

[1:18:11] Council Member Nguyen, are you in favor of the third or.

[1:18:15] I would be open to pushing it if before.

[1:18:19] Yeah I'm sorry.

[1:18:20] Before we vote.

[1:18:21] I did have one other thing.

[1:18:22] Just a point of correction.

[1:18:24] We had two deputy state public defenders email us

[1:18:31] one by the name of deer and one by the name of hare street,

[1:18:35] and then a advocate.

[1:18:37] So we had two that I think we could email back.

[1:18:40] I've already emailed them back.

[1:18:41] And then there was a total of I think, 20 emails, maybe

[1:18:45] one or two more or less so.

[1:18:47] And not that matters.

[1:18:48] It is important that we get the engagement.

[1:18:50] But of that number, about half of those

[1:18:52] were the exact same email or maybe a third of those

[1:18:55] were the exact same email, just a form letter.

[1:18:57] So does not mean that I don't take it seriously.

[1:18:59] And I didn't believe every word I emailed.

[1:19:02] But I just for the sake of that, I just

[1:19:04] want to put context around how many emails we actually got

[1:19:07] and that it is just a couple.

[1:19:09] It is not to diminish that we need to talk to those

[1:19:12] or we should email them, return their emails.

[1:19:15] But I don't see that two emails should have

[1:19:19] us putting this off any further than we've already scheduled it.

[1:19:22] And then I just I think you had mentioned something

[1:19:26] about four beds or something, but they can go up to 112,

[1:19:30] I believe it is.

[1:19:31] So that's a lot of beds if they're only

[1:19:33] at 60, some odd at pathways.

[1:19:35] So there's 40 some odd beds available there.

[1:19:39] They're only for certain groups.

[1:19:41] Yeah so and I'm not saying that we have that that's a solution.

[1:19:46] I'm just saying just to clarify the number of beds.

[1:19:48] So we're not talking about that.

[1:19:52] So do we have a suggestion and a motion to try to schedule this.

[1:19:58]

[1:20:00] Oh yeah.

[1:20:01] Make a motion that we move it up to two

[1:20:06] weeks from the next meeting.

[1:20:08] So four weeks June 17 17th.

[1:20:11] Yeah if that would be very helpful.

[1:20:15] Second OK.

[1:20:16] We have a motion on the floor from council member beilfuss

[1:20:19] and a second from council member Nguyen.

[1:20:22] All in favor say Aye.

[1:20:25] Aye all opposed.

[1:20:29] Nay, nay.

[1:20:30] Nay nay.

[1:20:32] So was Robert.

[1:20:33] Did I hear you.

[1:20:34] Nay was Anna.

[1:20:35] It was a nay.

[1:20:36] OK OK.

[1:20:40] So that's four to 2.

[1:20:44] The motion fails.

[1:20:48] So does anyone have a motion for a different schedule.

[1:20:55] Point point.

[1:20:57] Point of order.

[1:20:58] Are you just to be clear, you're asking

[1:21:01] for another motion on item, A2, a 1 because we

[1:21:07] have not scheduled it yet.

[1:21:08] OK I would move to adopt consent agenda item two.

[1:21:13] OK, we have a motion on the floor from council member Stout.

[1:21:18] Is there a second.

[1:21:19] Second point of order.

[1:21:21] She said she did.

[1:21:22] Oh I. So council members, we're still on two.

[1:21:28] Can you that's my correction.

[1:21:31] Is the second corrected as well.

[1:21:33] Second OK.

[1:21:35] So all in favor to AI being scheduled for June three.

[1:21:43] I know all opposed.

[1:21:46] No, no.

[1:21:47] So that passes 5 to 2.

[1:21:53] OK I'm sorry, Madam Mayor.

[1:21:55] Who was the second on that.

[1:21:56] It was counselor.

[1:21:57] Sorry council member, Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.

[1:22:01] Sorry I'm still working on now.

[1:22:04] I'm used to not saying that, so I'm working on it.

[1:22:08] And then could we get a motion to a 2.

[1:22:13] Is there any other additional discussion.

[1:22:15] I know that these are related.

[1:22:16] As council member beilfuss pointed out.

[1:22:19] Do we have additional discussion or is there anyone

[1:22:23] willing to make a motion.

[1:22:27] Yes, I can make a motion.

[1:22:29] I move to accept item two.

[1:22:31] A Roman two or I. As produced for introduction of an ordinance

[1:22:39] amending and reviewing code related

[1:22:41] to the rules for the riverfront trail and adjacent areas,

[1:22:43] and setting a public hearing for June 3, 2026.

[1:22:50] Is there a second.

[1:22:52] Second so we have a motion on the floor

[1:22:54] from council member Kennedy and a second

[1:22:56] from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.

[1:22:59] And then all in favor, say Aye.

[1:23:02] Aye All opposed.

[1:23:06] No OK, so that passes 6 to 1.

[1:23:10] OK moving on to the next one that council member beilfuss has

[1:23:15] pulled, which is procurement three a

[1:23:19] would you like to discuss this one.

[1:23:21] So is this just about scheduling or can I

[1:23:23] ask a question about the actual purchasing process.

[1:23:26] One is not setting the public hearing.

[1:23:28] So yeah.

[1:23:29] No yeah.

[1:23:29] So I was just curious because it was

[1:23:33] kind of general the description of what we were purchasing

[1:23:36] and that the end loaders, would they be American made.

[1:23:43] Is there any kind of purchasing.

[1:23:45]

[1:23:48] Preference for American made goods that they are

[1:23:55] American made heavy equipment.

[1:23:59] The ones that we're purchasing.

[1:24:00] Yes OK.

[1:24:03] That's all I wanted to know.

[1:24:04] All right.

[1:24:05] That was your only question.

[1:24:07] What was it.

[1:24:08] Thank you.

[1:24:09] Awesome Is there any other discussion on this item.

[1:24:13] OK hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

[1:24:16] I move.

[1:24:17] I'll have a motion.

[1:24:18] I move that we pass or I move that we purchase for item three

[1:24:24] that we purchase for the purchase of rolling stock

[1:24:27] and equipment, front end loaders,

[1:24:29] skid steers and forklift C as in Charles three grant

[1:24:34] funded move that for approval.

[1:24:36] Is there a second.

[1:24:40] We have a motion on the floor from council member Kennedy

[1:24:43] and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Van Dyke.

[1:24:46] All in favor.

[1:24:49] Aye Any opposed.

[1:24:53] The motion passes 7 to 0, and we will move on now

[1:24:59] to our public hearing section.

[1:25:02] And our first is 5 a legislative and it's an ordinance

[1:25:07] for supplemental appropriation.

[1:25:10] And we have chief financial officer Jay Valentine

[1:25:14] to briefly present to us.

[1:25:17] Thank you.

[1:25:18] Mayor members of council, before you tonight

[1:25:21] is the supplemental appropriation

[1:25:22] ordinance for the 2026 budget.

[1:25:25] This ordinance primarily consists

[1:25:27] of carryforward appropriations for projects and initiatives

[1:25:31] that were previously authorized, but not completed in 2025,

[1:25:35] along with several new appropriations

[1:25:37] tied to grant funding, donations,

[1:25:40] and other outside revenues.

[1:25:43] Major items for this supplemental

[1:25:45] include affordable housing initiatives, transportation

[1:25:47] and utility infrastructure projects, the community rec

[1:25:51] center, the materials recovery facility, and the wastewater

[1:25:55] treatment plant.

[1:25:55] Improvements the directors that oversee these projects

[1:26:01] are here tonight.

[1:26:02] If you have any questions about any of these.

[1:26:06] OK thank you.

[1:26:07] With that, we will come back to council

[1:26:10] for comments or questions.

[1:26:11]

[1:26:18] Council Member when you looked like you were thinking.

[1:26:20] OK OK.

[1:26:21] So it does not look like we have any council questions

[1:26:24] or comments at this time.

[1:26:25] And because this is a public hearing,

[1:26:27] we will now open the public hearing.

[1:26:30] If you'd like to speak on this item,

[1:26:32] please make your way to the podium.

[1:26:35] Seeing no one making a move for the podium,

[1:26:38] we will close the public hearing and return

[1:26:40] to council for additional comments or questions.

[1:26:45] Hearing none, I would ask for a motion to adopt the ordinance.

[1:26:50] I move to adopt ordinance number 5318, an ordinance making

[1:26:54] supplemental appropriations to the 2026 budget of the city

[1:26:58] of Grand Junction, Colorado, for the year beginning January 1,

[1:27:02] 2026 and ending December 31, 2026, and on final passage,

[1:27:07] in order.

[1:27:08] Final publication in pamphlet form.

[1:27:10] We have a motion on the floor from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.

[1:27:13] Is there a second.

[1:27:14] Second a second from council member Kennedy and Celestino.

[1:27:20] Could you do a roll call for us, council member Ballard

[1:27:24] Yes council member beilfuss.

[1:27:27] Yes council member.

[1:27:29] Kennedy yes.

[1:27:32] Council Member.

[1:27:32] Nguyen yes.

[1:27:34] Council Member.

[1:27:35] Stoute council member.

[1:27:42] Stoute you're muted if you're trying to say yes.

[1:27:50]

[1:27:54] Council Member van Dijk.

[1:27:56] Yes mayor Lutz.

[1:28:00] Yes with the.

[1:28:04] Let's try with Anna, not.

[1:28:05] Council Member.

[1:28:06] Stout council member.

[1:28:09] Yes OK.

[1:28:10] So the motion passes 7 to 0 0 OK.

[1:28:14] And then we will move on to our next item, which

[1:28:17] is an ordinance amending sections of the zoning

[1:28:19] and development code, title 21 of the Grand Junction

[1:28:22] municipal code regarding final plat recordation

[1:28:26] accessory dwelling units.

[1:28:27] Design standards for multi unit residential redevelopment,

[1:28:31] landscape substitution, subdivision, natural hazards

[1:28:33] and significant natural features, signs and public parks

[1:28:37] and open space districts and outdoor lighting.

[1:28:40] And we have a staff presentation from principal planner Tim

[1:28:44] Larock.

[1:28:46] Thank you, Mayor, and good evening, members of council.

[1:28:50] As mentioned, Tim, principal planner and this item

[1:28:53] concerns a package of staff proposed amendments

[1:28:55] to the zoning and development code.

[1:28:58] I will briefly describe the proposed changes

[1:29:00] before providing staff's analysis

[1:29:02] and recommendation of staff and the planning commission.

[1:29:07] The first change concerns the recording of subdivision plats.

[1:29:10] Platts the code presently requires

[1:29:12] submission of a signed mylar copy of the approved plat

[1:29:15] for recording.

[1:29:16] However, the state of Colorado and Mesa County

[1:29:19] have updated statutes and procedures

[1:29:21] to allow for other forms of final plat submittals.

[1:29:26] Accordingly, the Amendment will allow the final plat

[1:29:28] to be submitted for recording in any form

[1:29:31] acceptable to the Mesa County clerk and recorder's office.

[1:29:36] The second change is a clarification

[1:29:37] regarding maximum number of accessory dwelling units,

[1:29:40] or ADUs.

[1:29:42] The code that allows two accessory dwelling units

[1:29:44] on a lot, with one single unit detached or single unit

[1:29:48] attached dwelling with two units in the structure.

[1:29:52] At least one of those ADUs must be attached

[1:29:54] to the principal dwelling unit.

[1:29:57] There's some.

[1:30:00] There's been some confusion over what constitutes an attached

[1:30:03] ADU versus a detached ADU.

[1:30:05] There was an administrative regulation adopted in order

[1:30:09] to make that clarification.

[1:30:11] But this Amendment will codify that

[1:30:13] by clarifying that attached means connected

[1:30:16] by a common wall, floor or ceiling

[1:30:19] with the principal structure.

[1:30:21] And that would include such attachment

[1:30:23] by garage or accessory dwelling unit when those are themselves

[1:30:28] attached to the dwelling or any unit

[1:30:32] which is otherwise an integral part of the principal structure.

[1:30:36] In contrast, connections made by breezeway, deck, porch,

[1:30:40] stairwell, or other similar features

[1:30:43] shall not be considered attached whether or not such features are

[1:30:46] enclosed, those being merely superficial connections

[1:30:51] to the primary dwelling.

[1:30:54] The third change affects multi-unit design standards.

[1:30:57] Design standards presently apply to redevelopment,

[1:31:01] including replacement or addition of dwelling units

[1:31:04] to the maximum extent practicable for

[1:31:06] the new or replacement units.

[1:31:09] The requirement is impractical for conversion

[1:31:11] of non-residential buildings to residences,

[1:31:14] and when only a modest expansion is proposed

[1:31:17] to an existing building.

[1:31:19] So this Amendment would make the design standards apply only

[1:31:22] when expansions are greater than the existing floor

[1:31:25] area of the existing building, or when

[1:31:28] exterior changes are already being proposed to the structure.

[1:31:35] The fourth change expands flexibility

[1:31:37] for meeting landscape requirements

[1:31:39] with existing plants.

[1:31:41] Presently, regulations incentivize preservation

[1:31:43] of trees through substitution allowances,

[1:31:46] but not existing shrubs, perennials,

[1:31:49] or other groundcover.

[1:31:50] And we do have a lot of instances

[1:31:53] where there is healthy, mature landscape already

[1:31:56] on a site that would not presently qualify for meeting

[1:32:00] landscape requirements because it's

[1:32:02] not on the suitable plant list.

[1:32:04] But this Amendment would allow existing landscape that

[1:32:07] is healthy and not a prohibited plant

[1:32:11] to substitute for required new plantings

[1:32:13] of shrubs, perennials or other ground cover

[1:32:16] at specified ratios.

[1:32:19] The fifth change regards the requirement

[1:32:21] to identify and address natural hazards

[1:32:23] and significant natural features on a subdivision plot.

[1:32:28] The provisions in the subdivision regulations

[1:32:31] do not specify the extent of the protections that are being

[1:32:34] provided for natural hazards and significant natural features,

[1:32:37] nor how they are to be maintained waterways, wetlands,

[1:32:43] floodplains, ridgelines, steep slopes, geologic hazards

[1:32:47] and wildfire prevention, as well as detention and retention

[1:32:51] ponds and trees are already regulated by other local, state,

[1:32:55] and federal codes which provide for their mapping

[1:32:58] and hazard mitigation.

[1:33:00] As a result, the provisions in this section

[1:33:03] do not really add meaningful protections

[1:33:05] and are therefore superfluous.

[1:33:08] And they also result in additional line work

[1:33:10] and notes being on a plat that are neither necessary,

[1:33:14] nor arguably appropriate for inclusion on a subdivision plat.

[1:33:18] So the Amendment for this is to remove

[1:33:21] that section in its entirety.

[1:33:25] The sixth change addresses a conflict and ambiguity

[1:33:27] in the sign regulations applicable to public parks

[1:33:31] and open space zone districts.

[1:33:33] There's a conflict insofar as the code provides that signage

[1:33:37] on a property zoned P1 or P2 shall be

[1:33:40] limited to the signage allowed in the surrounding

[1:33:42] zoned districts.

[1:33:44] It's unclear what surrounding zoned districts

[1:33:46] are to govern when there is more than one adjacent.

[1:33:50] And further, the provision creates

[1:33:52] uneven standards that vary by park location

[1:33:54] or other public land location.

[1:33:57] And then finally, the conflict consists in the fact

[1:34:00] that P2 zoned zone.

[1:34:01] District is already addressed by the standards

[1:34:04] applicable to signs and mixed use and industrial districts.

[1:34:08] So this Amendment would delete this provision.

[1:34:13] Finally, the seventh change resolves a conflict

[1:34:16] in outdoor lighting standards.

[1:34:18] The existing code restricts light output levels at property

[1:34:22] lines to 0.2 feet candles.

[1:34:25] And that's irrespective of the adjacent use

[1:34:27] or right of way that's across that property line.

[1:34:30] This is difficult or in some cases impossible to meet,

[1:34:34] while also satisfying the minimum illumination

[1:34:36] standards in the code and indicated on the slide.

[1:34:41] For example, when a pedestrian walkway between a building

[1:34:44] and the public sidewalk sidewalk is present,

[1:34:47] it must be illuminated to 0.6 feet candles,

[1:34:51] but that cannot be achieved at the same

[1:34:53] time as limiting the foot candles

[1:34:56] at the property line to 0.2.

[1:34:59] So this Amendment would preserve the 0.2 feet candle maximum

[1:35:03] at property lines only when adjacent to property

[1:35:06] zoned for single unit detached or duplex dwellings

[1:35:10] to protect the intended light trespass

[1:35:14] restriction in the code, while increasing the maximum to 0.6

[1:35:20] when adjacent to all other properties, and then light

[1:35:24] levels abutting the right of way would be relieved of a hard cap,

[1:35:28] but would be made to not exceed the minimum

[1:35:31] necessary to meet those other illumination requirements.

[1:35:36] The criteria for review are set forth in Section 21.02

[1:35:40] 0.05, subsection D, of the zoning and development

[1:35:43] code, which provides that the city may approve an Amendment

[1:35:47] to the text of the code if the applicant

[1:35:49] can demonstrate evidence proving each of the criteria.

[1:35:52] The complete analysis is provided in the staff

[1:35:54] report, which was provided with the meeting packet to summarize.

[1:35:59] Criterion a is consistency with the comprehensive plan.

[1:36:02] The proposed Amendment responds to plan principle two.

[1:36:05] Goal 3 strategy f, which calls for reducing barriers to entry

[1:36:09] for new business to plan.

[1:36:11] Principle five.

[1:36:12] Goal 1 strategy C, which calls for the promotion

[1:36:14] of housing variety and to plan.

[1:36:17] Principle 11 goal three strategy C

[1:36:19] which calls for continuous evaluation of existing practices

[1:36:23] and systems to improve outcomes and provide excellent, equitable

[1:36:26] service to the public.

[1:36:28] Staff finds this criterion has been met.

[1:36:31] Criterion B is consistency with the zoning and development code.

[1:36:34] The proposed Amendment removes conflicts

[1:36:37] and creates no new inconsistencies or conflicts.

[1:36:40] Staff staff finds that this criterion has been met,

[1:36:44] and criterion C is specific reasons.

[1:36:47] The proposed Amendment shall meet at least one

[1:36:49] of the specific reasons.

[1:36:51] Specific reason a is to address trends in development

[1:36:54] or regulatory practices.

[1:36:56] The Amendment addresses trends in city policy and practices

[1:36:59] to promote housing production and affordability.

[1:37:02] Specific reason be is to expand, modify, or add requirements

[1:37:06] for development in general, or to address

[1:37:08] specific development issues.

[1:37:10] The Amendment modifies requirements for development

[1:37:12] in general by removing conflicting provisions promoting

[1:37:16] redevelopment, especially the addition of dwelling

[1:37:19] units in existing buildings, and facilitating compliance

[1:37:22] with landscape requirements.

[1:37:24] Specific reason see is to add, modify,

[1:37:27] or expand zoning districts.

[1:37:28] The specific reason does not apply,

[1:37:31] and specific reason D is to clarify

[1:37:33] or modify procedures for processing

[1:37:35] development applications.

[1:37:37] Plat recording procedures are modified

[1:37:39] and accessory dwelling unit provisions are clarified

[1:37:42] because reasons A, B, and D are satisfied,

[1:37:45] staff finds this criterion has been met.

[1:37:49] So after reviewing the proposed Amendment,

[1:37:51] the following finding of fact has been made in accordance

[1:37:55] with section 21.02 .050, subsection D,

[1:37:59] of the Grand Junction zoning and development code.

[1:38:01] The proposed text amendments are consistent

[1:38:03] with the comprehensive plan and zoning and development code,

[1:38:06] and meet at least one of the specific reasons outlined.

[1:38:09] Therefore, staff recommends approval

[1:38:11] and at the April 28, 2026 planning commission meeting,

[1:38:16] the planning commission voted 7 to 0

[1:38:18] to recommend approval with the findings in the staff report.

[1:38:21] And that concludes the presentation.

[1:38:23] And I welcome any questions from the council.

[1:38:25]

[1:38:29] OK with that, we will.

[1:38:32] Does anyone on council have questions or comments

[1:38:35] at this time.

[1:38:37] Thanks for your work on this.

[1:38:39] Does clean up a lot of items.

[1:38:42] Yeah, I was just going to add that.

[1:38:44] Yeah I think that this type of stuff

[1:38:45] can be kind of boring or unsexy.

[1:38:51] Maybe, but it's really important just in terms of good governance

[1:38:55] and continuous improvement, that we

[1:38:57] address these types of things.

[1:38:59] Thanks OK with that.

[1:39:04] Any other questions or comments before we

[1:39:06] move to public hearing.

[1:39:10] Seeing none we would open public hearing.

[1:39:12] Is there anyone present who would like to make a comment.

[1:39:18] Seeing none, we will close the public hearing

[1:39:20] and return to council for additional comments

[1:39:22] or questions.

[1:39:24]

[1:39:26] Seeing none, I would ask for a motion and a second

[1:39:29] to adopt the ordinance.

[1:39:31] I move to adopt ordinance number 5319, an ordinance amending

[1:39:35] sections of the zoning and development code,

[1:39:37] title 21 of the Grand Junction municipal code

[1:39:40] regarding final plat recordation accessory dwelling units.

[1:39:44] Multi standard site design standards for multi

[1:39:46] unit residential development.

[1:39:48] Landscape substitutions.

[1:39:50] Institutions, subdivision, natural hazards and

[1:39:52] significant natural features.

[1:39:54] Signs in public parks and open space districts

[1:39:58] and outdoor lighting on final passage and order.

[1:40:01] Final publication in pamphlet form.

[1:40:04] Second, we have a motion on the floor from council member Nguyen

[1:40:09] and a second from council member Kennedy.

[1:40:13] And if you could do a roll call for us.

[1:40:19] Council Member beilfuss.

[1:40:21] Yes council member.

[1:40:23] Kennedy yes.

[1:40:25] Council Member.

[1:40:26] Nguyen yes.

[1:40:28] Council Member.

[1:40:28] Stoute yes.

[1:40:32] Council Member.

[1:40:33] Van Dyke.

[1:40:34] Yes council member.

[1:40:36] Ballard yes.

[1:40:38] Mayor Lutz.

[1:40:40] Yes The motion passes 7 to 0.

[1:40:44] Just check in.

[1:40:48] Are Are you good with the.

[1:40:51] So we're going to take a 10 minute break

[1:40:56] and we will see you then.

[1:40:57]

[1:50:38] All right.

[1:50:39] We will go ahead and come back to order.

[1:50:42] And that.

[1:50:44]

[1:50:47] Just wait.

[1:50:49] I mean, you don't have to.

[1:50:51] Shut up.

[1:50:53] I went to Catholic school.

[1:50:55] I didn't, so you can take your time.

[1:50:59] So our next one is.

[1:51:02] And ordinance amending sections of the zoning and development

[1:51:05] code, title 21 of the Grand Junction municipal code

[1:51:08] regarding drive-through facilities.

[1:51:10] And we have a staff presentation from planning

[1:51:12] manager Thomas Lloyd.

[1:51:13]

[1:51:27] All right.

[1:51:27] Thank you.

[1:51:28] City council.

[1:51:30] Give me one moment.

[1:51:32]

[1:51:43] So my most recent saved version apparently did not save.

[1:51:59] So I apologize for that.

[1:52:01]

[1:52:10] All right.

[1:52:13] So I'm good to go.

[1:52:14] Now All right.

[1:52:16] So this is an Amendment for drive-through facilities

[1:52:19] and the accessory use specific standards

[1:52:21] that are associated with those.

[1:52:24] Just for a little background and some feedback

[1:52:26] on how we got here.

[1:52:28] This has been a kind of ongoing conversation that we've had,

[1:52:33] with members of our development community,

[1:52:36] probably a little over the past year,

[1:52:39] we've had several workshops with the planning

[1:52:43] commission about it.

[1:52:45] So both at the January 22 workshop, as well as the March 5

[1:52:50] workshop, and the revisions that we are proposing

[1:52:53] are based on feedback from the planning commission

[1:52:57] to resolve these issues that these specific standards

[1:53:03] have presented in terms of the actual development process.

[1:53:08] So just a really quick overview of it.

[1:53:12] This would remove the requirement

[1:53:14] that the drive-through facilities shall be designed

[1:53:16] and located to avoiding impairing to avoid impairing

[1:53:21] pedestrian mobility to or from the principal structure

[1:53:23] or creating risks to pedestrian safety.

[1:53:26] So the reason that it's being recommended to remove this

[1:53:29] and when we workshop this with the planning commission

[1:53:31] as well, it's just that it's kind

[1:53:33] of an objective requirement.

[1:53:35] And we also have other standards in our zoning and development

[1:53:39] code that address this, be it some

[1:53:43] of our standards, our access standards

[1:53:45] or our pedestrian connection requirement.

[1:53:48] So just the thinking behind that was

[1:53:50] to reformat this and get this more subjective requirement out

[1:53:56] of it.

[1:53:57] I mean, I think I said objective earlier, but I meant subjective.

[1:54:00] So to get the subjective requirement out,

[1:54:01] just because that means different things

[1:54:03] to different people and to regulate

[1:54:06] that particular portion of it in our regulations

[1:54:11] and not have that language there.

[1:54:14] There's also some minor reformatting.

[1:54:17] And really, the big thing that's changing here

[1:54:20] is the removal of the requirement

[1:54:23] that drive-thru lanes shall not be located

[1:54:25] between the designated front of the building and the

[1:54:28] adjacent public right of way.

[1:54:31] We've received a lot of talk and feedback,

[1:54:34] just that this is making site design pretty challenging,

[1:54:38] especially on more challenging lots that

[1:54:42] have triple frontage or double frontage multiple access points.

[1:54:49] So our reasoning for removing that language is just that it'll

[1:54:55] provide more site flexibility and that building orientation

[1:55:00] and where it's located can also be

[1:55:02] from an urban forum standpoint, just encouraged in other ways.

[1:55:08] Just as an example, we have greatly reduced

[1:55:12] our setback requirements.

[1:55:14] So just from an urban design and building form standpoint,

[1:55:17] that gives people a lot of additional options as well.

[1:55:21] Lastly, the last thing that we're changing

[1:55:24] is that adjacent is it's also that the I guess the facilities

[1:55:31] may not be between the front of the building

[1:55:34] and the adjacent public right of way.

[1:55:36] So we're changing it to read abutting because adjacent

[1:55:42] is defined as a radius of feet.

[1:55:45] So that could get kind of confusing

[1:55:47] and challenging when we're actually doing site design.

[1:55:50] So we're changing it to read abutting instead, just so it's

[1:55:54] pretty clear that it's the abutting public right

[1:55:57] of way, not right away that's feet away from it.

[1:56:02]

[1:56:04] So in terms of our review criteria,

[1:56:07] you guys just did this on the last one.

[1:56:10] But the first one is that it needs

[1:56:11] to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[1:56:14] Staff believes that it's generally consistent

[1:56:16] with the comprehensive plan.

[1:56:18] In subsection a above establishes

[1:56:22] an important policy objective.

[1:56:25] Objective but we are removing it because the current language

[1:56:29] is broad and not specific as to how those standards are met.

[1:56:34] The intent of providing pedestrian safety

[1:56:36] is met by other specific and more objective,

[1:56:39] measurable standards elsewhere in the zoning code.

[1:56:43] With one example being the pedestrian connection

[1:56:45] requirement and then other examples being our other site

[1:56:49] design requirements such as frontage orientation engineering

[1:56:54] and access standards that are found in Ted's that

[1:56:57] address circulation, queuing and conflict points.

[1:57:02] So we feel like this change in language,

[1:57:08] advances the comprehensive plans,

[1:57:10] goals of providing more predictable and transparent

[1:57:13] development processes instead of relying

[1:57:17] on more subjective standards.

[1:57:22] So, like I said before, the existing prescription

[1:57:25] or the existing provision the lane

[1:57:29] being in front of the facade or the front

[1:57:32] of the building and the adjacent public right of way.

[1:57:35] We also feel like it's consistent

[1:57:36] with the comprehensive plan.

[1:57:38] It was prescriptive and site design,

[1:57:40] and when combined with the rest of the city's regulations,

[1:57:43] created some unintended design consequences,

[1:57:46] especially on constrained or irregularly shaped parcels.

[1:57:51] Its removal supports flexible and context sensitive site

[1:57:54] development, allowing site layouts to further respond

[1:57:59] to more unique conditions.

[1:58:02] And it's also important to note that the code still promotes

[1:58:05] pedestrian oriented development and high quality streetscapes

[1:58:09] in other ways, such as other spacing

[1:58:14] standards and our standards.

[1:58:16] And Ted's along with, our reductions

[1:58:21] and other requirements like front setback requirements

[1:58:24] to encourage more urban form of building.

[1:58:28] Planned principal 2 goal three strategy

[1:58:30] f calls for reducing barriers to entry for new businesses.

[1:58:35] So this certainly would increase flexibility for site design

[1:58:39] standards for new businesses that

[1:58:41] are trying to come into town.

[1:58:43] Plan principle 11 goal three.

[1:58:45] Strategy C calls for continuous evaluation of existing practices

[1:58:49] and systems to improve outcomes and provide

[1:58:52] excellent and equitable service to the public,

[1:58:55] so this Amendment improves development outcomes

[1:58:57] and service to the public by bringing consistency

[1:59:00] to the design standards for commercial properties

[1:59:04] so staff finds that this criterion has been met.

[1:59:06] Next, we have consistency with the zoning

[1:59:09] and development code standards.

[1:59:11] This is consistent with and does not

[1:59:13] conflict or contradict with any other provisions of the code.

[1:59:18] So it creates no inconsistencies,

[1:59:20] conflicts or contradictions.

[1:59:23] So staff finds that this criterion has been met.

[1:59:26] And then the next one is the specific reasons criterion.

[1:59:30] And that.

[1:59:31] At least one of the following reasons have to be met.

[1:59:35] So, the first one to address trends

[1:59:38] in development or regulatory practices

[1:59:40] isn't really applicable.

[1:59:42] So I'll move on to the next one.

[1:59:43] The next one is to expand, modify, or add requirements

[1:59:48] for development in general or address

[1:59:50] specific development issues.

[1:59:52] So we received a lot of feedback that these accessory use

[1:59:56] specific standards have made it difficult to develop commercial

[1:59:59] uses on more challenging sites.

[2:00:02] So this text Amendment addresses the specific development

[2:00:05] issue by allowing more options when it comes to designing.

[2:00:09] How these types of facilities and an accessory.

[2:00:12] Uses of these facilities are designed.

[2:00:16] Next is to add modifier expand zone districts

[2:00:19] which is also not applicable.

[2:00:21] And then lastly to clarify or modify procedures for processing

[2:00:25] development applications.

[2:00:27] So the design standards for drive-through

[2:00:29] as an accessory use is modified to allow for additional options

[2:00:32] on how an applicant designs a drive-through on their site.

[2:00:35] This allows it to be designed in a way that makes sense

[2:00:37] for context specific conditions on the site,

[2:00:40] rather than having a more prescriptive regulation

[2:00:43] that all sites are subject to.

[2:00:45] So staff finds that this criterion is met.

[2:00:49] And then lastly, in accordance with section 21.020 50d

[2:00:54] of the Grand Junction zoning and development code,

[2:00:56] the proposed text Amendment to Title 21 is consistent with

[2:00:59] the comprehensive plan and the zoning and development code

[2:01:01] standards, and meet at least one of the specific

[2:01:04] reasons outlined at the planning Commission's meeting

[2:01:07] on April 28.

[2:01:08] They voted to recommend this request as well.

[2:01:13]

[2:01:16] That's all I have.

[2:01:17] Happy to answer questions.

[2:01:18] OK thank you very much.

[2:01:20] We will return to council for comments or questions.

[2:01:26] Yeah I had a question.

[2:01:28] So it looks like this was passed for 3 from planning commission.

[2:01:33] And looking through the notes here.

[2:01:36] Could you clarify what the alternative proposal

[2:01:41] that was presented during planning commission was.

[2:01:44] And if you remember I'll be honest I don't remember.

[2:01:48] OK yeah.

[2:01:50] I'm trying to remember because I did watch it,

[2:01:53] but I don't remember off the top of my head

[2:01:55] what was proposed there as an alternative.

[2:01:57] But I guess in any case that yeah,

[2:01:59] the fact that it was for three maybe means there's

[2:02:03] something to consider here.

[2:02:07] So I see Tamara's talking to you.

[2:02:11]

[2:02:18] So Tamara was bringing up kind of discussion that happened

[2:02:21] during workshop, which isn't necessarily applicable here,

[2:02:24] but the discussion was maybe having different areas where

[2:02:29] it's not, I guess, a requirement and then

[2:02:32] keeping it in other areas.

[2:02:34] But that is not what ended up moving forward to the planning

[2:02:36] commission, because it was decided in workshop that that's

[2:02:40] really more something that we should probably be talking

[2:02:42] about, the comprehensive plan process and not

[2:02:45] necessarily there.

[2:02:47] I do remember one of our commissioners, Ian Thomas,

[2:02:52] did have a different idea, but I'll be honest,

[2:02:55] I do not remember the specifics of it

[2:02:57] just because it didn't move forward.

[2:02:59] And then maybe more towards the substance

[2:03:02] of what is being proposed here.

[2:03:05] I'm curious.

[2:03:07] As it's written now.

[2:03:09] So if we didn't adopt the change,

[2:03:11] I'm curious how different what we have in our code

[2:03:15] is to other communities.

[2:03:17] Do we know.

[2:03:18] Because like I hear the concern that it makes it hard to develop

[2:03:23] on specific lots.

[2:03:24] But I do think that some of these things

[2:03:28] are probably being implemented in other communities, too.

[2:03:30] And given that drive-through facilities are often

[2:03:34] these big national chains, I'd be surprised

[2:03:36] if they don't have some ways to still get their projects built

[2:03:43] that meet their needs, and in the variety of constraints

[2:03:47] that exist in all the municipalities across the US.

[2:03:51] Yeah so I mean, yeah, that's a great question.

[2:03:54] I obviously don't have data off the top of my head,

[2:03:57] but it is a fairly it's a regulation

[2:04:00] you see in other communities.

[2:04:01] The previous community I was in before here had that regulation.

[2:04:06] So, I mean, I don't want to shoot from the hip

[2:04:08] and say what the percentage is, but it is one that you

[2:04:11] see around the country.

[2:04:14] Yeah, I would add to that, I don't data off the top

[2:04:18] of my head either, but I think there's

[2:04:20] a mix of how this is applied in many different communities.

[2:04:24] I think one of the reasons we brought it forward is staff

[2:04:27] was if you picture like a drive-through on North Avenue

[2:04:32] currently and you're walking or riding down

[2:04:35] or you're walking down the sidewalk per se

[2:04:37] in front of that storefront, if right now you

[2:04:41] have to cross as a pedestrian, the entry and the exit

[2:04:44] off the main road where this would allow

[2:04:47] if it came around the front.

[2:04:49] But that there's different ways to orient that on the site

[2:04:53] where a pedestrian may then be crossing a drive-through lane,

[2:04:57] but they're not crossing the entry

[2:04:59] and exit off of a main road.

[2:05:02] And so it provides more flexibility.

[2:05:03] It doesn't dictate that you have to bring it around the front

[2:05:07] of the building.

[2:05:10] And then there's other unique properties

[2:05:11] where if you think of a shopping center,

[2:05:14] where there's multiple businesses that

[2:05:16] are because there's not multiple entries and exits,

[2:05:20] it gives more flexibility for coming around and crossing.

[2:05:25] The other was we were seeing some unique parking

[2:05:28] to try and get to try and avoid or try to get orient with this.

[2:05:33] That wasn't necessarily the desired effect either.

[2:05:35] And so when we put all that together,

[2:05:39] it helped us get to a place of this recommendation.

[2:05:43] And what the staff brought it forward versus it

[2:05:46] while it was brought up.

[2:05:47] And we've heard a lot of feedback on it.

[2:05:49] There's some challenges in the orientation,

[2:05:52] and doesn't mean it just opens up more opportunity

[2:05:56] to meet that flexibility.

[2:05:59] Council Kennedy.

[2:06:00] Yeah, just a few things on this.

[2:06:02] I'm supportive of the changes in looking at the testimony

[2:06:05] from the planning commission.

[2:06:06] One of the things that was challenged

[2:06:09] was to ask staff if there was any documented

[2:06:12] pedestrian injuries in drive-thru lanes

[2:06:14] that would justify it.

[2:06:16] And there weren't.

[2:06:18] But obviously, we're not saying that we know of

[2:06:21] every drive-through everywhere.

[2:06:23] Importantly, I think that in our staff presentation,

[2:06:27] we covered that the transportation

[2:06:30] engineering design standards or TEDs are

[2:06:32] they still govern circulation.

[2:06:35] Queuing and conflict points is what we heard.

[2:06:38] And that's important.

[2:06:39] And I will say that I have heard directly, actually, I

[2:06:42] was in those chambers when after right at the end of a meeting,

[2:06:45] after a meeting that I'd gotten a information that a very

[2:06:50] large investment wasn't going to happen specifically because

[2:06:53] of that in our community and the developer,

[2:06:57] just with that frustration, this has been probably

[2:07:00] more than a year ago, but it's that type of while there maybe

[2:07:06] are some other ways to do it, you're making this you make

[2:07:09] you're making it much, much more expensive

[2:07:11] with these types of designs for a business to come in there.

[2:07:16] And while we're not just all business in Grand Junction,

[2:07:20] it is an important consideration for us as council members

[2:07:25] and as a city to try to support businesses

[2:07:28] for jobs and tax revenues and all that type of thing.

[2:07:30] So I'm supportive of the motion.

[2:07:34] Any other comments.

[2:07:37] Was there.

[2:07:41] Were there any clear concerns about pedestrian safety

[2:07:45] that came out of the planning commission discussion.

[2:07:48] I don't know if you have any but I

[2:07:51] would guess that was 3 against this was

[2:07:54] because of pedestrian safety.

[2:07:57] Certainly we want to make things work for the commercial side

[2:08:01] of stuff.

[2:08:03] Yeah I don't think it was strictly

[2:08:06] about pedestrian safety.

[2:08:07] I think it was also about just kind of

[2:08:10] and obviously I'm just paraphrasing from what

[2:08:13] my memory of the minutes were and what they talked about,

[2:08:16] but it was just also about urban design,

[2:08:20] building a community that, one would want to live in,

[2:08:23] raise a family and all that kind of stuff.

[2:08:25] And people there were certainly conversations

[2:08:27] on both sides of that.

[2:08:29] But just from what I recall, there was some

[2:08:32] about pedestrian connections.

[2:08:34] And if it is closer to the road and there's not a drive-through

[2:08:38] the middle like it's one less conflict point.

[2:08:41] But, I mean, I think it was a mixture of that

[2:08:43] and more so kind of urban design principles.

[2:08:47] Yeah thanks.

[2:08:49] One more thing.

[2:08:50] I can address that directly.

[2:08:53] The opposition in particular.

[2:08:56] Commissioner Moore commented that with every opposition

[2:09:02] against pedestrian access, it makes it harder

[2:09:03] for alternate modes of travel.

[2:09:06] So that was my takeaway, that it wasn't necessarily about safety,

[2:09:09] but about making it more convenient.

[2:09:12] And for multimodal transportation,

[2:09:14] which is also an important consideration.

[2:09:16] But just to segregate that from the safety

[2:09:18] part of the conversation.

[2:09:20] And so did you want to respond to that or.

[2:09:23] Yeah, I was just going to say he kind of Commissioner Moore kind

[2:09:27] brought up some of our bicycle, bicycle

[2:09:29] and pedestrian plan and stuff like that as

[2:09:30] well in his comment.

[2:09:32] So I think you're right, Councilman.

[2:09:34] That's kind of where he was coming from specifically.

[2:09:37] So in the example that city manager Bennett just

[2:09:42] shared with us, if you're looking at North

[2:09:45] and you have the entrance and the exit

[2:09:48] that are coming through the sidewalk right there.

[2:09:52] So that's two major points of where a car is coming,

[2:09:59] where a pedestrian is going.

[2:10:00] And so I mean, and then if you had the ability

[2:10:04] to make the drive-through go around the business

[2:10:06] where it's not doing that, you're

[2:10:08] reducing the chances of an accident

[2:10:10] and you're increasing the connectivity.

[2:10:13] Am I misunderstanding that.

[2:10:16] Well, I would say in some cases, but I mean,

[2:10:18] it depends on if it's alley loaded.

[2:10:20] It depends on if we would even allow two

[2:10:22] accesses in the first place.

[2:10:25] North's a little bit unique because it is alley loaded.

[2:10:29] A lot of it is.

[2:10:30] And then there's also a lot of access points on North

[2:10:34] and a lot of our more newer development.

[2:10:36] We have, spacing requirements where we don't allow those many

[2:10:41] that amount of access points.

[2:10:43] So it really kind of does depend on the site

[2:10:46] and what makes the most sense.

[2:10:48] But there is stuff on North where there are two access

[2:10:51] points and they're able to design it in a way that works,

[2:10:55] but it just kind of depends on the size of the lot

[2:10:57] where it's located, if it's alley loaded,

[2:11:00] all that kind of stuff.

[2:11:01] And so this Amendment is really allowing

[2:11:04] for that flexibility based on the lot and the property

[2:11:07] and the surrounding roads.

[2:11:08] That's correct.

[2:11:09] And whatever the separation requirements

[2:11:11] might be on that road, with our different circulation

[2:11:16] plans and stuff like that.

[2:11:17] OK thank you.

[2:11:18] Is there any additional council comments or questions.

[2:11:24] I'd make a motion if you'd like.

[2:11:25] I think we have to go through hearing first.

[2:11:27] Oh, yeah.

[2:11:27] Sorry so with seeing no additional questions or comments

[2:11:33] we will open this for public hearing.

[2:11:35] Is there anyone present.

[2:11:37] And I see several.

[2:11:39] Go ahead and line up and we'll hear from the public.

[2:11:42]

[2:11:55] I just.

[2:11:55] I'm sorry about that.

[2:11:58] I don't know.

[2:11:58] It's OK.

[2:11:59] We're here all night Tonight we're here all night.

[2:12:03] It's that seat.

[2:12:05] It's the jump.

[2:12:07] The gun scene.

[2:12:08] Hello so, will you start with stating your name.

[2:12:13] Yeah I'm Shayla.

[2:12:15] Obviously not a city planning expert by any means.

[2:12:18] This is also the first time I've heard of this thing today.

[2:12:21] But I did have a concern regarding the removal.

[2:12:27] I understand that it's subjective,

[2:12:28] but the removal of the idea that it needs

[2:12:31] to be safe for pedestrians, specifically that first line

[2:12:36] item for because specifically, it seems to me that we're

[2:12:43] removing that idea that it needs to be safe for pedestrians,

[2:12:46] that all drivers need to consider that.

[2:12:49] And then later on, we're removing a couple things

[2:12:52] that actually make it safer.

[2:12:54] You said that we're removing it because it's redundant,

[2:12:56] because there's already things that clarify

[2:12:58] or guarantee that safety.

[2:13:00] And then later on we're removing a few things that then guarantee

[2:13:05] that safety, such as not putting a drive-through

[2:13:09] in between the building and the pedestrian way,

[2:13:12] or this conversation about the language about abutting

[2:13:18] versus adjacent the feet.

[2:13:20] I do think that is worth further conversation.

[2:13:24] My suggestion to the council would

[2:13:29] be that if you do pass this, that you would pass it

[2:13:31] with the removal of that language about that

[2:13:38] the language stay adjacent, not abutting because allowing drive

[2:13:42] throughs to not that feet away.

[2:13:45] It just seems like it's an excuse for us to not follow

[2:13:48] existing regulations around.

[2:13:52] Pedestrian safety.

[2:13:54] And every time that we like hedge those things,

[2:13:58] then it becomes a way for developers

[2:14:00] to continue to make pedestrian safety

[2:14:03] even a little more dangerous.

[2:14:05] And North Avenue is already one of the most dangerous places

[2:14:09] to walk in this town.

[2:14:10] It doesn't need to become worse.

[2:14:12] Drive throughs are already kind of a pedestrian hellscape.

[2:14:15] A biker hellscape.

[2:14:16] So that's just my comment on that.

[2:14:20] So thank you.

[2:14:21]

[2:14:26] Is it this person.

[2:14:29] Presentation that's it right there.

[2:14:32]

[2:14:45] Good evening, city council members.

[2:14:47] My name is Mark Austin.

[2:14:48] I'm a civil engineer with Austin civil group

[2:14:51] here in Grand Junction.

[2:14:53] I've been designing drive-through facilities here

[2:14:56] in Grand Junction for over 25 plus years,

[2:14:59] and just wanted to run through some practical examples

[2:15:04] of drive-through facilities and why we're here tonight

[2:15:09] to ask for some changes.

[2:15:11] I've only got three minutes, so I'm going to have to go

[2:15:13] through this extremely quickly.

[2:15:16] We talked about the two access points on North Avenue

[2:15:19] and North Avenue is a little bit of an exception for that.

[2:15:22] And the problem is that the city code only allows one

[2:15:26] access for these facilities.

[2:15:29] North Avenue sometimes you can get

[2:15:31] away with two access locations.

[2:15:33] But in order to do it, you've got

[2:15:35] to violate three different Ted's provisions

[2:15:38] to be able to make it work.

[2:15:40] North Avenue it works because there's a medium

[2:15:42] that allows it to happen.

[2:15:44] But most of the other streets at Grand Junction

[2:15:46] don't have that opportunity.

[2:15:48] This is a typical example of Burger King drive-thru facility,

[2:15:52] which wraps around the front of the building

[2:15:55] and has the one access point.

[2:15:57] That's a pretty typical requirement.

[2:15:59] We see where we are only allowed to have one access

[2:16:01] point onto a project site.

[2:16:03] But you can see what it does is it tends to push the building

[2:16:06] back on the back side of the lot so that you can't get

[2:16:09] it up on the street frontage.

[2:16:11] I was part of the code committee that

[2:16:14] looked at drive-thru facilities, and that code committee

[2:16:17] was 2 plus years long.

[2:16:19] We spent a couple of months looking

[2:16:21] at drive-thru facilities, and the one

[2:16:23] that was selected that everybody on the committee was happy with

[2:16:26] was the North Avenue Taco Bell at 29 road.

[2:16:30] And you can see that drive-thru facility has

[2:16:32] a landscape buffer between sidewalks

[2:16:35] and the drive-thru facilities.

[2:16:37] You've got two pedestrian crossings.

[2:16:40] You've got three street frontages

[2:16:42] and that was an option everybody on the committee was happy with,

[2:16:46] and that's what we literally thought was going to be adopted

[2:16:49] with the new code language.

[2:16:50] But unfortunately it wasn't.

[2:16:52] And so that's why we're here tonight

[2:16:53] to try to get that fixed.

[2:16:55] And as far as pedestrian safety goes and bicycle or anybody else

[2:17:00] I want you to point out to Chick fil A, I mean,

[2:17:04] that place is pretty intense that this is a plan

[2:17:08] that you allow the businesses to come

[2:17:10] up with their own solutions.

[2:17:11] This is what they can do.

[2:17:13] But I can tell you, if pedestrian safety and people

[2:17:16] getting hit was a concern, these corporations

[2:17:20] would not be doing that because they would have lawsuits.

[2:17:22] And they would not be having pedestrians crossing

[2:17:25] these drive-thru lanes.

[2:17:27] But I just wanted to point out this would not be allowed

[2:17:30] under the current code, and we need to leave that flexibility

[2:17:35] and options for these businesses to come

[2:17:38] up with creative solutions to meet our code requirements.

[2:17:41] Thank you.

[2:17:42] Thank you.

[2:17:43]

[2:17:59] Hi sorry for my voice.

[2:18:01] I'm Kelsey Heath with CBC prime properties.

[2:18:04] I'm a commercial real estate agent.

[2:18:06] I'm here on behalf of the owner of 2658 Tracy Anne road

[2:18:09] on Highway 50, in Orchard mesa.

[2:18:12] His site plan was terminated in February of 2025 due

[2:18:16] to the continued difficulties presented by the New zoning

[2:18:21] code, and the requirement that drive-thru lanes cannot be

[2:18:25] located between the facade of the building and the adjacent

[2:18:28] public road makes it impossible of the application to design

[2:18:32] and build a properly stacked restaurant drive-through

[2:18:35] on the property, despite the fact

[2:18:38] that it is allowed to have this because of the accessory use.

[2:18:43] Table 21.04 zoning codes.

[2:18:47] As Mark stated, we have.

[2:18:50] There's several buildings that would not be here if it wasn't

[2:18:54] for the codes that we had, that would be Chick fil A. There's

[2:18:57] a couple Taco Bell's, Starbucks, Dutch brothers,

[2:19:00] McDonald's, and we ask, what are these annual city sales tax

[2:19:05] receipts from the 10 locations cited above

[2:19:08] and others like them that were foregone future receipts

[2:19:13] from the multiple of future locations

[2:19:16] that have been rendered undeveloped by this facade

[2:19:20] requirement as well.

[2:19:22] We propose that Amendment of the zoning code

[2:19:25] to exclude the drive-through lanes

[2:19:28] from the facade requirement has been attached below.

[2:19:32] Sorry, I'm reading the letter, but as the city has shown

[2:19:37] these requirements, that there.

[2:19:40] You were talking about would help

[2:19:42] with more of this development.

[2:19:45] And bring more money and taxes into our economy.

[2:19:49] So we really hope that you guys move forward with this.

[2:19:54] Thank you.

[2:19:56] Any other public comment.

[2:19:59] Seeing none, we will go ahead and close public hearing

[2:20:02] and we will return to council for additional comments

[2:20:05] or questions.

[2:20:06]

[2:20:10] Hearing none I would ask for.

[2:20:13] Go ahead.

[2:20:13] Yeah, I maybe would be curious to hear from Thomas

[2:20:17] about this adjacent and abutting kind of thing that

[2:20:21] came up during public comment.

[2:20:22]

[2:20:25] Yeah, maybe I'm not fully tracking the yeah.

[2:20:29] Why that makes a difference and why that's helpful.

[2:20:35] Sure so with adjacent, it would just be measured feet away

[2:20:42] from where the facility is.

[2:20:46] So if we're talking the menu board or whatever else,

[2:20:48] it would be feet from that where a budding is just

[2:20:52] like where the right of way property line is,

[2:20:54] if that makes sense.

[2:20:55] Our legal team, I guess, kind of recommended that we change that.

[2:21:00] Just to clarify it, just because it could

[2:21:03] be kind of difficult to regulate if it's a 100 foot

[2:21:07] radius, as opposed to directly adjacent

[2:21:11] to the public right of way.

[2:21:13] OK thank you.

[2:21:14]

[2:21:18] Anything else.

[2:21:19] Yeah I just like to state, over the last year,

[2:21:21] we've received multiple emails on this

[2:21:23] from different developers and site planners

[2:21:26] that we're trying to get a project through.

[2:21:28] And we're really seeing a hang up as we look for Grand Junction

[2:21:32] to grow, to develop, to have the services that we all hope

[2:21:36] and want to have, especially a property up in Orchard mesa,

[2:21:40] I think we really we've got to get

[2:21:42] behind these businesses and really incentivize development.

[2:21:45] And that's why I'm in favor and passing this tonight.

[2:21:48] If there's no additional comments or questions

[2:21:52] I would ask for a motion.

[2:21:54] All right.

[2:21:55] Now, now is the time.

[2:21:57] OK I move to adopt ordinance number 5320, an ordinance

[2:22:02] amending sections of the zoning code title

[2:22:05] 21 and Grand Junction municipal code regarding

[2:22:10] drive-through facilities on final passage

[2:22:12] and order final publication in pamphlet form.

[2:22:15] We have a motion on the floor from council member Kennedy.

[2:22:17] Do I have a second.

[2:22:20] Second OK, we have a second from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.

[2:22:25] And with that, salicina could you call the roll.

[2:22:32] Council Member Kennedy.

[2:22:34] Yes council member.

[2:22:36] Nguyen yes.

[2:22:39] Council Member Stout sent a message that she was a yes.

[2:22:42] She cannot say it verbally.

[2:22:45] OK council member van Dijk.

[2:22:47] Yes council member.

[2:22:49] Ballard yes.

[2:22:53] Council Member.

[2:22:53] Beilfuss yes.

[2:22:55] Mayor Lutz.

[2:22:56] Yes The motion passes 7 to 0.

[2:23:01] OK next we will be reviewing an ordinance amending ordinance

[2:23:08] 4991 concerning the city, Los colonias Development

[2:23:12] Corporation, master lease and the Third Amendment

[2:23:15] there to for purposes of amending the description

[2:23:18] of lease parcel 2 for the purpose of facilitating

[2:23:22] the development of monument business park on site de

[2:23:27] at the Las colonias business park,

[2:23:29] and we have a staff presentation from engineering

[2:23:31] and transportation director Trent

[2:23:34] Powell, as well as interim city attorney Jeremiah Boyce.

[2:23:39] Good evening, Mayor and members of council.

[2:23:42] This evening, or back in November of 2017,

[2:23:46] the city council authorized the development of 15 acres

[2:23:50] down at the Las colonias Las colonias park, known as the Las

[2:23:53] colonias business park.

[2:23:55] There was a master lease that we put together there on four

[2:23:59] different areas that we then executed that lease with the Las

[2:24:06] colonias Development Corporation, who has then since

[2:24:09] subleased some portions of those areas

[2:24:12] to Rocky Mountain and bonsai and more recently, oak star.

[2:24:21] And so the area that we're talking about here this evening

[2:24:23] is up here on the very, very North end of the park.

[2:24:30] And it has we've got a proposal in running through planning

[2:24:34] and through the LCDC called the monument business park,

[2:24:37] and their layout is such that they

[2:24:40] need to modify the Southern boundary of this lease.

[2:24:47] Area number two.

[2:24:49] Lease area number two encompasses all of the area here

[2:24:54] North of the main entrance road lease area one was this area

[2:24:59] here, including the butterfly park

[2:25:02] lease Area 3 is where oakstar ended up

[2:25:06] taking a portion of that lease.

[2:25:08] Area 4 is where the bonsai warehouse is proposed.

[2:25:13] So anyway, you can see from the proposed business park,

[2:25:17] the monument business park here where the parking lot does

[2:25:22] protrude over the leased area.

[2:25:25] And so all this does is clean that

[2:25:29] up and be able to accommodate that expanded parking lot there.

[2:25:36] Other than that, I would have to defer

[2:25:40] to our city attorney in regards to why

[2:25:43] this requires an ordinance.

[2:25:45] But anyway, nonetheless, it does.

[2:25:49] And this is our Third Amendment to the lease.

[2:25:52] The first one was amending 25 years to 99 years

[2:25:56] after we had a positive vote from voters on that.

[2:26:01] And then the second one was amending the lease for oak star.

[2:26:05] So this is the third one that we're needing to amend.

[2:26:08] So with that, I'd be happy to entertain any questions.

[2:26:10] It is an ordinance.

[2:26:11] So we will need to have a public hearing to make that official.

[2:26:15] Do you have anything to add.

[2:26:19] I don't.

[2:26:20] Trent did a great job.

[2:26:21] Up OK.

[2:26:22] Any council questions or comments at this time.

[2:26:27] OK with that, we will open public hearing.

[2:26:31] If anyone would like to have public comment on this,

[2:26:35] please approach the podium.

[2:26:38] Seeing none, we will close the public hearing

[2:26:42] and return to council for comments or questions.

[2:26:47] Just quickly, thanks for handling this, Trent.

[2:26:49] I said because I'm on the board, I also am on the LCDC

[2:26:54] and this is just another great development

[2:26:57] along the Riverside Parkway and a great development

[2:27:00] in Las colonias.

[2:27:01] So excited for this.

[2:27:02] It sounds like there's some great innovative concepts

[2:27:05] that are moving forward here.

[2:27:07] So thank you.

[2:27:10] Any other questions or comments.

[2:27:13] Seeing none, I would ask for a motion.

[2:27:17] I can do that.

[2:27:19] Go for it.

[2:27:20] OK I moved to adopt ordinance number 5321,

[2:27:26] an ordinance to amend ordinance 4991 concerning the city, Las

[2:27:32] colonias Development Corporation, master lease

[2:27:34] and the Third Amendment thereto for the purpose of amending

[2:27:38] the description of the lease.

[2:27:40] Parcel two for the purpose of facilitating the development

[2:27:43] of the monument business park on site

[2:27:46] D at the Las colonias business park on final passage, in order.

[2:27:52] Final publication in pamphlet form.

[2:27:54] OK, we have a motion on the floor

[2:27:55] from council member Kennedy.

[2:27:57] Do we have a second.

[2:27:58] Second we have a second from council

[2:28:00] member Wynn and celestina, if you could call roll.

[2:28:05] Council Member.

[2:28:06] Nguyen yes.

[2:28:08] Council Member.

[2:28:09] Stoute yes.

[2:28:13] Council Member van Dijk.

[2:28:15] Yes council member.

[2:28:17] Ballard yes.

[2:28:19] Council Member.

[2:28:21] Yes council member.

[2:28:22] Kennedy yes.

[2:28:23] Mayor Lutz.

[2:28:24] Yes The motion passes 7 to 0 and we will move to our next item,

[2:28:31] which is an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan

[2:28:33] for approximately 19.83 acres from industrial

[2:28:37] to residential low.

[2:28:38] Located on lot two of monument vista

[2:28:40] subdivision at eight 6021 road.

[2:28:43] And we have a staff presentation from planning

[2:28:45] manager Thomas Lloyd.

[2:28:46]

[2:29:02] All right.

[2:29:04] The mic is on now.

[2:29:06] All right.

[2:29:07] Good evening again.

[2:29:08] City council as well as members of the public.

[2:29:11] I'm Thomas Lloyd, I'm the planning

[2:29:12] manager with the Community Development Department.

[2:29:15] And this is for a CPA that we have on the Northwestern side

[2:29:21] of the city.

[2:29:22] But it is located at eight 6021 road.

[2:29:26] And more specifically, it's lot two

[2:29:27] of monument vistas filing one.

[2:29:31] So just it may have been a while since you guys

[2:29:34] have done a CPA and a rezone.

[2:29:36] So just to remind everybody, the first step

[2:29:39] is a comprehensive plan Amendment,

[2:29:41] and the CPA has to be done prior to the rezone itself,

[2:29:45] and the rezone will move forward assuming

[2:29:48] that the CPA is approved.

[2:29:50]

[2:29:53] All right.

[2:29:55] So the property owner, Brookfield mixed use 65,

[2:29:58] is requesting this CPA from the industrial land use designation

[2:30:02] to the residential land use designation on 19.83 acres.

[2:30:09] I'm not sure some of you may have been on the council,

[2:30:12] but previously there was another CPA done here a few years back

[2:30:20] where this was.

[2:30:21] It was the same CPA type of Amendment residential Industrial

[2:30:25] Light to residential low or excuse me

[2:30:28] industrial to residential low.

[2:30:30] So really the request here from the applicant

[2:30:33] is to do a continuation of what they've done to the East here.

[2:30:38] That is residential low.

[2:30:41] So yeah, I'll just go into the vicinity.

[2:30:45] The properties outlined here in yellow.

[2:30:48] You got 21 road over here.

[2:30:51] You got the Brookfield residential development here.

[2:30:55] This is really close to this is the last corporate limits

[2:31:00] area of town.

[2:31:02] This is where we're kind of getting to the end of our udb

[2:31:06] on the Western Northwestern area of town,

[2:31:09] and where we're a lot closer to our fruita buffer area.

[2:31:16] So here's the land use map.

[2:31:17] You have industrial low or excuse me.

[2:31:20] Industrial everywhere here.

[2:31:21] And then residential low to the North.

[2:31:25] As well as the Middle East.

[2:31:27] And, it kind of crosses this area here.

[2:31:31] So yeah.

[2:31:33] In residential low in terms of what

[2:31:37] that land use means it is lower density, larger lot residential.

[2:31:45] But if you just look to the surrounding area,

[2:31:49] you have more residential agricultural uses to the West.

[2:31:54] You have light industrial uses to the South, as well as more

[2:32:00] residential lower density uses anywhere from 2 to 5.5

[2:32:06] units there to the Middle East.

[2:32:09]

[2:32:12] In terms of implementing land use designations or excuse

[2:32:17] me, implementing zoning districts of land of that land

[2:32:19] use designation of residential low RL 4, RL 5,

[2:32:23] P1, P2, and PD would all be zoned

[2:32:27] districts that implement that.

[2:32:29] That's not really important for this part of the item,

[2:32:32] but we'll revisit that if and when we do the rezoning.

[2:32:38] So if you look at the current zoning,

[2:32:41] you can see it's RL 5 to the East

[2:32:45] and then some RL 4 to the North Northeast

[2:32:48] and then Industrial Light.

[2:32:50] Also this is more important to next portion of this.

[2:32:54] If this does move forward here are site photos.

[2:32:59] As you can see, it's largely vacant

[2:33:01] agricultural land right now.

[2:33:05] So we'll get into the meat of the analysis of this now.

[2:33:10] So to amend the comprehensive plan,

[2:33:13] here's the criterion that has to be met.

[2:33:16] The existing comprehensive plan, or any related element thereof,

[2:33:20] requires the proposed Amendment, and the community or area

[2:33:23] will derive benefits from the proposed Amendment,

[2:33:25] and/or the Amendment will be consistent with the vision,

[2:33:28] goals, principles, and policies of the comprehensive plan

[2:33:30] and elements thereof.

[2:33:32] So it's kind of similar to our rezoning criteria,

[2:33:34] but slightly different.

[2:33:36] But we'll go through this in more detail.

[2:33:38] And just to start, staff has found

[2:33:40] that the criteria has been met.

[2:33:43] But we'll discuss it more here.

[2:33:47] All right.

[2:33:47] So for the first criterion, the current industrial land use

[2:33:51] designation, just so you're aware,

[2:33:53] is implemented by zoning districts of kg, I1 and I2.

[2:33:58] But, with the residential low designation that they're asking

[2:34:03] for, it would be consistent with multiple portions

[2:34:07] of the comprehensive plan, specifically

[2:34:10] plan principle 3.1 be responsible and manage growth.

[2:34:15] This principle calls on the city to support the efficient use

[2:34:18] of existing public facilities and services,

[2:34:21] by directing development to locations

[2:34:22] where it can meet and maintain level of services targets.

[2:34:26] This is a tier 2 property, but the reason

[2:34:28] I'm mentioning that principle is just because there is already

[2:34:32] sewer and services available to that site,

[2:34:34] with the residential areas that are directly to the East,

[2:34:38] and they would really just be continuing that on.

[2:34:42] It also, the comprehensive plan also

[2:34:44] acknowledges the growing demand for housing

[2:34:46] and a limited supply of housing that we're kind

[2:34:49] of struggling with right now.

[2:34:51] And obviously, we're kind of going

[2:34:52] through the housing needs assessment stuff right now also.

[2:34:54] So that just acts as an undercurrent of all of this.

[2:34:59] But having additional housing stock,

[2:35:02] can help meet the community's long term residential needs.

[2:35:06] This is consistent with our managed growth principles,

[2:35:08] just because it aligns with land use policy and changing market

[2:35:11] and demographic conditions.

[2:35:14] A comprehensive plan Amendment is

[2:35:16] the formal or formal mechanism for evaluating

[2:35:19] whether a property should transition to a more appropriate

[2:35:21] future use with a site like this,

[2:35:25] it is adjacent to existing services.

[2:35:27] So redesignate redesignated it to residential low supports,

[2:35:31] orderly expansion rather than scattering

[2:35:34] or having inefficient development patterns.

[2:35:38] I did want to touch on just because the comprehensive plan

[2:35:40] is very supportive of preserving industrial properties,

[2:35:44] but more specifically, it's protects and preserves

[2:35:49] industrial properties and more certain established areas

[2:35:53] and with areas that have railroad access.

[2:35:56] So this property is not within an area

[2:35:58] that has railroad Spurs or special infrastructure

[2:36:02] to serve industrial properties.

[2:36:04] And in the comprehensive plan, there's even a specific h road

[2:36:08] Northwest subarea that it really encourages

[2:36:12] us to protect in the future.

[2:36:15] This area is not within that area,

[2:36:17] so staff feels like it is consistent to rezone

[2:36:21] this to a residential use.

[2:36:23] And just further if industrial is no longer

[2:36:27] viable or appropriate changing the designation

[2:36:30] to residential low can reduce future land

[2:36:33] use conflicts, especially with the site to the Middle East.

[2:36:38] It is a more consistent use with the properties that

[2:36:43] are to the North, the West and the East

[2:36:46] so it can help maintain a better neighborhood quality

[2:36:48] and promote a more predictable land use pattern.

[2:36:50] Obviously, there will still be industrial land use designations

[2:36:54] to the South, but staff kind of sees

[2:36:57] this as lessening the intensity of the uses in that area.

[2:37:02] So staff finds that this criterion has been met.

[2:37:06]

[2:37:09] Secondly, that the next criterion

[2:37:11] is that the commuter area will derive benefits

[2:37:13] from the proposed Amendment.

[2:37:16] So we touched on housing.

[2:37:18] I think that's really the largest benefit.

[2:37:21] I'll touch on it very quickly because we did already

[2:37:25] talk about it.

[2:37:27] But residential low creates the opportunity

[2:37:29] for additional housing.

[2:37:31] Is a more compatible transition between the surrounding land

[2:37:35] uses.

[2:37:37] And the properties, especially to the North,

[2:37:40] the East and the West.

[2:37:42] These types of low density residential uses

[2:37:44] are typically more consistent with the neighborhood character

[2:37:47] that you would see in that area.

[2:37:51] So lastly, just that land use plan should

[2:37:55] adapt when conditions evolve.

[2:37:57] If the site such as this is no longer optimal for industrial

[2:38:02] use.

[2:38:03] Redesignating it to residential low

[2:38:05] is certainly a use that it can still

[2:38:07] be used in a productive manner that

[2:38:10] does benefit the city with our housing shortage right now.

[2:38:14] So staff finds that the proposed comprehensive plan Amendment

[2:38:18] will benefit the community by increasing housing

[2:38:20] opportunities, promoting compatible neighborhood

[2:38:22] development, reducing potential industrial impacts,

[2:38:26] and efficiently utilizing existing infrastructure,

[2:38:30] as well as supporting long term, orderly growth.

[2:38:33] So staff finds that criterion has been met,

[2:38:37] and then lastly, that the Amendment will

[2:38:40] be consistent with the vision, goals, principles,

[2:38:42] and policies of the comprehensive policies

[2:38:43] of the comprehensive plan.

[2:38:46] So this was kind of touched on earlier mentioned planned

[2:38:50] principle 3.1b earlier and the acknowledgment

[2:38:54] of grand junction's growing housing needs.

[2:38:58] Lastly, there's also a plan, principle 5.1,

[2:39:03] which is strong neighborhoods and housing choices.

[2:39:05] This calls on the city to promote more opportunities

[2:39:08] for housing choices to meet the needs of all people,

[2:39:12] ages and incomes.

[2:39:14] So this principle also calls on the city

[2:39:16] to monitor and periodically update the land use plan

[2:39:20] to ensure the city has an adequate supply of land

[2:39:23] designated for different housing types.

[2:39:27] So staff has also found that this criterion has been met

[2:39:32] and that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan

[2:39:33] because it responds to current housing needs,

[2:39:35] promotes compatible and more cohesive land use patterns,

[2:39:38] and supports efficient use and orderly of infrastructure

[2:39:42] and orderly growth patterns.

[2:39:45] So staff finds that criterion has been met.

[2:39:49] And just in terms of our findings of fact

[2:39:52] and in accordance with section 21.0205 5 minus 0 C4 romanet.

[2:39:57] Three of the zoning and development code.

[2:39:59] The application meets the criteria

[2:40:01] identified in the comprehensive plan criteria.

[2:40:05] So the planning commission also heard this request

[2:40:09] at their April 28 meeting.

[2:40:11] And they voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval.

[2:40:14] That's all I have.

[2:40:15] Happy to answer questions.

[2:40:17] Thank you.

[2:40:20] Is the applicant here.

[2:40:21] Do you have a presentation.

[2:40:23]

[2:40:26] Good evening, council members.

[2:40:28] My name is Chris Hernandez.

[2:40:29] I'm representing the applicant this evening.

[2:40:31] We just have a quick little slide right here that we're

[2:40:36] going to just power through.

[2:40:38] Thomas has already kind of gone over everything

[2:40:39] that we have here.

[2:40:40] So he's already done a real good job explaining everything.

[2:40:46] The one thing that we did want to hit on

[2:40:48] is that we do understand the importance of the Industrial

[2:40:53] zoning and how we're keeping that industrial zoning

[2:40:56] South of the.

[2:40:58] Requested residential.

[2:41:00] And they are developing in two sections of that already.

[2:41:06] Well so here in I1 and one here, they

[2:41:16] are already having plats done to develop industrial there.

[2:41:23] And then we're just mirroring really

[2:41:25] the RL five the North section of this parcel here.

[2:41:31] And that's really all we had.

[2:41:32]

[2:41:35] Let me go ahead and read that.

[2:41:39] Read this.

[2:41:41] No, no.

[2:41:42]

[2:41:46] No sorry I'm Tracy with River City consultants.

[2:41:49] And could you speak into the microphone, please.

[2:41:51] Sorry thank you.

[2:41:51] My name is Tracy Stetson with River City consultants,

[2:41:54] and Chris here is training as a project coordinator.

[2:41:57] And so we're kind of letting him take the wheel tonight.

[2:42:00] There were some points that we wanted

[2:42:01] to make just on this sheet.

[2:42:04] I'm going to let him read it because I do have a sore tooth.

[2:42:07] So I'm going to let him go with this.

[2:42:09] And so because of the comprehensive plan priorities,

[2:42:12] the use of existing public facilities and services,

[2:42:15] this property is a target for Amendment.

[2:42:17] The property is already within the city limits

[2:42:19] and has access to sewer.

[2:42:21] There's a growing demand and limited

[2:42:22] supply of attainable housing in Grand Junction.

[2:42:25] There is limited demand for industrial development,

[2:42:29] and this Amendment would increase

[2:42:31] opportunity to create new housing

[2:42:33] and help to meet long term needs.

[2:42:35] Residential low designation is better aligned

[2:42:39] with the surrounding residential development to the East

[2:42:42] and the residential low designation to the North,

[2:42:45] and we're still preserving 14.36 acres of industrial land

[2:42:48] for development.

[2:42:49] And the applicant is committed to industrial development

[2:42:53] in this area and is currently developing

[2:42:55] the industrial properties adjacent to the East

[2:42:59] of this parcel.

[2:43:00]

[2:43:03] Thank you.

[2:43:04] OK we're available to answer any questions you might have.

[2:43:07] OK thank you.

[2:43:08] If you just want to remain there while we

[2:43:11] in case any of the Council members have a question,

[2:43:14] we will come back to council for comments or questions.

[2:43:17]

[2:43:21] The one question I have is.

[2:43:23] So when I was reviewing the packet,

[2:43:24] I did notice that the neighborhood meeting

[2:43:26] was held in October 24 of 2024.

[2:43:29] And I was just wondering why it was so long ago.

[2:43:34] Yeah, I can speak to that.

[2:43:35] So this has been an ongoing application,

[2:43:38] and we also had to do a subdivision

[2:43:41] prior to this rezone happening.

[2:43:44] So with the subdivision happening, the minor subdivision

[2:43:46] that happened to make this rezone reason possible.

[2:43:49] This has just been kind of a longer process.

[2:43:52] OK thank you.

[2:43:54] Council Member stout.

[2:43:57] Yeah I wanted to say that I will be voting yes for the Amendment

[2:44:01] because I find staff and the applicants presentations to be

[2:44:04] complete and to be compelling.

[2:44:07] And I find that all the criteria has been met.

[2:44:10] OK thank you.

[2:44:11] Are there any other questions or concerns from or questions

[2:44:14] or comments from council.

[2:44:16]

[2:44:19] OK thank you so much.

[2:44:21] You can go ahead.

[2:44:22] Have a seat and we will open the floor for public hearing.

[2:44:26] If anyone has comment that they would

[2:44:28] like to enter into the record.

[2:44:31]

[2:44:33] Seeing none, we will close the public hearing

[2:44:36] and we will move for last comments or questions

[2:44:41] from council.

[2:44:42]

[2:44:44] Seeing none, I would ask for a motion.

[2:44:46] Emotion all right.

[2:44:52] I would move to adopt ordinance number 5322,

[2:44:57] an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan

[2:45:00] for approximately 19.83 acres from

[2:45:03] industrial to residential low, located

[2:45:06] at 860 21 road on final passage and order

[2:45:10] final publication in pamphlet form.

[2:45:13] We have a motion on the floor from council member Kennedy.

[2:45:16] Is there a second.

[2:45:17] Second we have a second.

[2:45:20] I think Mayor Pro tem van Dijk got that first.

[2:45:25] So that would be our second.

[2:45:27] And celestina, if you could call roll.

[2:45:30] Council Member Stout.

[2:45:32] Yes council member van Dijk.

[2:45:35] Yes council member.

[2:45:37] Ballard yes.

[2:45:39] Council Member.

[2:45:40] Beilfuss yes.

[2:45:45] Council Member.

[2:45:46] Kennedy yes.

[2:45:48] Council Member.

[2:45:49] Nguyen yes.

[2:45:50] Mayor Lutz.

[2:45:51] Yes The motion passes 7 to 0, and we

[2:45:56] will move to our next ordinance, which is an ordinance rezoning

[2:46:00] approximately 19.83 acres from Industrial Light

[2:46:04] L1 to residential low five RL 5, located

[2:46:08] on lot two of monument vista subdivision

[2:46:10] at eight 6021 road and Thomas.

[2:46:14] Go ahead.

[2:46:15] We'll kick it back to you.

[2:46:17] Sure yeah, I'll try to shorten this a bit.

[2:46:19] Won't be quite as verbose.

[2:46:20] I can read the room a little bit.

[2:46:23] So this request is from Industrial

[2:46:27] Light to residential low five.

[2:46:31] So it's the same site we just talked about.

[2:46:34] And if you just look at the current zoning

[2:46:35] it is I1 right now.

[2:46:38] And then to the East is the RL four the RL and

[2:46:42] as well as the RL five.

[2:46:44] And then more industrial load to the South and Southeast.

[2:46:47]

[2:46:50] All right.

[2:46:51] So we'll get into our analysis.

[2:46:53] Really a lot of the consistency and comprehensive plan elements

[2:46:56] are very similar to the last one.

[2:46:58] So rather than getting in too much detail

[2:47:00] I'll just hit on some of the principles.

[2:47:03] So the first thing we got to discuss when we're looking

[2:47:05] at a rezoning, consider when we're

[2:47:07] looking at rezoning is that it's generally

[2:47:08] consistent with the applicable provisions

[2:47:10] of the comprehensive plan.

[2:47:12] So you all just amended the comprehensive plan

[2:47:15] for it to be consistent with the future land use map.

[2:47:18] So that area does have a residential low designation now.

[2:47:23] And, our L5, what they're requesting

[2:47:26] is an implementing zoning district of residential low.

[2:47:30] So we touched on responsible and managed growth policies,

[2:47:35] to support the efficient use of existing facilities

[2:47:38] and services.

[2:47:39] This area is supported by that.

[2:47:43] Obviously, the comprehensive plan acknowledges

[2:47:45] the growing demand for housing.

[2:47:48] So rezoning area from I1 to RL five

[2:47:52] increases opportunities for new housing

[2:47:54] stock in terms of strong neighborhoods

[2:47:57] and housing choices.

[2:47:59] It calls on the city to monitor and periodically update its land

[2:48:02] use plan and zoning to ensure that the city has

[2:48:05] an adequate supply of land for housing.

[2:48:08] So it checks that box as well, so just to summarize,

[2:48:15] it's consistent with the vision, goals, principles,

[2:48:16] and policies of the Comp plan because it responds

[2:48:19] to current housing needs.

[2:48:21] It promotes compatible and cohesive land use patterns.

[2:48:25] It supports the efficient use of infrastructure,

[2:48:27] and it advances orderly growth and community livability.

[2:48:32] So staff finds that criterion has been met.

[2:48:36] Second, we have development patterns, and that the proposed

[2:48:39] zoning will result in logical and orderly development

[2:48:41] patterns.

[2:48:43] So a rezone from r I1 to R5 results in a logical and orderly

[2:48:48] development pattern because it aligns the subject property

[2:48:51] with the established pattern that is directly to the East as

[2:48:55] well as the North, so it creates a more coherent transition

[2:48:59] of land uses.

[2:49:01] It's already bordered by residential zoning

[2:49:04] to the Northeast and the West.

[2:49:06] So RL five it's just a logical extension of that with the I-1

[2:49:12] zoning to the South, you RL 5 can

[2:49:15] serve as a transitional district between the more intense

[2:49:18] industrial activity to the South and then the more ag

[2:49:21] uses to the North.

[2:49:23] I did just wanted to make sure everybody was aware that we do

[2:49:26] have residential compatibility standards

[2:49:29] between industrial properties and residential properties.

[2:49:33] So any industrial property that does develop to the South

[2:49:36] if it develops to the South, you we'll

[2:49:39] have to have adequate buffers and screening,

[2:49:43] where it is adjacent to industrial property.

[2:49:47] So I just wanted to make sure that was clear in case there

[2:49:49] were any questions about that.

[2:49:51] But lastly, residential zoning uses allowed in RL 5 being two

[2:49:58] or I guess minimum of 2, maximum or no, it's a minimum of three,

[2:50:02] maximum of 5 and 1/2.

[2:50:03] Dwelling units better match the established neighborhood context

[2:50:07] and reduce future conflicts between adjoining properties.

[2:50:10] This rezone provides an appropriate transition.

[2:50:13] It supports infill development and promotes

[2:50:15] a more cohesive and compatible land use pattern.

[2:50:19] So staff finds that criterion has been met.

[2:50:22] And then lastly benefits.

[2:50:24] We talked about this at the last item in the CPA.

[2:50:27] Resigned from IO to RL 5, can help the community

[2:50:30] and surrounding land area derive meaningful benefits

[2:50:34] by aligning zoning with our current community needs,

[2:50:37] one of our main ones being additional housing

[2:50:41] and improving neighborhood compatibility

[2:50:43] and long term growth.

[2:50:45] So staff also finds this criterion has been met.

[2:50:48] I'm not going to get as much into these details

[2:50:50] just because I think they've already been stated

[2:50:52] and they are in the staff report for the record.

[2:50:56] So lastly, findings of fact in accordance with section 21.0205

[2:51:01] M3 remnant, two of the zoning and development code, staff

[2:51:05] has found that this application meets the criteria identified

[2:51:08] in the rezoning criteria, and the planning

[2:51:11] commission also recommended approval of this 7 to 0.

[2:51:16] That concludes my presentation.

[2:51:18] Happy to answer any questions.

[2:51:19] OK thank you.

[2:51:21] With the applicant.

[2:51:22] Like to add to that.

[2:51:24] Good evening again.

[2:51:25] My name is Chris Hernandez.

[2:51:27] I'm with River City consultants and just available to answer

[2:51:30] any questions if there was any.

[2:51:32] And with that, is there any council comments or questions.

[2:51:38]

[2:51:41] If you'll go ahead and have a seat and then

[2:51:43] we will open the public hearing.

[2:51:47] If anyone has any comment.

[2:51:50] Seeing none, we will close the public hearing

[2:51:53] and return to council for comments or questions.

[2:51:56]

[2:51:59] Seeing none, I would ask for a motion.

[2:52:02] I move to adopt ordinance number 5323, an ordinance rezoning

[2:52:06] approximately 19.83 acres from light industrial I-1

[2:52:11] to residential low five RL 5, located

[2:52:14] on lot two of the monument vista subdivision

[2:52:17] at eight 6021 road on final passage, in order.

[2:52:20] Final publication in pamphlet form.

[2:52:23] We have a motion on the floor from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.

[2:52:26] Do we have a second.

[2:52:28] Second We have a second from council member Nguyen.

[2:52:31] And so if you could call the roll.

[2:52:34] Council Member van Dijk.

[2:52:36] Yes council member.

[2:52:38] Ballard yes.

[2:52:40] Council Member.

[2:52:41] Beilfuss yes.

[2:52:43] Council Member.

[2:52:44] Kennedy yes.

[2:52:46] Council Member.

[2:52:47] Nguyen yes.

[2:52:49] Council Member.

[2:52:50] Stoute yes.

[2:52:53] Mayor Lutz.

[2:52:54] Yes The motion passes 7 to 0.

[2:52:59] And just a quick reminder, council member beilfuss,

[2:53:03] if you can use your microphone.

[2:53:04] Because just when I'm watching remote or not here,

[2:53:08] it's very hard to hear.

[2:53:09] So if you could do that.

[2:53:11] Thank you.

[2:53:12] OK next.

[2:53:15] Are we doing OK still.

[2:53:16] Everybody OK.

[2:53:18] We're going to discuss an ordinance

[2:53:20] to vacate the Eastern 15 feet of 24.25 road

[2:53:24] public right of way between Canyon view park

[2:53:26] and 2426 grams road.

[2:53:28] We have a staff presentation from associate planner Sam

[2:53:34] wubbels.

[2:53:36] Did I say that correct.

[2:53:38] You did.

[2:53:38] Thank you.

[2:53:39]

[2:53:43] Thank you.

[2:53:43] Mayor good evening.

[2:53:44] Members of the Council and members of the public.

[2:53:47] As stated, my name is Sam wubbels,

[2:53:48] associate planner with the Community

[2:53:49] Development Department.

[2:53:51] This presentation regards a request by 2426 grams road,

[2:53:55] LLC to vacate the Eastern 15 feet of the 24.25 road

[2:54:00] public right of way between Canyon view park

[2:54:02] and 2426 grams road.

[2:54:05] The subject properties are located along the Eastern 15,

[2:54:08] along 24.25 road and g road.

[2:54:11] The city and applicant came to an agreement

[2:54:13] to perform a land exchange in which the applicant,

[2:54:16] the applicant will receive the Eastern 15 along 24.25 road,

[2:54:20] and the city will receive right of way

[2:54:22] along g road, which supports the circulation plan to where

[2:54:25] the road is brought up to standards

[2:54:26] and provided a detached sidewalk in the future.

[2:54:29] The site map in front of you highlights the right of way that

[2:54:31] will be in the land exchange.

[2:54:34] The surrounding properties are currently

[2:54:36] zoned P2, Rm 12 LHRH 24, mu2, and PD all

[2:54:41] lying within the 24 road corridor.

[2:54:43] Design standards.

[2:54:46] Pursuant to Section 21 two 0.50 pounds of the zoning

[2:54:50] and development code.

[2:54:51] Request for a vacation of public right of way

[2:54:54] shall demonstrate conformance with the following review

[2:54:56] criteria as identified on this and following slides.

[2:54:59] Specific discussion and detail regarding

[2:55:01] these individual review criteria for the vacation request

[2:55:04] can be found and identified within the staff report.

[2:55:08] Looking at review criteria number one,

[2:55:10] the request does not conflict with the comprehensive plan

[2:55:13] or the Grand Junction circulation plan.

[2:55:15] Further, the vacation request is consistent

[2:55:17] with the following goals and policies

[2:55:19] of the comprehensive plan.

[2:55:20] Plan principle three responsible and manage growth plan.

[2:55:23] Principle five strong neighborhoods

[2:55:25] and housing choices.

[2:55:26] Policy one promote more opportunities

[2:55:28] for housing choices that meets the needs of people of all ages,

[2:55:31] abilities, and incomes.

[2:55:33] Policy two encourage infill and redevelopment to leverage

[2:55:36] existing infrastructure.

[2:55:37] And lastly, policy four maintain and build infrastructure that

[2:55:40] supports urban development.

[2:55:44] Looking at review criteria number 2,

[2:55:46] the New subdivision will have access from G road,

[2:55:48] with new streets being constructed

[2:55:49] inside the subject property for the subdivision development.

[2:55:52] The vacation will not landlock any property.

[2:55:55] Review criteria number three access

[2:55:57] will not be restricted with required conditions.

[2:56:01] Additionally, because the parcel does not

[2:56:02] rely on the unconstructed 24.25 road right of way for ingress

[2:56:06] or egress, the proposed vacation will

[2:56:08] not reduce or devalue the property

[2:56:10] or any adjacent properties.

[2:56:13] Review criteria number four the proposed

[2:56:16] vacation will not negatively affect public health, safety,

[2:56:19] or welfare.

[2:56:20] The right of way is unbuilt and unused, and access via G road

[2:56:23] remains adequate for emergency services.

[2:56:26] Review criteria number five.

[2:56:28] The vacation will not impact public facilities or services.

[2:56:31] A private irrigation line that conveys wastewater

[2:56:33] for the subject property is located within the right

[2:56:36] of way area proposed for vacation, because this line

[2:56:39] serves only the subject parcel.

[2:56:41] This function will not be impaired by the vacation

[2:56:43] and will remain the responsibility

[2:56:44] of the property owner.

[2:56:47] Lastly, review criteria number six.

[2:56:50] The proposed vacation will not hinder public or city functions.

[2:56:53] The city the right of way, has not been constructed

[2:56:55] and is not utilized.

[2:56:57] Upon vacation, the property will revert to private ownership.

[2:57:01] The proposed vacation is part of a land exchange between the city

[2:57:04] and the applicant.

[2:57:05] Through this exchange, the applicant

[2:57:06] will acquire the vacated right of way

[2:57:08] and the city will obtain additional right of way

[2:57:10] along g road.

[2:57:11] The acquisition of right of way along g road

[2:57:12] supports the city's transportation network and

[2:57:14] public infrastructure needs.

[2:57:17] After reviewing the 2426 grams road public right of way,

[2:57:20] vacation file number vac 2025 202.

[2:57:25] Located between Canyon view park and 2426 grams

[2:57:27] road, the following findings of fact,

[2:57:29] have been made with the recommendation

[2:57:31] with the recommended condition of approval

[2:57:33] that can be seen on the screen.

[2:57:35] The request with the following conditions,

[2:57:37] conforms with section 21 two 0.50 pounds of the zoning

[2:57:40] and development code.

[2:57:42] Therefore, staff recommends approval and the planning

[2:57:44] commission at the April 28 hearing

[2:57:46] recommends approval with a 7 0 vote.

[2:57:48] Other requested right of way.

[2:57:50] This concludes my presentation.

[2:57:51] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:57:53] Thank you.

[2:57:54] Is there any questions now.

[2:57:57] Is the applicant here all right Yes it's me again.

[2:58:03] Hello Chris Hernandez.

[2:58:04] Welcome back River City consultants.

[2:58:06] Yeah just available for any questions OK.

[2:58:09] Great are there any council comments

[2:58:11] or questions at this time.

[2:58:12]

[2:58:15] OK thank you so much.

[2:58:17] Thank you.

[2:58:17] Have a seat.

[2:58:18] We will go ahead and open the public hearing

[2:58:20] if anyone has comments.

[2:58:23] OK, I'm seeing no one.

[2:58:26] So we will close the public hearing

[2:58:28] and return to council for any additional comments

[2:58:31] or questions.

[2:58:34] Hearing none, I would ask for a motion.

[2:58:38] I move to adopt ordinance number 5324,

[2:58:41] an ordinance vacating the Eastern 15 feet of 24.25 road

[2:58:45] public right of way between Canyon

[2:58:47] view park and 2426 grams road on final passage,

[2:58:51] in order of final publication in pamphlet form.

[2:58:53] We have a motion on the floor from council member Nguyen.

[2:58:56] Do we have a second.

[2:58:57] Second We have a second from council

[2:58:59] member Kennedy and celestina.

[2:59:02] If you could call roll.

[2:59:05] Council Member.

[2:59:05] Ballard yes.

[2:59:08] Council Member.

[2:59:09] Yes council member.

[2:59:12] Kennedy yes.

[2:59:14] Council Member.

[2:59:14] Nguyen yes.

[2:59:16] Council Member.

[2:59:17] Stoute yes.

[2:59:19] Council Member Van Dyke.

[2:59:21] Yes mayor.

[2:59:22] Lutz yes.

[2:59:23] The motion passes 7 to 0, and we will now move to number 6

[2:59:29] on our agenda procurements.

[2:59:33] And this is to authorize a contract

[2:59:35] for water treatment plant South tank, interior road recoding.

[2:59:40] And we have a staff presentation from interim utilities

[2:59:43] director Ashley ferl who waited all night to present.

[2:59:48] So thank you.

[2:59:48]

[2:59:54] Thank you for having me.

[2:59:57] Good evening.

[2:59:58] Council I'm Ashley Farrell, I'm the interim utilities director.

[3:00:16] And this is a presentation regarding the contract

[3:00:21] to award the interior recoding for the city's

[3:00:25] water treatment plant, South water storage tank.

[3:00:29]

[3:00:38] So this is a partial diagram of the water treatment process.

[3:00:45] Two four million gallon tanks store

[3:00:47] treated water that is distributed

[3:00:50] to the system and the community, but they are also

[3:00:55] part of the treatment process because they allow

[3:00:58] for the contact time or residence

[3:01:00] time necessary to ensure adequate disinfection

[3:01:04] per regulations.

[3:01:06] So water demand can quadruple in the summer,

[3:01:10] requiring that both tanks stay online

[3:01:12] and operate in sequence so that contact time is maintained,

[3:01:17] unlike cure in place pipe projects

[3:01:21] where environmental conditions like temperature,

[3:01:24] humidity, and precipitation can be more

[3:01:27] easily controlled underground.

[3:01:29] A large coating project like this on a steel tank

[3:01:32] is a much more intensive process.

[3:01:35] The existing coating has to be stripped from every surface,

[3:01:39] and then the raw steel has to be prepped

[3:01:42] for a primer coat, which can involve spot repairs, welding

[3:01:46] and rust removal.

[3:01:48] The primer coat and all subsequent coats

[3:01:51] should be allowed to cure in moderate ambient temperatures

[3:01:54] and normal humidity, ideally without large fluctuations in

[3:01:59] temperature whenever possible.

[3:02:01] So, since the steel tank is so large, 170 in diameter,

[3:02:06] 25 feet tall in the walls, it's really not

[3:02:10] feasible to heat the interior of the tank during this project

[3:02:14] if we were to hit really bad weather conditions.

[3:02:17]

[3:02:20] So the storage tank rule is a state regulation, initially

[3:02:25] enacted in 2016 and updated in 2021 with policies

[3:02:30] to clarify certain aspects, including what constitutes

[3:02:34] a sanitary defect and requiring certain qualifications

[3:02:38] for personnel that perform certain inspection methods,

[3:02:42] including diving into tanks, which

[3:02:45] is how our tanks are inspected.

[3:02:48] They're required to be performed by these skilled set of divers

[3:02:53] that are experienced very specifically with this kind

[3:02:56] of work to do these inspections, these guys are completely

[3:03:00] disinfected before they enter our tanks,

[3:03:02] and we're able to have video and photographs taken of all

[3:03:06] the interior surfaces without having to take the tank offline,

[3:03:10] which is a really advantageous.

[3:03:14] As you can see, there's some photos here from the inspection

[3:03:17] where we identified this peeling on the ceiling

[3:03:23] and on the interior posts as critical sanitary defects.

[3:03:28] So once those are identified as critical defects,

[3:03:33] the storage tank rule requires that we should establish

[3:03:38] a corrective action plan to address

[3:03:41] them in the South water tank.

[3:03:43]

[3:03:46] We needed to address those pretty much immediately.

[3:03:50] And we're making an attempt to do that.

[3:03:54] We wanted to do that last year, but this year

[3:03:58] is the best that we can do.

[3:04:00] So that's what the regulation requires us to do.

[3:04:03]

[3:04:08] So the project timeline.

[3:04:12] We identified these critical defects in fall of 2024,

[3:04:18] and then in the first quarter of this year,

[3:04:21] we specified the project scope with the work

[3:04:25] breakdown and the coding type.

[3:04:28] The IFB invitation for bids closed on March 4,

[3:04:33] and after that date, the contractors guarantee

[3:04:37] their prices for 60 days.

[3:04:41] Now, in the second quarter of 2026,

[3:04:45] we have asked for an extended guarantee one time 30 days

[3:04:51] from the contractor that we intended to award the bid to

[3:04:58] or rather had the lowest price on the IFB

[3:05:04] per procurement policies, the city

[3:05:07] performed additional due diligence,

[3:05:10] including checking references and checking

[3:05:14] contractual requirements.

[3:05:17] And doing some research on how we could

[3:05:20] include those into the final contract.

[3:05:25] So due to the constraints of our corrective action plan

[3:05:31] and the weather and demand in the summertime needing

[3:05:36] to keep those tanks online, we really have

[3:05:39] to take those tanks offline.

[3:05:41] The day after Labor Day, mobilize

[3:05:43] the contractor immediately.

[3:05:45] They have approximately 94 days to complete that project,

[3:05:51] and then we can close the corrective action plan

[3:05:56] and call the tanks sanitary defect free.

[3:06:01] Finally funding for this project is included in the 2026 water

[3:06:10] enterprise fund adopted budget already,

[3:06:15] and that is a picture of the empty water

[3:06:17] tank, which is actually really cool to be inside of.

[3:06:21] It's very large.

[3:06:23] If now I will see any questions.

[3:06:26] Thank you.

[3:06:27] Thank you very much.

[3:06:29] So with that, we'll return to council

[3:06:31] for comments or questions.

[3:06:32] Council Member Kennedy go ahead.

[3:06:34] Thank you.

[3:06:34] Thank you Ashley.

[3:06:35] Thank you for that presentation.

[3:06:37] And my sincere appreciation to staff

[3:06:39] for doing the extra due diligence that we asked for.

[3:06:42] And it's more than satisfies all my concerns and I

[3:06:45] and there was a lot of additional information

[3:06:48] in the packet.

[3:06:48] And I thank you for doing that.

[3:06:50] And I didn't mean to make to add the extra work.

[3:06:54] I know you're already very busy, so thank you.

[3:06:56] I also just as a side note, I mean, again, very supportive

[3:07:01] of the staff recommendation.

[3:07:02] No hesitation on supporting that tonight.

[3:07:05] But just going forward, I think for the sake of that in the best

[3:07:09] interest of the city, part of the way council

[3:07:11] makes that decision.

[3:07:13] Just for the broader discussion with council at some point,

[3:07:16] I do like the idea of a local preference policy.

[3:07:20] And I know that's not in place now

[3:07:21] and that's not what we're talking about here.

[3:07:23] But I do see that as being preferable.

[3:07:27] But just to keep money in the local market

[3:07:30] and employing local people every chance that we can.

[3:07:35] That said, you certainly satisfied

[3:07:37] the due diligence here.

[3:07:38] Thank you for that.

[3:07:40] Any other questions or comments.

[3:07:46] OK hearing none let's see.

[3:07:50] We will open OK.

[3:07:52] So we are not going to have comment on this

[3:07:54] because it is not a hearing.

[3:07:58] We will go ahead and ask for a motion.

[3:08:02] I moved to authorize the city purchasing division to enter

[3:08:05] into a contract with mandros painting incorporated of Rock

[3:08:08] Springs, Wyoming for the WT South

[3:08:11] tank interior recording project in the amount of $821,300.

[3:08:19] OK, we have a motion on the floor from council member win.

[3:08:21] Do we have a second.

[3:08:22] Second We have a second from council member Kennedy.

[3:08:27] And we do not need to do roll call for this one.

[3:08:31] We do.

[3:08:31] Oh, OK.

[3:08:33] So all in favor.

[3:08:35] Hi Any opposed.

[3:08:41] The motion passes 7 to 0.

[3:08:45] And we will now move to non-scheduled comments.

[3:08:49] This is an opportunity for individuals

[3:08:51] to speak to city council about items on tonight's agenda.

[3:08:54] And time may be used to address city

[3:08:55] council items that were discussed at a previous city

[3:08:58] council workshop.

[3:08:59] Do we have anyone that has a non-scheduled comment.

[3:09:04] OK hearing none, we would move to other business.

[3:09:07] Does anyone have other business.

[3:09:09] Yeah I just have one quick thing.

[3:09:11] I want to extend a very sincere thank you

[3:09:15] to Councilman beilfuss, who reached out to me today and was

[3:09:19] generous enough to let me take the lead with the business

[3:09:23] incubator role as well as the Riverview

[3:09:26] Technology Corporation.

[3:09:28] And just I truly do appreciate that.

[3:09:30] And Scott's going to stay on as a backup on it as well.

[3:09:35] So we'll be working together with the BIC and Riverview tech.

[3:09:38] So thank you very much Scott.

[3:09:40] I do truly appreciate it.

[3:09:43] Thank you.

[3:09:44] Any other business.

[3:09:48] Is it bedtime.

[3:09:50] I think so.

[3:09:51] OK with that, we are adjourned.

[3:09:53]

[3:09:56] Oh, yeah.

[3:09:58]

City Council - 2026 - May 20 - Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript