We're just.
Council Member.
Ballard, this is Celestino.
Would you like to do a sound check.
I'm here.
Can you hear me.
I can hear you.
Thank you so much.
Council Member stout, would you like to do a sound check.
Sound check check, check.
Just calling in and.
All right.
It is 5:30 and we will bring the May
city council meeting to order.
And with that, we will go ahead and stand
for the Pledge of Allegiance in a moment of silence.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands.
One nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
You may be seated.
OK Mr. Up here.
OK we're just waiting for the screens to finish.
As we are going to kick off our evening with a presentation
from the business incubator center,
and we have chief executive officer delita here to present.
There she is.
She just walked in.
Walked right up.
Yeah perfect timing.
Are you ready.
All right.
Good evening, everyone, and thank you for having me here.
It's hard to find parking today.
I'm looking at everyone here, but I'm really happy to be here
and to do three things today.
Start with a presentation about the business incubator
and what we have done in this past year,
and also celebrate 40 years together
of partnership, and then share with you
a recognition that puts the business incubator
center in Grand Junction on the global map of entrepreneurship.
I'm the CEO of the business incubator center.
Thank you for having me.
So this year, the big turns 40 and our theme
has been ever since we started rooting.
We want to talk about how we are able to help through this vision
that the Grand Junction, City of Grand Junction and the people
of Grand Junction set in place 40 years ago to help businesses
root in our community and transform this amazing place
that we all call home.
I want to acknowledge that the business incubator center
would not have existed without the city
of Grand Junction support.
As a matter of fact, since our founding in 1986,
the city of Grand Junction was with us
as a founding board member, and we're
very proud of this partnership.
Another quick note on the history the city of Grand
Junction played a pivotal role.
This partnership has run uninterrupted over 40 years,
and the mission has always remained the same
over these years, helping small businesses take root, grow,
scale and start in our communities
so they can stay here so they can create opportunities
and so they can transform and grow our city together.
So it's a chance for us to come together in this year
and celebrate what that vision has meant
and how it is transforming our communities for many years
to come.
We believe that our entrepreneurial infrastructure
is strong in our community, and this
is built because the community wanted to see a future here,
and that we are able to diversify the economy together
because we want to see sustainability
happen at every level.
So we're very happy to do this work in partnership.
So how do we do it.
The book operates through these five pillars that you see here.
That's how we deliver our programs and mission
on a day to day basis.
First with business development.
That's where basically our SBDC and business development team
sits, as well as our Camino Al éxito
Spanish language entrepreneurial support program.
This is where the coaching and mentorship and the training
happens for all the entrepreneurs.
Second, our space and tools, which is the facility itself,
the spaces that incentivize opportunities for entrepreneurs
to start and launch and help operate their businesses
from specialized tools.
Third, business funding and loans.
Getting the important capital in entrepreneurs
hands so that they can continue investing in hiring people
and building facilities and making sure
that their businesses can grow.
For with the grants and incentives,
this is where mainly the enterprise zone, the state tax
incentive lives and other incentives so we can help
our community holistically reinvest those taxes
into our communities.
And then innovation and labs with the makerspace
as a prototyping facility that allows innovation to thrive
and people to be able to take their ideas
from idea to commercialization.
So these five pillars is what makes BIC
a true one stop shop, where you can see the hub
for Entrepreneurship thriving.
By having our arms wrapped around the entrepreneurs
and their ideas to make sure that they
are able to sustain and thrive beyond the Five Pillars
that you just saw.
We also advanced targeted initiatives
that address specific emerging opportunities for our region.
Sometimes these are gaps in the regional economy,
and sometimes these are areas that we strategically approach
in order to make sure that we can see acceleration
for business activity.
And these efforts, they can focus
on sectors and sometimes regional areas
or specialized attention.
And we do this work together with public partners,
stakeholders, federal and local government partners,
because the bics mission is to strengthen
the key economic pillars in our communities
in order to see that diversification happen.
So currently, three initiatives at the BIC and the first one
focusing on sustainability with agro West and the future of AG
in our communities.
The second one, Camino Al éxito, which means path
to success in Spanish, which delivers our resources
to Spanish speaking founders.
And then the third one is circular economy Development
Center, which is a partnership with CDP
in order to support markets and systems, to reduce waste
and to create new economic value for small businesses.
This is something I'm very, very proud to show you here.
Our partnership creates amazing impact for our community
and this is how it translates on the ground.
In 2025 alone, we have served 647 entrepreneurs.
We have helped 112 of them launched through our campus,
and we supported the creation of 393 new jobs.
We were able to deploy directly $6.25 million
in dollars to help entrepreneurs buy tools and form assets.
Together, these entrepreneurs were
able to generate 12.3 million in New dollars to our community.
And those are families that are able to create paychecks
and storefronts and generate the tax base that we all appreciate.
These numbers compound year over year because
of that infrastructure that delivers these activities
and these services and the support
that sustains year over year.
Our overall time impact figures show
that BIC is the engine that creates a lot of the support
that our community needs.
We have so far helped 35% of all Mesa County businesses,
and we have helped create thousands of jobs year over year
since our founding.
Something I'm very proud of is the number 3.29 billion.
That's how much was created in capital
investments in our community.
And these are direct effect.
We are able to tell you exactly where
these investments happened.
For each dollar invested in BC, for each public dollars invested
in BC, we have generated $346 in direct economic impact
in return, which have helped contribute
to the growth of our city and region together.
Now, one of the big wins of this past year
is one of the big projects that is a state tax
incentive, the enterprise zone, and it was up for redesignation.
So we led the analysis application
and the approval process with the state's
economic Development Office.
And we worked strategically to make sure
that the majority of the zone remains within Mesa County,
allowing businesses to generate a lot of those credits
that they are able to reinvest in our communities.
However, initially, some areas, including downtown,
fell off the map.
We were able to approve further a grandfathering process
to help these businesses downtown to remain
in the zone for 10 years.
But this is where the work that the BIC team has done diligently
creates a ripple effect.
We went back and looked at our track data and generated a case,
and we submitted that request to our edit,
and we were able to include all of downtown of the city
of Grand Junction into the map.
I'm happy to share that today we are
successfully back in the zone.
So majority of Mesa County small businesses
can continue enjoying this amazing tax
credit for the next 10 years.
In 2024 5, we were honored to also receive
two amazing visits from Senator Hickenlooper and Governor Polis.
At their request, they wanted to come tour the back, meet
with entrepreneurs, and discuss pressing matters
to small businesses that they might be able to help solve,
or they needed to learn more about.
And we're happy to be able to facilitate
these kind of direct lines between entrepreneurs,
small businesses and emerging industry leaders
and partners with our policy makers.
In 2025, we also launched an ACT study.
We partnered with CMU to create an economic impact study for AG
in our communities, and we chose five counties
to generate this study.
The findings will help us generate policies.
It will give us a clearer picture, a data driven picture
of where we are today and where are the pain points
that we need to focus on.
This is in hope that this study will
help create solutions to help sustain an industry
for generations to come.
If anyone wants to read the full study,
it's on our website incubator.org.
Feel free to grab that study or just walk into the incubator
and we'll be happy to hand you one.
This is the QR code for our most recent annual report
that I hope you have with you.
And there are some amazing success
stories we are not able to share all 647 in our annual report,
but.
So we picked six of them to share with you.
Please find the annual report on our website
and read those amazing stories.
Yes, that is the rec center in picture number two.
And yes, those are big clients that are helping build it.
So we're very happy and proud to see this partnership create
a compounding ripple effect.
And earlier this year, BIC received the 2026 mbia
Dinah Atkins Randall award.
The International business innovation association has won
top recognition a year to give.
And that recognition was given to the business incubator center
as the best incubator in the world.
It was selected out of more than 1,200
incubators from 33 countries.
Reese and what this means for our community,
that we have entrepreneurs that are worthy of our service,
and we are extremely proud to be here
to help support our community in a meaningful way
that we are able to do.
This also means that the world is looking up to our communities
for the creative solutions that we're
able to help, and the partnership and the models
that we can generate together.
So we see this as a benchmark and as a start for us
to be able to continue growing our community together.
If possible, to do a plug and invite everyone
to our 40th anniversary kickoff at ramble
bean on June four at 4:00 PM.
We're hoping to toast together this partnership
and to celebrate our entrepreneurs
from our communities, and to also
continue this impactful, meaningful work
to help people root in our communities further.
I'm happy to field any questions you have and I'd love to see you
all there on June 4 and to celebrate our 40th
year together this year.
Thank you so much for 40 years of partnership
and looking forward to 40 more.
Thank you so much.
I just want to say thank you to Lita.
The work that you and the business incubator center do
is amazing, and you can see it throughout our entire community.
And thank you so much.
And I see a lot of you are here today.
So thank you for being here.
And it's really exciting that we have this partnership.
And you look like you were leaning in.
I think we have some other yeah, I just
want to say thank you as well to Lita,
the board, all staff members.
The effect that you have on our community is truly incredible.
The business incubator is the American dream.
It's that path forward, that path to success,
that opportunity that we don't all have.
And I think she's understated it a little bit the best business
incubator in the world.
I mean, what an incredible award to receive.
That was also up against business
incubators that had substantial funding
within the tech industry.
So this is it's really, truly a pretty amazing accomplishment.
So thank you so much to Dalida and the team and the board.
You guys are all pretty incredible.
And I just wanted to Ben and I co sit on the board for the city
and it's an amazing board.
So if they're the number one incubator
they're the number one board in the world
to by my measure right.
Kathy agrees.
And number one staff I mean I've known several
of the staff for a long time.
They're there.
Awesome small, small segue sat next to Diana Connor
yesterday, who is the owner of must love seniors,
and she was at the Chamber breakfast yesterday,
and I don't know how we got talking about this,
but she said I wouldn't be in business
if it wasn't for the incubator.
She goes to everything the incubator puts on,
and she now supplies 126 assisted
living beds in our community, mostly for Medicaid people.
And, the value from that is just unfathomable.
So it was a great story yesterday.
Congratulations to all you guys.
We really appreciate you a lot.
OK with that, we are going to move into proclamations.
And before we do that, I did want
to just note that we have council member stout
and Ballard are attending remotely.
Council Member stout will be joining us in person shortly.
She's on her way and remote until then.
And with that, we'll move into proclamations.
And our only one tonight is proclaiming may 17th
through the 23rd as national EMS week
in the city of Grand Junction.
And it will be read by Council Member Nguyen
and received by EMS chief division Chief Mark McIntyre.
City of Grand Junction.
State of Colorado.
Proclamation whereas this year, as we recognize the 52nd
anniversary of the first national EMS week,
we honor those who came before us,
especially those who challenged the status quo and raised
the bar for all of us.
And whereas the member of the members
of emergency medical services teams
are ready to go beyond the call to provide
life saving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days
a week.
And whereas access to quality emergency medical emergency care
dramatically improves the survival
and recovery rate of those who experience
sudden illness or injury.
And whereas emergency medical service providers have
traditionally served as the safety net of America's health
systems, and whereas emergency medical service teams consist
of emergency medical technicians, paramedics,
firefighters, dispatchers, Emergency Nurses, emergency
physicians, and others.
And whereas the members of emergency medical service teams
engage in thousands of hours of specialized
training and continuing education to enhance
their lifesaving skills.
And whereas the community of Grand Junction
benefits daily from the knowledge, skills,
and selfless service of these highly trained individuals,
and whereas it is appropriate to recognize
the value and the accomplishments of emergency
medical service providers by recognizing emergency
medical Services Week.
Now, therefore, on behalf of the Grand Junction City council
and community members of Grand Junction,
we recognize the week of May 17 through May 23, 2026
as emergency medical Services week
in the city of Grand Junction and encourage the community
to observe this week with appropriate programs,
ceremonies and activities.
Thank you.
My name is Mark McIntyre.
I'm the EMS Division Chief here at the Department.
With me tonight is Deputy Chief Gus Hendrix.
And we would like to thank you for recognizing
the efforts of our EMS crews.
As you all EMS is by far the busiest division on the fire
department, accounting for approximately 80%
of our call volume.
Despite the challenges call volume creates,
our crews respond to every call with an extremely high level
of skill and professionalism.
This year, through your support, the Department was able to move
EMS staff to the 4896 schedule.
We also started transitioning our fleet to 4x4 diesel
ambulances and were able to send five additional providers
to paramedic school, which almost
brings us up to our paramedic goal of 60 for the Department.
In addition, the Department added a new community
paramedic program in an effort to start proactively
addressing the call volume.
I'm happy to report tonight that even in the short time frame,
the program has been in service.
We have seen a decrease of 911 utilization of enrolled patients
by between 60 and 100% and an overall EMS call volume
decrease of about 1% to date.
Now, that doesn't sound like a lot on paper,
but considering our usual EMS goes up by about 5.4%
every year, decreasing is.
One is a pretty big task for us.
So we're very excited about how it's
been going for the short time.
So all of these things that we have accomplished
were 100% possible due to the support you have shown our EMS
division over this last year.
So thank you for your support and thank you
very much for this recognition.
Thank you.
OK with that, we will be moving into public comments.
Individuals may comment about any topic
except those listed on the regular agenda
under the public hearing section.
Speakers will have three minutes to make comments,
and when seconds remain will see the yellow light
and hear a beep.
Once your time is up, you will see the red light
and you will hear continuous beeps.
We do ask that everyone be respectful.
No laughing or booing or cheering
as people are making their comments
and that we're just being respectful of one another.
And to start off, we have Tammy powers, crystal
frost, and Kristen Seidel.
Where is it.
This one.
OK Hi, my name is Tammy powers.
I moved to Grand Junction about seven months ago.
I absolutely love it here.
I'm a positive energy.
Figure out solutions.
Stop disagreeing about problems type of person.
I arrived here from San Francisco,
where I lived for 15 years.
I owned a bicycle shop, was a member of the San Francisco San
Francisco bicycle coalition, and due to my bike shop
being on Treasure Island, often attended
meetings for the Transbay Joint Powers authority.
Before that, I lived in Boulder, Colorado for 17 years.
I owned a bicycle shop, was involved
in the Boulder off-road alliance,
and often attended City council meetings.
Before that, I bicycled by myself around the entire United
States.
In 1992, I paddled from California
to Cape Cod, down to Key West, then back to California.
I'm active in any community I live in.
I have already attended a Grand Junction City council workshop.
It was about a month ago and I was in my motorcycle gear,
so I doubt you recognize me.
Before that, I attended an urban trails committee
and by the end of that meeting, I was compelled
to volunteer for that group.
I was convinced that I should share
with this slice of heaven on the Western slope
my years of knowledge and experience.
I believe it was more than a week
ago that I submitted my online application for the UTC.
I was acknowledged, received with a positive reply
that I would be considered for the 2027 recruitment,
which I had no problem with.
But only a few days ago, I read in the business times
that the city council and the UTC are,
I guess, miscommunicating about a subject
to do with indoor parking.
And with all my years and miles of bicycling,
I've never been to a town that had readily
available indoor parking.
So I think there's other ways to state that.
There's bicycle lockers and there's bicycle cages
that can really do benefit.
So why bicyclists in this town are begging for indoor parking
is beyond me.
But if you have the power to disband the UTC,
you have the power to up my application to the top
and let me get in next month.
And we could talk reasonably about solutions, because that's
what I believe in.
When everybody can win in the community and we're
all getting along and we're thinking about solutions
and not talking about problems.
So thank you for listening and please put me on the UTC.
Thank you.
Crystal hi, guys.
I'm back.
I'm still in the community, sober and at Sunshine community.
I just want to remind everybody, in the last three weeks,
someone has died off the streets.
I was at dollar store and a homeless man
collapsed right outside of it.
And then I was at another place today volunteering.
And I want to say her name.
She just recently got out be in jail,
and she had to go right back to being homeless.
She dug a hole and she laid down in it.
Now she's in the hospital.
So please, I don't know what to do.
If you need me to talk to anybody,
I'm willing to sit down and have a conversation with anybody.
But we need to start to do something with homeless.
It's getting worse every day, and
no one around the state of the United States is doing anything.
So let's be the first.
Let's put Grand Junction on the map.
Thanks Thank you.
Kristen mayor, council members.
My name is Kristen Seidel, and I am the Vice Chair
of the homeless coalition and the program
and outreach coordinator for mutual aid partners.
I understand that council has received complaints
from concerned citizens about the state of our public spaces,
especially near the river.
As someone who loves recreating on the river and the river
trail, I understand the importance
of having clean public spaces for everyone to enjoy.
As you can imagine, the lack of dumpsters and trash service
along the river corridor makes maintaining these spaces nearly
impossible for folks who are sleeping there, having been
pushed down to the margins of our society
for a variety of reasons.
Rather than changing language in our ordinances
that will have little impact on addressing these valid concerns,
I recommend that the city engage in proactive strategy instead
of doubling down on possible punitive measures that push
people further away from engaging with services,
further away from attaining jobs and housing,
and which break down the relationships
which service providers have worked so hard to establish.
We should be focusing on solutions that
will actually improve the situation for our community
as a whole.
Let's provide our houseless community members
with tools that boost autonomy, so that they
can take responsibility and be accountable for the spaces
that they occupy.
A change in language will only alienate people further.
I know this because I engage with these folks
on an almost daily basis, and this is what they tell me.
True preventative measures would be access to housing
or safe shelter, but I acknowledge that is
not a realistic short term ask.
However, there are some real solutions
that can be implemented right now solutions that will greatly
improve the situation for which you've
been receiving complaints.
As part of the basic needs and outreach work group,
we have been providing campers with trash bags and sharps
containers, and they have been using them,
but with no safe disposal areas, these
efforts cannot be successful.
One man reported that he would bag his trash
and by the next morning, raccoons
had gotten into the bags and the trash
was again scattered everywhere.
A tangible way that City council can support the community right
now is by providing support with dumpsters at strategic locations
along the river trail, and by placing porta potties
to decrease the human waste that would end up in our waterways.
Otherwise, these solutions are a win for everyone.
If you've ever gone for a run on the river
trail after drinking your morning
coffee that a porta potty along the trail is a welcome sight.
Infrastructure for sanitation is much cheaper
than the almost half a million that the city
spent on camp cleanup over the last three years.
I would rather see a fraction of that money
be used to hire a task force of our unhoused neighbors
to engage in regular cleanups near the river.
Giving someone in our community a job
instead of hiring expensive contractors.
Regular maintenance is simply a smarter strategy until there are
accessible, long term housing solutions for the most
vulnerable in our community.
We have to grapple with the reality
that when people have nowhere to go,
that does not make them disappear.
Thank you.
Next, we have Shayla, and then that will be followed
by Madeline and Andy Hamilton.
Hi my name is Shayla.
I know that you guys are going to hear a lot of complaints
about the concerns about the river and the change of language
regarding the river and policing on the river and the camping
along the river.
So I'm hopefully going to give you
a little bit of a different story, which is that my family
moved here in 2010.
I was 10 years old.
I have five younger siblings, but in 2010 it
was just myself 10 years old and my three
younger brothers 8, 6 and up.
They would have been four at the time, and my parents,
and we were houseless at the time,
so we did not have anywhere to stay.
And we were not accessing the homeless shelters.
We were living out of our car and we were camping.
So for a while, we stayed at campgrounds until we no
longer had the funds to do so.
And so when the school year started for the 2010 2011 school
year, my mother, who worked for the D51 school district
as a teacher, her principal loves to tell a story about how
she had a teacher who she would regularly pick up from being
camping along the river with her four children,
and she would pick them up and pick
them up for school every day and drop them off at school.
And so I just wanted to tell you about this because I think when
we think about the houseless community,
we have a picture in our mind about who we're thinking about.
And when we think about who.
Staying in homeless shelters, we have an idea
of who we're thinking about.
We think that families are potentially staying
in the shelters, or they have somewhere to go,
or that we have programs for them,
and that is not always the case.
And so my family luckily, was in an incredibly
privileged position.
We were only houseless for probably six months or less,
and at the time I was completely unaware of the situation.
It was just our longest summer camping that I
had ever experienced, right.
It was one long, glorious adventure,
and it wasn't until I was much, much older
that I realized that we simply did
not have anywhere else to go.
So we lived along the river.
And so I do want you guys to really,
really consider what you're doing.
I have watched Whitman park close.
I have watched as I'm an employee of Mesa
County public libraries.
I have watched as our houseless population
has had nowhere else to go, as the shelters have closed.
And as they have had, as they have had slowly run out
of places to continue to go.
And so to continue to police them
when there's nowhere no meaningful
alternative is just simply unacceptable.
So that's all I wanted to say.
Thank you.
OK next.
Madeleine hi, my name is Madeleine Mejia.
I have been living in Grand Junction for since 2022,
and while I am a community member,
I don't see I quite yet can say I'm proud to be a community
member, especially with everything that's going on
with our unhoused population.
I'd like to say that I'm terrified for the future
that our city might be taking, and the way that it's going
to push our unhoused community.
Last year, when they released the PIT Count,
it showed that since 2019, our unhoused population
had gone up over 108% That's not a kind number.
That's not a number that shows our city's
really been trying to meet.
I don't think the way that our city
might be thinking to enforce and interpret the municipal codes.
To me, they feel like.
It feels like putting a bucket underneath a leak in my house.
It may solve the water on the floor, but I still have a leak.
And leak here for us is again our crisis
with the unhoused community.
It's not going to fix anything.
Not really in the long run.
Research shows I got this from the Colorado
State of homelessness report from last year.
And over and over and over again, I keep seeing housing.
Affordable housing, permanent housing.
This is what this is.
What solves the issue is getting those things back.
As we've stated, we've got a whole park that's
city owned that is not being used, not for the unhoused,
not for the public.
So I don't know.
Instead of seeing an empty lot every day when I drive home
and to work.
Maybe we could put up some property there.
I feel like we just keep taking and taking
from our unhoused community.
We had again, Whitman taken away.
We've had the Resource Center shut down early without really
a real effort being given.
I was here for that meeting as well.
Standing in opposition to close that early.
I don't feel there was a real reason to shut that down.
I still feel very strongly about that.
There was also Royce Hurst did a hounds.
Sorry homeward hounds initiative.
And that did actually set over five years.
It helped over about 300 unhoused individuals stay
with pets.
And we've unfortunately lost that too once
that shelter was closed down.
We've lost homeward bound on North Ave,
and now you are attempting or possibly attempting to cut
away the only lifeline left.
Please don't do that.
Thank you.
Be kind for us.
Care about your community.
OK Andy Hamilton.
Followed by Andrea Hamilton.
And then Stefania.
Hi there.
My name is Andy Hamilton and I live
at 2021 Capitol Avenue in city council District C. I believe.
I don't usually come to these meetings in large part
because I feel powerless.
I feel like most of the time you've already decided what
you're going to do, and me sharing my viewpoint about it
won't change your mind.
Tonight, though, I decided I couldn't succumb to the feeling
of powerlessness and that I needed
to come support my neighbors, both housed and unhoused.
We'll see how that goes.
I'm referring to city ordinances number 12.04.080 and 12.08.140,
which speak to quote, camping on public property
and on the riverfront trail.
These ordinances prohibit camping when
shelter is available elsewhere.
But let's be clear that here camping
is describing the day to day living
of our unhoused neighbors.
I'm here to urge you not to remove the language surrounding
shelter in these ordinances.
Doing so further criminalizes and penalizes
homelessness and poverty, and is especially
cruel in light of the lack of shelter in our community.
My primary objection to changing these ordinances
is a moral argument, and wish I thought
that would be sufficient to change your minds.
But I don't trust that will work.
So let me present a fiscal argument for my moral position.
According to data from the United States Interagency
Council on homelessness in 2017, when things were much cheaper,
each homeless person, each chronically
homeless person cost taxpayers between 30,000 and $50,000.
Each person and each of these costs
was primarily from interaction with the criminal justice
and health systems.
It seems to me that further criminalizing
the day to day living of people with literally
nowhere else to go will only increase the amount of time
and money spent by EMS and law enforcement,
and thus the taxpayer cost.
Due to this council's decision, the further criminalizing
and punishing homelessness and poverty
will waste more money, time and resources
heartlessly punishing a symptom of a much deeper core issue.
I would respectfully remind you and all of us
that statistically, we are all about one bad month
away from experiencing catastrophic poverty
and homelessness ourselves.
The increased precarity of our own survival in these times
should open our faculties of empathy, compassion,
and solidarity, and therefore we should reject further changes
to these ordinances.
And since I worry that won't cut it, it's cheaper too.
Please do not modify these ordinances.
I understand that there's an argument that modifying them
will bring them into alignment with Supreme Court case law,
but I would argue that just because something is legal
right now doesn't mean it's right or the direction
that we should go.
Let's resist our culture of anger and division.
Open your humanity and engage your physical senses
to realize that further criminalizing homelessness
and poverty is wrong from a human point of view,
and an unwise use of our tax money as well.
Thank you.
Thanks Andrea.
Hi my name is Andrea Hamilton.
This is my first time speaking at City council meeting,
so forgive me if I'm a little nervous,
but I am here to encourage you not to change the ordinance
language at this time.
I really liked the earlier comments
about providing services to people,
rather than further limiting the spaces in which
they are allowed to exist.
I think the further cutting of services in our community
is incredibly demoralizing.
I have lived here my entire life.
I went away to school, and I wanted
to come back to my community and serve my community,
and my sister was like, why would you
want to stay in Grand Junction.
I'm like because I love it here.
I love our community.
And it's breaking my heart to see
what's happening to my unhoused neighbors in my community.
And I think further saying, you're not
allowed to exist in our community,
you're not allowed to exist in this space.
And shrinking and shrinking the spaces that people are allowed
to be is horrifying to me.
So I really like to urge you to consider
that providing services, rather than saying people
are not allowed to exist when there is
no other place for them to go.
But yeah, so I think that covers it.
Thank you.
Stephanie I'll take her extra minute.
Mayor Council members, my name is Stephanie vasconez.
I am the executive director of mutually partners,
as well as part of the leadership team of the Mesa
County collaborative for the unhoused
and a co-facilitator of the people experiencing
homelessness advisory board.
This is one of the five work groups that make up
the unhoused strategy and implementation
plan, a multi-year investment.
The city of Grand Junction, funded and adopted in 2024,
which has brought together city, County for profit and nonprofit
partners to tackle a community wide challenge
that we know cannot be addressed through
shelter or outreach alone.
It underscores that long term progress depends deeply
on coordinated commitment to supporting affordable housing,
behavioral health outreach and prevention, together
with strong partnerships, ongoing public engagement,
and leadership that recognizes houselessness is a shared
community responsibility.
I'd like to thank council staff and our city manager
for supporting the neighbor to neighbor team led by Shari price
and Ashley chambers, which is doing outreach
at least twice a week, and who we've partnered
with consistently since 2023.
It has resulted in individuals accessing detox services,
choosing in-patient treatment for substance use,
moving into assisted facilities and supportive housing,
even reuniting with loved ones.
A major highlight to share is the unhoused community
river camp cleanup, which took place last month.
6,700 pounds or three tons of trash removed from encampments
by our unhoused neighbors living along the river
corridor in one week, per the data provided
during Monday's workshop.
The city.
The city paid $460,000 for contractors to remove 119
tons of trash over three years.
By my calculations, and I'm not great at math,
our efforts could lead to the removal
of roughly 174 tons of trash in one year versus the 119
over the three years.
Now, let me switch gears.
When you have 37 million people in the US living in poverty,
how can that be a personal failing.
There's a system that perpetuates
poverty and the greatest country in the world.
And here in Mesa County, less than 53,000% sorry,
less than 53% of households can afford current rent prices
in GJ, and less than 71% of households can afford
current home prices in 2020.
The US Government Accountability Office
found that for every $100 increase in rent,
homelessness rises about 9% nationwide.
In Grand Junction, the rate is significantly higher at almost
15% I am running out of time.
You rely on our expertise of service providers.
You partner with us to amplify your community impact.
So much so that the state of Colorado
has asked us to present on the success
of the homelessness response system
we've built over the last three years.
So today, I ask you to take a step back to truly consider
the implications of changing this language
versus the real application.
Thank you.
OK we're going to hold our applause, please.
As we discussed, if there's any last comments
that were not signed up, you can make your way to the podium.
I see Mr. Kopp on his way.
Good evening, Madam Mayor.
Council at the risk of repeating what others have said,
tonight's discussion about the camping ordinance
highlights a reality many in this community
already understand.
Grand junction is caught in a policy gap.
For years, the city has operated under an ordinance tied
to the available shelter beds.
Now, the North Avenue emergency shelter has closed.
And according to the city attorney,
the ordinance has become effectively unenforceable
for most of the time.
At the same time, residents are seeing growing
camps along the river corridor.
Increased environmental concerns.
Wildfire risks.
Public safety issues and repeated cleanup operations,
again costing taxpayers nearly half a million
over the last three years.
So the question becomes, what exactly
is the long term strategy.
Not today, not tomorrow, long term.
Because simply moving camps from one location to another
every few weeks is not solving homelessness.
Pretending that there are no impacts
on neighborhoods, businesses, parks and public spaces
is equally unrealistic.
The issue requires balance.
Compassion matters.
Public safety matters, Environmental Protection
matters, and accountability matters.
Frankly, Grand Junction deserves a policy built around all four.
I believe council should consider a middle of the road
a middle ground approach.
Let's update the ordinance so it is indeed legally enforceable
while simultaneously exploring temporary, structured
alternatives that include sanitation oversight, security,
and behavioral standards.
Not permanent encampments.
Not lawless camping zones, but transitional solutions
that recognize reality while still
protecting our public spaces.
Because enforcement without alternatives creates an endless
churn.
Alternatives without accountability
fail just as quickly.
There are individuals in these camps who are elderly, disabled,
struggling with addiction, or dealing with mental illness.
There are also legitimate concerns from residents who
expect safe parks, clean riverfronts and responsible use
of taxpayer resources.
What residents are asking is not cruelty,
and what struggling individual need is not chaos.
What Grand Junction needs is an actual strategy.
Thank you.
I appreciate that, and moving on.
I'm not seeing anyone else over at the podium.
So we will go ahead and close public comment and move
on to the city manager report.
Thank you.
Mayor members of council, just one item tonight.
Tomorrow we will release the next month's revenue report.
And for the 12th consecutive month,
sales tax collections exceeded the same month in the prior
year, with April collections increasing 6.8% Year to date,
collections are up 5.7% compared to 2025.
Lodging tax collections for April increased 24.2%
and are up 10.7% year to date.
And just note that April tax collections reflect
sales activity that occurred in March,
and will post this report on the city's website,
at GJ city.org tomorrow.
Thank you.
And then we will be moving on to boards
and commission liaison reports.
And we will start with council member beilfuss.
You guys are leaving for my report.
What's going on.
Hey, get back here.
All right.
You have to go.
I no, no offense taken.
I worked, I had a lot going on the last two weeks, most of it
having to do with crisis management
and planning for the homeless, which we'll talk
a little bit more on tonight.
I also covered urban trails committee meeting.
Great report from Trent about all
the projects going on in the city, which is very expansive.
It's hard to imagine that people can
keep track of all this stuff.
I will say I think there's one, maybe two people
moving on that committee.
So you might keep your application up to date.
The other cool thing I did was attend the enterprise zone
class that was put on at CMU.
And enterprise zone ties very closely
with economic development in the area.
And the state is redoing the enterprise zones.
And so we actually got to weigh in
on making the case for Mesa County and Grand Junction
continuing to have six zones.
I think we have the most in the state for a city our size.
And it was very interesting.
It's not only business, but it's also residential zoning to.
So there's a lot of incentives that go with this designation
and it really helps us a lot.
So it was a great event and hopefully
we'll get something out of it.
They're going to act fairly quickly.
Thank you.
Council Member Kennedy.
Yeah, I have a few reports.
And council member beilfuss mentioned the meeting,
the enterprise zones, and we did have Governor Polis in town
to speak with us on that.
And it was really great to be able to have
input into where those best opportunities are
within our community.
And we had a lot of conversation with that.
And we revisited some of that conversation
this morning at our meeting.
So, so one of the things to understand about opportunity
zones is it really incentivizes not just
housing, but also businesses.
And really what it encourages somebody
to invest in a very particular area based on demographics,
based on economics.
And for those that are making that investment,
let's say they're building an apartment complex.
It allows them to sell it after 10 years
without paying capital gains taxes and recapturing
depreciation, which is a great incentive
to get us important infrastructure in areas
where we really need it and create jobs
in areas where we need them.
So that was fantastic.
One of the other things, or a couple of other things.
With GEP, we always get an economic report or the director,
Curtis Englehart is here.
Thank you for being here tonight, Curtis.
But it's always exciting to hear about the wins that gap has.
One of the things that they do is encourage
businesses to come to the Grand Valley,
creating that economic growth.
This is the fifth.
The fifth business win for the year was fought in home,
which is a local manufacturing.
It is not with necessarily expanded within the city limits
of Grand Junction, but it is on the old Haliburton
campus, which is where our regional materials
recycling areas are.
So that's pretty exciting to see that happen.
They're bringing 97 new jobs to Grand Valley,
average wage of around 77,000, supported
by over $1 million in job growth incentive credits.
So a couple other things.
New prospect.
There was a new prospect with a company called avatar off roads,
which is an outdoor recreation manufacturer out of Salt Lake,
and they had been looking to build or to move to delta,
but had a site fall through and our office cold called them.
And we have a great prospect in them now, so that's exciting.
Two other things that I think that are exciting,
that are happening at gap is there is another one
that's a health care technology company that they're looking at.
And then this is what I want to learn a little bit more about.
And I think it's really exciting now considering
our water situation.
But there's a company called canal sense, which
is a startup with a prototype device
for managing irrigation water flows more efficiently.
So these are all great things that your Grand
Junction economic partnership is doing right here.
And that's why the city partners with them
and has that relationship with them.
Because it is important to us, thriving as a city.
One another committee I have, and I'll
try to keep this one short since I
went a little long on that one.
And not just because Curtis is here,
but I'm on the Grand Junction Regional Airport.
Airport commissioner with them.
One part of our meeting recently, or this week,
was talking about all of the additional grants.
We've really been successful in grants so far.
We just received a grant for $5 million,
which covers 100% of the costs for updating our airport tower,
which is in really rough condition,
like those controllers up there.
And it gets so hot and so cold, and it
looks like the one you walk in there, it's like the 1970s.
It is like an avocado colored couch and the whole thing.
The airport improvement program grant
has totaled $12.2 million so far for the runway program,
so that's also exciting.
Anyway, lots of good things happening at the airport
as well.
Thank you, thank you.
Mayor Pro Tem, the DDA will be meeting next week,
so I currently have no report.
OK council member Nguyen no report.
OK great.
So with that, I have a couple quick updates.
So part of when Governor Polis was in town for the enterprise
zone conversation, he also made a special visit
to the Grand Junction housing authority's project,
which is called the current.
And this was a celebration because of all the hard work
that we have put in as a community to hit our prop 1,
2, three goals, which is very impressive.
And it was a very daunting number
that we were able to reach.
And so we were the first city of our size
to meet that goal in the state.
And for that reason, he was able to come.
He came out to celebrate that with us for a quick few minutes
before he went on to speak at the enterprise event.
And I just think that's very telling of all the hard work
that we've been putting in as a city and our housing
division and staff.
So I just wanted to acknowledge that and make sure that everyone
else is aware of it as well.
And then one last thing that I would like to address is.
Just a quick thank you for our former mayor, Cody Kennedy,
for his year of service with us and all
he did for our community.
And personally, as Mayor Pro TEM,
I got to work very closely with Cody,
and I feel just that he really helped prepare me for my turn
now.
And I appreciate all of the advice and long,
many hours of phone calls and all the hundreds
and hundreds of hours that you've put into connecting
with our community.
So thank you.
Thank you.
OK, now we will move on to our consent agenda.
The consent agenda includes items
that are considered routine and will
be approved by a single motion.
Items on the consent agenda will not be discussed by City council
unless an item is removed for individual consideration.
Do I have a motion.
I'd like to remove a couple things.
A couple things.
Yeah OK.
Two 2ai, I and three and three a.
So just to clarify for.
2ai I and we are discussing the scheduling
of these events because this is that's what
this is on the agenda for.
Is that what you would like to discuss.
OK Just wanted to make sure.
So you remove them.
Did you make a motion to approve consent.
Except for those.
I make a motion to approve all the consent agenda
items except and three a.
Is there a second.
Second we have a motion on the floor
from council member beilfuss and a second
from council member Nguyen.
All in favor.
Aye Aye.
OK, that sounded all opposed.
That motion passes 7 to 0.
So with that, we would move into addressing to a which is
legislative, and it's an introduction of an ordinance
amending GM, GGJ Mc 12.0, 4.060 and 12.04 0.08 regarding
the prohibition of enforcement of camping on public property
when no overnight shelter is available, and setting a public
hearing for June three.
So we are discussing the setting of the hearing for June three.
Great yeah, well, like everybody else,
we received a lot of emails about the issue,
and the homeless provider community
has asked me to ask for a continuance for at least
one meeting, maybe two, to prepare
more response to the whole thing and to talk
to some of the people.
I mean, some of it was exceptionally strong.
How the public defenders spoke about the implications
of the camping thing, and I think
we should have a chance to talk to them
and get ready for the second reading.
And 2, I also has the camping with it.
So I just so we're discussing two I first
and then we can discuss well they go together
because they both have the camping
but they're separate agenda items right.
Yeah so so just to clarify.
So setting the public hearing for June 3,
there would still be at least a 30
day time frame before and before it could be implemented.
So right.
Yeah I understand that.
But it would already be approved.
So we want to prepare for preparing to contest.
Well to discuss it.
Yeah discuss it in the legal implications and
the personal and socioeconomic.
So before we get too far into this,
I know regarding legal implications,
we have looked at that many times
and our interim city attorney has addressed those as well.
I know we are discussing just the scheduling of the item,
not getting into the discussion of the item.
So do you.
Do you have a suggestion.
Well, I mean, if we can put it out a month,
that would be great.
That would help a lot.
Is there any other thoughts from council on.
Yeah I have some thoughts.
One thing that I think people are missing here
is that there is available shelter space
right now, according to our recent update
that we got from pathways.
I mean, they emailed us and they said they had is it 69.
What I think they said they were at 62 bed, 62 beds in their 112.
So I think that's a consideration.
Because with that, then it makes it a moot point
as far as that goes.
It's and it doesn't change anything.
We heard from the chief as far as 17 TICAs in three years.
So it's not like they're out there writing a bunch of tickets
as has been.
And I don't mean to get into that.
Other than to speak specifically to this three or to this item,
rather, that is to the postponement.
So for the June three public hearing,
any other discussion on the matter.
I don't have a strong feeling either way as far as timing.
Yeah I mean, with the middle of June 1 be enough time,
we can live with that.
But I mean, I just want to say there's hundreds
of people homeless out there.
It's not just about having 12 beds available for them,
it's for they don't have lines of communication.
The people that are the providers
are there communication, and they need time
to talk and work with them.
So really quick before.
Again, we're not getting into the discussion of the item.
We're just talking about the scheduling of the item.
And we do have I believe it's council member
Ballard with something to say.
Yes thank you, Madam Mayor.
I guess the scheduling I'm willing to entertain it
if I understand fully what needs to be accomplished between us
now and the second reading.
Now, all I'm hearing is that this needs to be extended longer
for preparation purposes.
But I'm confused.
What preparation tasks need to be done between now
and the second reading.
So maybe some clarification on that from the motion.
I would just say that the people, many of the people
that we want to talk to that reached out to us
are professional people with regular jobs,
and it's hard to schedule them a lot of time.
So we're just giving ourselves a little buffer to be able to have
meetings and talk to them.
Likewise, the providers are working 24/7.
So really quick to clarify, are you saying that the preparation
is to inform the providers that this is happening so that they
can work to accommodate that.
Or are you saying that you need time
to meet with them so that they can prepare
for how to contest this.
Those are two different preparations.
We're not building up a big reason to contest it.
I think that we want to be realistic
about the being humanistic to the people that it's affecting.
And because of the amount of input
that we had from very high level legal people and providers,
we want some time to talk to them about the implications
and what might be some ways to work
with the homeless population.
Council Ballard, Mayor Pro TEM, sorry.
Yeah, I'm in support in moving forward with the second reading
on the fourth just purely for the reason
that I don't see this necessarily
as an anti homeless move, an anti unhoused move,
because before the shelter closed
we had many river camps, lots of people camping along the river.
Our police recognized that if they go down by the river
and they stir things up down there, it moves people downtown.
They stir people up downtown and moves them back to the river.
So we recognize that there's truly an issue here.
So this isn't a matter of trying to be inhumane
or a sweep to clear the riverfront
or trails of everything.
All this really does is give our police the ability
to enforce laws with the truly problem camps that need to be
addressed, that are both a public health issue as
well as a safety issue.
So I do we might be getting into the.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So we're just talking about the scheduling of the item.
So it sounds like you're in favor of scheduling it
for June three.
Yeah that's why I'm in favor.
Yes OK.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Council Member Nguyen, are you in favor of the third or.
I would be open to pushing it if before.
Yeah I'm sorry.
Before we vote.
I did have one other thing.
Just a point of correction.
We had two deputy state public defenders email us
one by the name of deer and one by the name of hare street,
and then a advocate.
So we had two that I think we could email back.
I've already emailed them back.
And then there was a total of I think, 20 emails, maybe
one or two more or less so.
And not that matters.
It is important that we get the engagement.
But of that number, about half of those
were the exact same email or maybe a third of those
were the exact same email, just a form letter.
So does not mean that I don't take it seriously.
And I didn't believe every word I emailed.
But I just for the sake of that, I just
want to put context around how many emails we actually got
and that it is just a couple.
It is not to diminish that we need to talk to those
or we should email them, return their emails.
But I don't see that two emails should have
us putting this off any further than we've already scheduled it.
And then I just I think you had mentioned something
about four beds or something, but they can go up to 112,
I believe it is.
So that's a lot of beds if they're only
at 60, some odd at pathways.
So there's 40 some odd beds available there.
They're only for certain groups.
Yeah so and I'm not saying that we have that that's a solution.
I'm just saying just to clarify the number of beds.
So we're not talking about that.
So do we have a suggestion and a motion to try to schedule this.
Oh yeah.
Make a motion that we move it up to two
weeks from the next meeting.
So four weeks June 17 17th.
Yeah if that would be very helpful.
Second OK.
We have a motion on the floor from council member beilfuss
and a second from council member Nguyen.
All in favor say Aye.
Aye all opposed.
Nay, nay.
Nay nay.
So was Robert.
Did I hear you.
Nay was Anna.
It was a nay.
OK OK.
So that's four to 2.
The motion fails.
So does anyone have a motion for a different schedule.
Point point.
Point of order.
Are you just to be clear, you're asking
for another motion on item, A2, a 1 because we
have not scheduled it yet.
OK I would move to adopt consent agenda item two.
OK, we have a motion on the floor from council member Stout.
Is there a second.
Second point of order.
She said she did.
Oh I. So council members, we're still on two.
Can you that's my correction.
Is the second corrected as well.
Second OK.
So all in favor to AI being scheduled for June three.
I know all opposed.
No, no.
So that passes 5 to 2.
OK I'm sorry, Madam Mayor.
Who was the second on that.
It was counselor.
Sorry council member, Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
Sorry I'm still working on now.
I'm used to not saying that, so I'm working on it.
And then could we get a motion to a 2.
Is there any other additional discussion.
I know that these are related.
As council member beilfuss pointed out.
Do we have additional discussion or is there anyone
willing to make a motion.
Yes, I can make a motion.
I move to accept item two.
A Roman two or I. As produced for introduction of an ordinance
amending and reviewing code related
to the rules for the riverfront trail and adjacent areas,
and setting a public hearing for June 3, 2026.
Is there a second.
Second so we have a motion on the floor
from council member Kennedy and a second
from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
And then all in favor, say Aye.
Aye All opposed.
No OK, so that passes 6 to 1.
OK moving on to the next one that council member beilfuss has
pulled, which is procurement three a
would you like to discuss this one.
So is this just about scheduling or can I
ask a question about the actual purchasing process.
One is not setting the public hearing.
So yeah.
No yeah.
So I was just curious because it was
kind of general the description of what we were purchasing
and that the end loaders, would they be American made.
Is there any kind of purchasing.
Preference for American made goods that they are
American made heavy equipment.
The ones that we're purchasing.
Yes OK.
That's all I wanted to know.
All right.
That was your only question.
What was it.
Thank you.
Awesome Is there any other discussion on this item.
OK hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.
I move.
I'll have a motion.
I move that we pass or I move that we purchase for item three
that we purchase for the purchase of rolling stock
and equipment, front end loaders,
skid steers and forklift C as in Charles three grant
funded move that for approval.
Is there a second.
We have a motion on the floor from council member Kennedy
and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Van Dyke.
All in favor.
Aye Any opposed.
The motion passes 7 to 0, and we will move on now
to our public hearing section.
And our first is 5 a legislative and it's an ordinance
for supplemental appropriation.
And we have chief financial officer Jay Valentine
to briefly present to us.
Thank you.
Mayor members of council, before you tonight
is the supplemental appropriation
ordinance for the 2026 budget.
This ordinance primarily consists
of carryforward appropriations for projects and initiatives
that were previously authorized, but not completed in 2025,
along with several new appropriations
tied to grant funding, donations,
and other outside revenues.
Major items for this supplemental
include affordable housing initiatives, transportation
and utility infrastructure projects, the community rec
center, the materials recovery facility, and the wastewater
treatment plant.
Improvements the directors that oversee these projects
are here tonight.
If you have any questions about any of these.
OK thank you.
With that, we will come back to council
for comments or questions.
Council Member when you looked like you were thinking.
OK OK.
So it does not look like we have any council questions
or comments at this time.
And because this is a public hearing,
we will now open the public hearing.
If you'd like to speak on this item,
please make your way to the podium.
Seeing no one making a move for the podium,
we will close the public hearing and return
to council for additional comments or questions.
Hearing none, I would ask for a motion to adopt the ordinance.
I move to adopt ordinance number 5318, an ordinance making
supplemental appropriations to the 2026 budget of the city
of Grand Junction, Colorado, for the year beginning January 1,
2026 and ending December 31, 2026, and on final passage,
in order.
Final publication in pamphlet form.
We have a motion on the floor from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
Is there a second.
Second a second from council member Kennedy and Celestino.
Could you do a roll call for us, council member Ballard
Yes council member beilfuss.
Yes council member.
Kennedy yes.
Council Member.
Nguyen yes.
Council Member.
Stoute council member.
Stoute you're muted if you're trying to say yes.
Council Member van Dijk.
Yes mayor Lutz.
Yes with the.
Let's try with Anna, not.
Council Member.
Stout council member.
Yes OK.
So the motion passes 7 to 0 0 OK.
And then we will move on to our next item, which
is an ordinance amending sections of the zoning
and development code, title 21 of the Grand Junction
municipal code regarding final plat recordation
accessory dwelling units.
Design standards for multi unit residential redevelopment,
landscape substitution, subdivision, natural hazards
and significant natural features, signs and public parks
and open space districts and outdoor lighting.
And we have a staff presentation from principal planner Tim
Larock.
Thank you, Mayor, and good evening, members of council.
As mentioned, Tim, principal planner and this item
concerns a package of staff proposed amendments
to the zoning and development code.
I will briefly describe the proposed changes
before providing staff's analysis
and recommendation of staff and the planning commission.
The first change concerns the recording of subdivision plats.
Platts the code presently requires
submission of a signed mylar copy of the approved plat
for recording.
However, the state of Colorado and Mesa County
have updated statutes and procedures
to allow for other forms of final plat submittals.
Accordingly, the Amendment will allow the final plat
to be submitted for recording in any form
acceptable to the Mesa County clerk and recorder's office.
The second change is a clarification
regarding maximum number of accessory dwelling units,
or ADUs.
The code that allows two accessory dwelling units
on a lot, with one single unit detached or single unit
attached dwelling with two units in the structure.
At least one of those ADUs must be attached
to the principal dwelling unit.
There's some.
There's been some confusion over what constitutes an attached
ADU versus a detached ADU.
There was an administrative regulation adopted in order
to make that clarification.
But this Amendment will codify that
by clarifying that attached means connected
by a common wall, floor or ceiling
with the principal structure.
And that would include such attachment
by garage or accessory dwelling unit when those are themselves
attached to the dwelling or any unit
which is otherwise an integral part of the principal structure.
In contrast, connections made by breezeway, deck, porch,
stairwell, or other similar features
shall not be considered attached whether or not such features are
enclosed, those being merely superficial connections
to the primary dwelling.
The third change affects multi-unit design standards.
Design standards presently apply to redevelopment,
including replacement or addition of dwelling units
to the maximum extent practicable for
the new or replacement units.
The requirement is impractical for conversion
of non-residential buildings to residences,
and when only a modest expansion is proposed
to an existing building.
So this Amendment would make the design standards apply only
when expansions are greater than the existing floor
area of the existing building, or when
exterior changes are already being proposed to the structure.
The fourth change expands flexibility
for meeting landscape requirements
with existing plants.
Presently, regulations incentivize preservation
of trees through substitution allowances,
but not existing shrubs, perennials,
or other groundcover.
And we do have a lot of instances
where there is healthy, mature landscape already
on a site that would not presently qualify for meeting
landscape requirements because it's
not on the suitable plant list.
But this Amendment would allow existing landscape that
is healthy and not a prohibited plant
to substitute for required new plantings
of shrubs, perennials or other ground cover
at specified ratios.
The fifth change regards the requirement
to identify and address natural hazards
and significant natural features on a subdivision plot.
The provisions in the subdivision regulations
do not specify the extent of the protections that are being
provided for natural hazards and significant natural features,
nor how they are to be maintained waterways, wetlands,
floodplains, ridgelines, steep slopes, geologic hazards
and wildfire prevention, as well as detention and retention
ponds and trees are already regulated by other local, state,
and federal codes which provide for their mapping
and hazard mitigation.
As a result, the provisions in this section
do not really add meaningful protections
and are therefore superfluous.
And they also result in additional line work
and notes being on a plat that are neither necessary,
nor arguably appropriate for inclusion on a subdivision plat.
So the Amendment for this is to remove
that section in its entirety.
The sixth change addresses a conflict and ambiguity
in the sign regulations applicable to public parks
and open space zone districts.
There's a conflict insofar as the code provides that signage
on a property zoned P1 or P2 shall be
limited to the signage allowed in the surrounding
zoned districts.
It's unclear what surrounding zoned districts
are to govern when there is more than one adjacent.
And further, the provision creates
uneven standards that vary by park location
or other public land location.
And then finally, the conflict consists in the fact
that P2 zoned zone.
District is already addressed by the standards
applicable to signs and mixed use and industrial districts.
So this Amendment would delete this provision.
Finally, the seventh change resolves a conflict
in outdoor lighting standards.
The existing code restricts light output levels at property
lines to 0.2 feet candles.
And that's irrespective of the adjacent use
or right of way that's across that property line.
This is difficult or in some cases impossible to meet,
while also satisfying the minimum illumination
standards in the code and indicated on the slide.
For example, when a pedestrian walkway between a building
and the public sidewalk sidewalk is present,
it must be illuminated to 0.6 feet candles,
but that cannot be achieved at the same
time as limiting the foot candles
at the property line to 0.2.
So this Amendment would preserve the 0.2 feet candle maximum
at property lines only when adjacent to property
zoned for single unit detached or duplex dwellings
to protect the intended light trespass
restriction in the code, while increasing the maximum to 0.6
when adjacent to all other properties, and then light
levels abutting the right of way would be relieved of a hard cap,
but would be made to not exceed the minimum
necessary to meet those other illumination requirements.
The criteria for review are set forth in Section 21.02
0.05, subsection D, of the zoning and development
code, which provides that the city may approve an Amendment
to the text of the code if the applicant
can demonstrate evidence proving each of the criteria.
The complete analysis is provided in the staff
report, which was provided with the meeting packet to summarize.
Criterion a is consistency with the comprehensive plan.
The proposed Amendment responds to plan principle two.
Goal 3 strategy f, which calls for reducing barriers to entry
for new business to plan.
Principle five.
Goal 1 strategy C, which calls for the promotion
of housing variety and to plan.
Principle 11 goal three strategy C
which calls for continuous evaluation of existing practices
and systems to improve outcomes and provide excellent, equitable
service to the public.
Staff finds this criterion has been met.
Criterion B is consistency with the zoning and development code.
The proposed Amendment removes conflicts
and creates no new inconsistencies or conflicts.
Staff staff finds that this criterion has been met,
and criterion C is specific reasons.
The proposed Amendment shall meet at least one
of the specific reasons.
Specific reason a is to address trends in development
or regulatory practices.
The Amendment addresses trends in city policy and practices
to promote housing production and affordability.
Specific reason be is to expand, modify, or add requirements
for development in general, or to address
specific development issues.
The Amendment modifies requirements for development
in general by removing conflicting provisions promoting
redevelopment, especially the addition of dwelling
units in existing buildings, and facilitating compliance
with landscape requirements.
Specific reason see is to add, modify,
or expand zoning districts.
The specific reason does not apply,
and specific reason D is to clarify
or modify procedures for processing
development applications.
Plat recording procedures are modified
and accessory dwelling unit provisions are clarified
because reasons A, B, and D are satisfied,
staff finds this criterion has been met.
So after reviewing the proposed Amendment,
the following finding of fact has been made in accordance
with section 21.02 .050, subsection D,
of the Grand Junction zoning and development code.
The proposed text amendments are consistent
with the comprehensive plan and zoning and development code,
and meet at least one of the specific reasons outlined.
Therefore, staff recommends approval
and at the April 28, 2026 planning commission meeting,
the planning commission voted 7 to 0
to recommend approval with the findings in the staff report.
And that concludes the presentation.
And I welcome any questions from the council.
OK with that, we will.
Does anyone on council have questions or comments
at this time.
Thanks for your work on this.
Does clean up a lot of items.
Yeah, I was just going to add that.
Yeah I think that this type of stuff
can be kind of boring or unsexy.
Maybe, but it's really important just in terms of good governance
and continuous improvement, that we
address these types of things.
Thanks OK with that.
Any other questions or comments before we
move to public hearing.
Seeing none we would open public hearing.
Is there anyone present who would like to make a comment.
Seeing none, we will close the public hearing
and return to council for additional comments
or questions.
Seeing none, I would ask for a motion and a second
to adopt the ordinance.
I move to adopt ordinance number 5319, an ordinance amending
sections of the zoning and development code,
title 21 of the Grand Junction municipal code
regarding final plat recordation accessory dwelling units.
Multi standard site design standards for multi
unit residential development.
Landscape substitutions.
Institutions, subdivision, natural hazards and
significant natural features.
Signs in public parks and open space districts
and outdoor lighting on final passage and order.
Final publication in pamphlet form.
Second, we have a motion on the floor from council member Nguyen
and a second from council member Kennedy.
And if you could do a roll call for us.
Council Member beilfuss.
Yes council member.
Kennedy yes.
Council Member.
Nguyen yes.
Council Member.
Stoute yes.
Council Member.
Van Dyke.
Yes council member.
Ballard yes.
Mayor Lutz.
Yes The motion passes 7 to 0.
Just check in.
Are Are you good with the.
So we're going to take a 10 minute break
and we will see you then.
All right.
We will go ahead and come back to order.
And that.
Just wait.
I mean, you don't have to.
Shut up.
I went to Catholic school.
I didn't, so you can take your time.
So our next one is.
And ordinance amending sections of the zoning and development
code, title 21 of the Grand Junction municipal code
regarding drive-through facilities.
And we have a staff presentation from planning
manager Thomas Lloyd.
All right.
Thank you.
City council.
Give me one moment.
So my most recent saved version apparently did not save.
So I apologize for that.
All right.
So I'm good to go.
Now All right.
So this is an Amendment for drive-through facilities
and the accessory use specific standards
that are associated with those.
Just for a little background and some feedback
on how we got here.
This has been a kind of ongoing conversation that we've had,
with members of our development community,
probably a little over the past year,
we've had several workshops with the planning
commission about it.
So both at the January 22 workshop, as well as the March 5
workshop, and the revisions that we are proposing
are based on feedback from the planning commission
to resolve these issues that these specific standards
have presented in terms of the actual development process.
So just a really quick overview of it.
This would remove the requirement
that the drive-through facilities shall be designed
and located to avoiding impairing to avoid impairing
pedestrian mobility to or from the principal structure
or creating risks to pedestrian safety.
So the reason that it's being recommended to remove this
and when we workshop this with the planning commission
as well, it's just that it's kind
of an objective requirement.
And we also have other standards in our zoning and development
code that address this, be it some
of our standards, our access standards
or our pedestrian connection requirement.
So just the thinking behind that was
to reformat this and get this more subjective requirement out
of it.
I mean, I think I said objective earlier, but I meant subjective.
So to get the subjective requirement out,
just because that means different things
to different people and to regulate
that particular portion of it in our regulations
and not have that language there.
There's also some minor reformatting.
And really, the big thing that's changing here
is the removal of the requirement
that drive-thru lanes shall not be located
between the designated front of the building and the
adjacent public right of way.
We've received a lot of talk and feedback,
just that this is making site design pretty challenging,
especially on more challenging lots that
have triple frontage or double frontage multiple access points.
So our reasoning for removing that language is just that it'll
provide more site flexibility and that building orientation
and where it's located can also be
from an urban forum standpoint, just encouraged in other ways.
Just as an example, we have greatly reduced
our setback requirements.
So just from an urban design and building form standpoint,
that gives people a lot of additional options as well.
Lastly, the last thing that we're changing
is that adjacent is it's also that the I guess the facilities
may not be between the front of the building
and the adjacent public right of way.
So we're changing it to read abutting because adjacent
is defined as a radius of feet.
So that could get kind of confusing
and challenging when we're actually doing site design.
So we're changing it to read abutting instead, just so it's
pretty clear that it's the abutting public right
of way, not right away that's feet away from it.
So in terms of our review criteria,
you guys just did this on the last one.
But the first one is that it needs
to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff believes that it's generally consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
In subsection a above establishes
an important policy objective.
Objective but we are removing it because the current language
is broad and not specific as to how those standards are met.
The intent of providing pedestrian safety
is met by other specific and more objective,
measurable standards elsewhere in the zoning code.
With one example being the pedestrian connection
requirement and then other examples being our other site
design requirements such as frontage orientation engineering
and access standards that are found in Ted's that
address circulation, queuing and conflict points.
So we feel like this change in language,
advances the comprehensive plans,
goals of providing more predictable and transparent
development processes instead of relying
on more subjective standards.
So, like I said before, the existing prescription
or the existing provision the lane
being in front of the facade or the front
of the building and the adjacent public right of way.
We also feel like it's consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
It was prescriptive and site design,
and when combined with the rest of the city's regulations,
created some unintended design consequences,
especially on constrained or irregularly shaped parcels.
Its removal supports flexible and context sensitive site
development, allowing site layouts to further respond
to more unique conditions.
And it's also important to note that the code still promotes
pedestrian oriented development and high quality streetscapes
in other ways, such as other spacing
standards and our standards.
And Ted's along with, our reductions
and other requirements like front setback requirements
to encourage more urban form of building.
Planned principal 2 goal three strategy
f calls for reducing barriers to entry for new businesses.
So this certainly would increase flexibility for site design
standards for new businesses that
are trying to come into town.
Plan principle 11 goal three.
Strategy C calls for continuous evaluation of existing practices
and systems to improve outcomes and provide
excellent and equitable service to the public,
so this Amendment improves development outcomes
and service to the public by bringing consistency
to the design standards for commercial properties
so staff finds that this criterion has been met.
Next, we have consistency with the zoning
and development code standards.
This is consistent with and does not
conflict or contradict with any other provisions of the code.
So it creates no inconsistencies,
conflicts or contradictions.
So staff finds that this criterion has been met.
And then the next one is the specific reasons criterion.
And that.
At least one of the following reasons have to be met.
So, the first one to address trends
in development or regulatory practices
isn't really applicable.
So I'll move on to the next one.
The next one is to expand, modify, or add requirements
for development in general or address
specific development issues.
So we received a lot of feedback that these accessory use
specific standards have made it difficult to develop commercial
uses on more challenging sites.
So this text Amendment addresses the specific development
issue by allowing more options when it comes to designing.
How these types of facilities and an accessory.
Uses of these facilities are designed.
Next is to add modifier expand zone districts
which is also not applicable.
And then lastly to clarify or modify procedures for processing
development applications.
So the design standards for drive-through
as an accessory use is modified to allow for additional options
on how an applicant designs a drive-through on their site.
This allows it to be designed in a way that makes sense
for context specific conditions on the site,
rather than having a more prescriptive regulation
that all sites are subject to.
So staff finds that this criterion is met.
And then lastly, in accordance with section 21.020 50d
of the Grand Junction zoning and development code,
the proposed text Amendment to Title 21 is consistent with
the comprehensive plan and the zoning and development code
standards, and meet at least one of the specific
reasons outlined at the planning Commission's meeting
on April 28.
They voted to recommend this request as well.
That's all I have.
Happy to answer questions.
OK thank you very much.
We will return to council for comments or questions.
Yeah I had a question.
So it looks like this was passed for 3 from planning commission.
And looking through the notes here.
Could you clarify what the alternative proposal
that was presented during planning commission was.
And if you remember I'll be honest I don't remember.
OK yeah.
I'm trying to remember because I did watch it,
but I don't remember off the top of my head
what was proposed there as an alternative.
But I guess in any case that yeah,
the fact that it was for three maybe means there's
something to consider here.
So I see Tamara's talking to you.
So Tamara was bringing up kind of discussion that happened
during workshop, which isn't necessarily applicable here,
but the discussion was maybe having different areas where
it's not, I guess, a requirement and then
keeping it in other areas.
But that is not what ended up moving forward to the planning
commission, because it was decided in workshop that that's
really more something that we should probably be talking
about, the comprehensive plan process and not
necessarily there.
I do remember one of our commissioners, Ian Thomas,
did have a different idea, but I'll be honest,
I do not remember the specifics of it
just because it didn't move forward.
And then maybe more towards the substance
of what is being proposed here.
I'm curious.
As it's written now.
So if we didn't adopt the change,
I'm curious how different what we have in our code
is to other communities.
Do we know.
Because like I hear the concern that it makes it hard to develop
on specific lots.
But I do think that some of these things
are probably being implemented in other communities, too.
And given that drive-through facilities are often
these big national chains, I'd be surprised
if they don't have some ways to still get their projects built
that meet their needs, and in the variety of constraints
that exist in all the municipalities across the US.
Yeah so I mean, yeah, that's a great question.
I obviously don't have data off the top of my head,
but it is a fairly it's a regulation
you see in other communities.
The previous community I was in before here had that regulation.
So, I mean, I don't want to shoot from the hip
and say what the percentage is, but it is one that you
see around the country.
Yeah, I would add to that, I don't data off the top
of my head either, but I think there's
a mix of how this is applied in many different communities.
I think one of the reasons we brought it forward is staff
was if you picture like a drive-through on North Avenue
currently and you're walking or riding down
or you're walking down the sidewalk per se
in front of that storefront, if right now you
have to cross as a pedestrian, the entry and the exit
off the main road where this would allow
if it came around the front.
But that there's different ways to orient that on the site
where a pedestrian may then be crossing a drive-through lane,
but they're not crossing the entry
and exit off of a main road.
And so it provides more flexibility.
It doesn't dictate that you have to bring it around the front
of the building.
And then there's other unique properties
where if you think of a shopping center,
where there's multiple businesses that
are because there's not multiple entries and exits,
it gives more flexibility for coming around and crossing.
The other was we were seeing some unique parking
to try and get to try and avoid or try to get orient with this.
That wasn't necessarily the desired effect either.
And so when we put all that together,
it helped us get to a place of this recommendation.
And what the staff brought it forward versus it
while it was brought up.
And we've heard a lot of feedback on it.
There's some challenges in the orientation,
and doesn't mean it just opens up more opportunity
to meet that flexibility.
Council Kennedy.
Yeah, just a few things on this.
I'm supportive of the changes in looking at the testimony
from the planning commission.
One of the things that was challenged
was to ask staff if there was any documented
pedestrian injuries in drive-thru lanes
that would justify it.
And there weren't.
But obviously, we're not saying that we know of
every drive-through everywhere.
Importantly, I think that in our staff presentation,
we covered that the transportation
engineering design standards or TEDs are
they still govern circulation.
Queuing and conflict points is what we heard.
And that's important.
And I will say that I have heard directly, actually, I
was in those chambers when after right at the end of a meeting,
after a meeting that I'd gotten a information that a very
large investment wasn't going to happen specifically because
of that in our community and the developer,
just with that frustration, this has been probably
more than a year ago, but it's that type of while there maybe
are some other ways to do it, you're making this you make
you're making it much, much more expensive
with these types of designs for a business to come in there.
And while we're not just all business in Grand Junction,
it is an important consideration for us as council members
and as a city to try to support businesses
for jobs and tax revenues and all that type of thing.
So I'm supportive of the motion.
Any other comments.
Was there.
Were there any clear concerns about pedestrian safety
that came out of the planning commission discussion.
I don't know if you have any but I
would guess that was 3 against this was
because of pedestrian safety.
Certainly we want to make things work for the commercial side
of stuff.
Yeah I don't think it was strictly
about pedestrian safety.
I think it was also about just kind of
and obviously I'm just paraphrasing from what
my memory of the minutes were and what they talked about,
but it was just also about urban design,
building a community that, one would want to live in,
raise a family and all that kind of stuff.
And people there were certainly conversations
on both sides of that.
But just from what I recall, there was some
about pedestrian connections.
And if it is closer to the road and there's not a drive-through
the middle like it's one less conflict point.
But, I mean, I think it was a mixture of that
and more so kind of urban design principles.
Yeah thanks.
One more thing.
I can address that directly.
The opposition in particular.
Commissioner Moore commented that with every opposition
against pedestrian access, it makes it harder
for alternate modes of travel.
So that was my takeaway, that it wasn't necessarily about safety,
but about making it more convenient.
And for multimodal transportation,
which is also an important consideration.
But just to segregate that from the safety
part of the conversation.
And so did you want to respond to that or.
Yeah, I was just going to say he kind of Commissioner Moore kind
brought up some of our bicycle, bicycle
and pedestrian plan and stuff like that as
well in his comment.
So I think you're right, Councilman.
That's kind of where he was coming from specifically.
So in the example that city manager Bennett just
shared with us, if you're looking at North
and you have the entrance and the exit
that are coming through the sidewalk right there.
So that's two major points of where a car is coming,
where a pedestrian is going.
And so I mean, and then if you had the ability
to make the drive-through go around the business
where it's not doing that, you're
reducing the chances of an accident
and you're increasing the connectivity.
Am I misunderstanding that.
Well, I would say in some cases, but I mean,
it depends on if it's alley loaded.
It depends on if we would even allow two
accesses in the first place.
North's a little bit unique because it is alley loaded.
A lot of it is.
And then there's also a lot of access points on North
and a lot of our more newer development.
We have, spacing requirements where we don't allow those many
that amount of access points.
So it really kind of does depend on the site
and what makes the most sense.
But there is stuff on North where there are two access
points and they're able to design it in a way that works,
but it just kind of depends on the size of the lot
where it's located, if it's alley loaded,
all that kind of stuff.
And so this Amendment is really allowing
for that flexibility based on the lot and the property
and the surrounding roads.
That's correct.
And whatever the separation requirements
might be on that road, with our different circulation
plans and stuff like that.
OK thank you.
Is there any additional council comments or questions.
I'd make a motion if you'd like.
I think we have to go through hearing first.
Oh, yeah.
Sorry so with seeing no additional questions or comments
we will open this for public hearing.
Is there anyone present.
And I see several.
Go ahead and line up and we'll hear from the public.
I just.
I'm sorry about that.
I don't know.
It's OK.
We're here all night Tonight we're here all night.
It's that seat.
It's the jump.
The gun scene.
Hello so, will you start with stating your name.
Yeah I'm Shayla.
Obviously not a city planning expert by any means.
This is also the first time I've heard of this thing today.
But I did have a concern regarding the removal.
I understand that it's subjective,
but the removal of the idea that it needs
to be safe for pedestrians, specifically that first line
item for because specifically, it seems to me that we're
removing that idea that it needs to be safe for pedestrians,
that all drivers need to consider that.
And then later on, we're removing a couple things
that actually make it safer.
You said that we're removing it because it's redundant,
because there's already things that clarify
or guarantee that safety.
And then later on we're removing a few things that then guarantee
that safety, such as not putting a drive-through
in between the building and the pedestrian way,
or this conversation about the language about abutting
versus adjacent the feet.
I do think that is worth further conversation.
My suggestion to the council would
be that if you do pass this, that you would pass it
with the removal of that language about that
the language stay adjacent, not abutting because allowing drive
throughs to not that feet away.
It just seems like it's an excuse for us to not follow
existing regulations around.
Pedestrian safety.
And every time that we like hedge those things,
then it becomes a way for developers
to continue to make pedestrian safety
even a little more dangerous.
And North Avenue is already one of the most dangerous places
to walk in this town.
It doesn't need to become worse.
Drive throughs are already kind of a pedestrian hellscape.
A biker hellscape.
So that's just my comment on that.
So thank you.
Is it this person.
Presentation that's it right there.
Good evening, city council members.
My name is Mark Austin.
I'm a civil engineer with Austin civil group
here in Grand Junction.
I've been designing drive-through facilities here
in Grand Junction for over 25 plus years,
and just wanted to run through some practical examples
of drive-through facilities and why we're here tonight
to ask for some changes.
I've only got three minutes, so I'm going to have to go
through this extremely quickly.
We talked about the two access points on North Avenue
and North Avenue is a little bit of an exception for that.
And the problem is that the city code only allows one
access for these facilities.
North Avenue sometimes you can get
away with two access locations.
But in order to do it, you've got
to violate three different Ted's provisions
to be able to make it work.
North Avenue it works because there's a medium
that allows it to happen.
But most of the other streets at Grand Junction
don't have that opportunity.
This is a typical example of Burger King drive-thru facility,
which wraps around the front of the building
and has the one access point.
That's a pretty typical requirement.
We see where we are only allowed to have one access
point onto a project site.
But you can see what it does is it tends to push the building
back on the back side of the lot so that you can't get
it up on the street frontage.
I was part of the code committee that
looked at drive-thru facilities, and that code committee
was 2 plus years long.
We spent a couple of months looking
at drive-thru facilities, and the one
that was selected that everybody on the committee was happy with
was the North Avenue Taco Bell at 29 road.
And you can see that drive-thru facility has
a landscape buffer between sidewalks
and the drive-thru facilities.
You've got two pedestrian crossings.
You've got three street frontages
and that was an option everybody on the committee was happy with,
and that's what we literally thought was going to be adopted
with the new code language.
But unfortunately it wasn't.
And so that's why we're here tonight
to try to get that fixed.
And as far as pedestrian safety goes and bicycle or anybody else
I want you to point out to Chick fil A, I mean,
that place is pretty intense that this is a plan
that you allow the businesses to come
up with their own solutions.
This is what they can do.
But I can tell you, if pedestrian safety and people
getting hit was a concern, these corporations
would not be doing that because they would have lawsuits.
And they would not be having pedestrians crossing
these drive-thru lanes.
But I just wanted to point out this would not be allowed
under the current code, and we need to leave that flexibility
and options for these businesses to come
up with creative solutions to meet our code requirements.
Thank you.
Hi sorry for my voice.
I'm Kelsey Heath with CBC prime properties.
I'm a commercial real estate agent.
I'm here on behalf of the owner of 2658 Tracy Anne road
on Highway 50, in Orchard mesa.
His site plan was terminated in February of 2025 due
to the continued difficulties presented by the New zoning
code, and the requirement that drive-thru lanes cannot be
located between the facade of the building and the adjacent
public road makes it impossible of the application to design
and build a properly stacked restaurant drive-through
on the property, despite the fact
that it is allowed to have this because of the accessory use.
Table 21.04 zoning codes.
As Mark stated, we have.
There's several buildings that would not be here if it wasn't
for the codes that we had, that would be Chick fil A. There's
a couple Taco Bell's, Starbucks, Dutch brothers,
McDonald's, and we ask, what are these annual city sales tax
receipts from the 10 locations cited above
and others like them that were foregone future receipts
from the multiple of future locations
that have been rendered undeveloped by this facade
requirement as well.
We propose that Amendment of the zoning code
to exclude the drive-through lanes
from the facade requirement has been attached below.
Sorry, I'm reading the letter, but as the city has shown
these requirements, that there.
You were talking about would help
with more of this development.
And bring more money and taxes into our economy.
So we really hope that you guys move forward with this.
Thank you.
Any other public comment.
Seeing none, we will go ahead and close public hearing
and we will return to council for additional comments
or questions.
Hearing none I would ask for.
Go ahead.
Yeah, I maybe would be curious to hear from Thomas
about this adjacent and abutting kind of thing that
came up during public comment.
Yeah, maybe I'm not fully tracking the yeah.
Why that makes a difference and why that's helpful.
Sure so with adjacent, it would just be measured feet away
from where the facility is.
So if we're talking the menu board or whatever else,
it would be feet from that where a budding is just
like where the right of way property line is,
if that makes sense.
Our legal team, I guess, kind of recommended that we change that.
Just to clarify it, just because it could
be kind of difficult to regulate if it's a 100 foot
radius, as opposed to directly adjacent
to the public right of way.
OK thank you.
Anything else.
Yeah I just like to state, over the last year,
we've received multiple emails on this
from different developers and site planners
that we're trying to get a project through.
And we're really seeing a hang up as we look for Grand Junction
to grow, to develop, to have the services that we all hope
and want to have, especially a property up in Orchard mesa,
I think we really we've got to get
behind these businesses and really incentivize development.
And that's why I'm in favor and passing this tonight.
If there's no additional comments or questions
I would ask for a motion.
All right.
Now, now is the time.
OK I move to adopt ordinance number 5320, an ordinance
amending sections of the zoning code title
21 and Grand Junction municipal code regarding
drive-through facilities on final passage
and order final publication in pamphlet form.
We have a motion on the floor from council member Kennedy.
Do I have a second.
Second OK, we have a second from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
And with that, salicina could you call the roll.
Council Member Kennedy.
Yes council member.
Nguyen yes.
Council Member Stout sent a message that she was a yes.
She cannot say it verbally.
OK council member van Dijk.
Yes council member.
Ballard yes.
Council Member.
Beilfuss yes.
Mayor Lutz.
Yes The motion passes 7 to 0.
OK next we will be reviewing an ordinance amending ordinance
4991 concerning the city, Los colonias Development
Corporation, master lease and the Third Amendment
there to for purposes of amending the description
of lease parcel 2 for the purpose of facilitating
the development of monument business park on site de
at the Las colonias business park,
and we have a staff presentation from engineering
and transportation director Trent
Powell, as well as interim city attorney Jeremiah Boyce.
Good evening, Mayor and members of council.
This evening, or back in November of 2017,
the city council authorized the development of 15 acres
down at the Las colonias Las colonias park, known as the Las
colonias business park.
There was a master lease that we put together there on four
different areas that we then executed that lease with the Las
colonias Development Corporation, who has then since
subleased some portions of those areas
to Rocky Mountain and bonsai and more recently, oak star.
And so the area that we're talking about here this evening
is up here on the very, very North end of the park.
And it has we've got a proposal in running through planning
and through the LCDC called the monument business park,
and their layout is such that they
need to modify the Southern boundary of this lease.
Area number two.
Lease area number two encompasses all of the area here
North of the main entrance road lease area one was this area
here, including the butterfly park
lease Area 3 is where oakstar ended up
taking a portion of that lease.
Area 4 is where the bonsai warehouse is proposed.
So anyway, you can see from the proposed business park,
the monument business park here where the parking lot does
protrude over the leased area.
And so all this does is clean that
up and be able to accommodate that expanded parking lot there.
Other than that, I would have to defer
to our city attorney in regards to why
this requires an ordinance.
But anyway, nonetheless, it does.
And this is our Third Amendment to the lease.
The first one was amending 25 years to 99 years
after we had a positive vote from voters on that.
And then the second one was amending the lease for oak star.
So this is the third one that we're needing to amend.
So with that, I'd be happy to entertain any questions.
It is an ordinance.
So we will need to have a public hearing to make that official.
Do you have anything to add.
I don't.
Trent did a great job.
Up OK.
Any council questions or comments at this time.
OK with that, we will open public hearing.
If anyone would like to have public comment on this,
please approach the podium.
Seeing none, we will close the public hearing
and return to council for comments or questions.
Just quickly, thanks for handling this, Trent.
I said because I'm on the board, I also am on the LCDC
and this is just another great development
along the Riverside Parkway and a great development
in Las colonias.
So excited for this.
It sounds like there's some great innovative concepts
that are moving forward here.
So thank you.
Any other questions or comments.
Seeing none, I would ask for a motion.
I can do that.
Go for it.
OK I moved to adopt ordinance number 5321,
an ordinance to amend ordinance 4991 concerning the city, Las
colonias Development Corporation, master lease
and the Third Amendment thereto for the purpose of amending
the description of the lease.
Parcel two for the purpose of facilitating the development
of the monument business park on site
D at the Las colonias business park on final passage, in order.
Final publication in pamphlet form.
OK, we have a motion on the floor
from council member Kennedy.
Do we have a second.
Second we have a second from council
member Wynn and celestina, if you could call roll.
Council Member.
Nguyen yes.
Council Member.
Stoute yes.
Council Member van Dijk.
Yes council member.
Ballard yes.
Council Member.
Yes council member.
Kennedy yes.
Mayor Lutz.
Yes The motion passes 7 to 0 and we will move to our next item,
which is an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan
for approximately 19.83 acres from industrial
to residential low.
Located on lot two of monument vista
subdivision at eight 6021 road.
And we have a staff presentation from planning
manager Thomas Lloyd.
All right.
The mic is on now.
All right.
Good evening again.
City council as well as members of the public.
I'm Thomas Lloyd, I'm the planning
manager with the Community Development Department.
And this is for a CPA that we have on the Northwestern side
of the city.
But it is located at eight 6021 road.
And more specifically, it's lot two
of monument vistas filing one.
So just it may have been a while since you guys
have done a CPA and a rezone.
So just to remind everybody, the first step
is a comprehensive plan Amendment,
and the CPA has to be done prior to the rezone itself,
and the rezone will move forward assuming
that the CPA is approved.
All right.
So the property owner, Brookfield mixed use 65,
is requesting this CPA from the industrial land use designation
to the residential land use designation on 19.83 acres.
I'm not sure some of you may have been on the council,
but previously there was another CPA done here a few years back
where this was.
It was the same CPA type of Amendment residential Industrial
Light to residential low or excuse me
industrial to residential low.
So really the request here from the applicant
is to do a continuation of what they've done to the East here.
That is residential low.
So yeah, I'll just go into the vicinity.
The properties outlined here in yellow.
You got 21 road over here.
You got the Brookfield residential development here.
This is really close to this is the last corporate limits
area of town.
This is where we're kind of getting to the end of our udb
on the Western Northwestern area of town,
and where we're a lot closer to our fruita buffer area.
So here's the land use map.
You have industrial low or excuse me.
Industrial everywhere here.
And then residential low to the North.
As well as the Middle East.
And, it kind of crosses this area here.
So yeah.
In residential low in terms of what
that land use means it is lower density, larger lot residential.
But if you just look to the surrounding area,
you have more residential agricultural uses to the West.
You have light industrial uses to the South, as well as more
residential lower density uses anywhere from 2 to 5.5
units there to the Middle East.
In terms of implementing land use designations or excuse
me, implementing zoning districts of land of that land
use designation of residential low RL 4, RL 5,
P1, P2, and PD would all be zoned
districts that implement that.
That's not really important for this part of the item,
but we'll revisit that if and when we do the rezoning.
So if you look at the current zoning,
you can see it's RL 5 to the East
and then some RL 4 to the North Northeast
and then Industrial Light.
Also this is more important to next portion of this.
If this does move forward here are site photos.
As you can see, it's largely vacant
agricultural land right now.
So we'll get into the meat of the analysis of this now.
So to amend the comprehensive plan,
here's the criterion that has to be met.
The existing comprehensive plan, or any related element thereof,
requires the proposed Amendment, and the community or area
will derive benefits from the proposed Amendment,
and/or the Amendment will be consistent with the vision,
goals, principles, and policies of the comprehensive plan
and elements thereof.
So it's kind of similar to our rezoning criteria,
but slightly different.
But we'll go through this in more detail.
And just to start, staff has found
that the criteria has been met.
But we'll discuss it more here.
All right.
So for the first criterion, the current industrial land use
designation, just so you're aware,
is implemented by zoning districts of kg, I1 and I2.
But, with the residential low designation that they're asking
for, it would be consistent with multiple portions
of the comprehensive plan, specifically
plan principle 3.1 be responsible and manage growth.
This principle calls on the city to support the efficient use
of existing public facilities and services,
by directing development to locations
where it can meet and maintain level of services targets.
This is a tier 2 property, but the reason
I'm mentioning that principle is just because there is already
sewer and services available to that site,
with the residential areas that are directly to the East,
and they would really just be continuing that on.
It also, the comprehensive plan also
acknowledges the growing demand for housing
and a limited supply of housing that we're kind
of struggling with right now.
And obviously, we're kind of going
through the housing needs assessment stuff right now also.
So that just acts as an undercurrent of all of this.
But having additional housing stock,
can help meet the community's long term residential needs.
This is consistent with our managed growth principles,
just because it aligns with land use policy and changing market
and demographic conditions.
A comprehensive plan Amendment is
the formal or formal mechanism for evaluating
whether a property should transition to a more appropriate
future use with a site like this,
it is adjacent to existing services.
So redesignate redesignated it to residential low supports,
orderly expansion rather than scattering
or having inefficient development patterns.
I did want to touch on just because the comprehensive plan
is very supportive of preserving industrial properties,
but more specifically, it's protects and preserves
industrial properties and more certain established areas
and with areas that have railroad access.
So this property is not within an area
that has railroad Spurs or special infrastructure
to serve industrial properties.
And in the comprehensive plan, there's even a specific h road
Northwest subarea that it really encourages
us to protect in the future.
This area is not within that area,
so staff feels like it is consistent to rezone
this to a residential use.
And just further if industrial is no longer
viable or appropriate changing the designation
to residential low can reduce future land
use conflicts, especially with the site to the Middle East.
It is a more consistent use with the properties that
are to the North, the West and the East
so it can help maintain a better neighborhood quality
and promote a more predictable land use pattern.
Obviously, there will still be industrial land use designations
to the South, but staff kind of sees
this as lessening the intensity of the uses in that area.
So staff finds that this criterion has been met.
Secondly, that the next criterion
is that the commuter area will derive benefits
from the proposed Amendment.
So we touched on housing.
I think that's really the largest benefit.
I'll touch on it very quickly because we did already
talk about it.
But residential low creates the opportunity
for additional housing.
Is a more compatible transition between the surrounding land
uses.
And the properties, especially to the North,
the East and the West.
These types of low density residential uses
are typically more consistent with the neighborhood character
that you would see in that area.
So lastly, just that land use plan should
adapt when conditions evolve.
If the site such as this is no longer optimal for industrial
use.
Redesignating it to residential low
is certainly a use that it can still
be used in a productive manner that
does benefit the city with our housing shortage right now.
So staff finds that the proposed comprehensive plan Amendment
will benefit the community by increasing housing
opportunities, promoting compatible neighborhood
development, reducing potential industrial impacts,
and efficiently utilizing existing infrastructure,
as well as supporting long term, orderly growth.
So staff finds that criterion has been met,
and then lastly, that the Amendment will
be consistent with the vision, goals, principles,
and policies of the comprehensive policies
of the comprehensive plan.
So this was kind of touched on earlier mentioned planned
principle 3.1b earlier and the acknowledgment
of grand junction's growing housing needs.
Lastly, there's also a plan, principle 5.1,
which is strong neighborhoods and housing choices.
This calls on the city to promote more opportunities
for housing choices to meet the needs of all people,
ages and incomes.
So this principle also calls on the city
to monitor and periodically update the land use plan
to ensure the city has an adequate supply of land
designated for different housing types.
So staff has also found that this criterion has been met
and that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan
because it responds to current housing needs,
promotes compatible and more cohesive land use patterns,
and supports efficient use and orderly of infrastructure
and orderly growth patterns.
So staff finds that criterion has been met.
And just in terms of our findings of fact
and in accordance with section 21.0205 5 minus 0 C4 romanet.
Three of the zoning and development code.
The application meets the criteria
identified in the comprehensive plan criteria.
So the planning commission also heard this request
at their April 28 meeting.
And they voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval.
That's all I have.
Happy to answer questions.
Thank you.
Is the applicant here.
Do you have a presentation.
Good evening, council members.
My name is Chris Hernandez.
I'm representing the applicant this evening.
We just have a quick little slide right here that we're
going to just power through.
Thomas has already kind of gone over everything
that we have here.
So he's already done a real good job explaining everything.
The one thing that we did want to hit on
is that we do understand the importance of the Industrial
zoning and how we're keeping that industrial zoning
South of the.
Requested residential.
And they are developing in two sections of that already.
Well so here in I1 and one here, they
are already having plats done to develop industrial there.
And then we're just mirroring really
the RL five the North section of this parcel here.
And that's really all we had.
Let me go ahead and read that.
Read this.
No, no.
No sorry I'm Tracy with River City consultants.
And could you speak into the microphone, please.
Sorry thank you.
My name is Tracy Stetson with River City consultants,
and Chris here is training as a project coordinator.
And so we're kind of letting him take the wheel tonight.
There were some points that we wanted
to make just on this sheet.
I'm going to let him read it because I do have a sore tooth.
So I'm going to let him go with this.
And so because of the comprehensive plan priorities,
the use of existing public facilities and services,
this property is a target for Amendment.
The property is already within the city limits
and has access to sewer.
There's a growing demand and limited
supply of attainable housing in Grand Junction.
There is limited demand for industrial development,
and this Amendment would increase
opportunity to create new housing
and help to meet long term needs.
Residential low designation is better aligned
with the surrounding residential development to the East
and the residential low designation to the North,
and we're still preserving 14.36 acres of industrial land
for development.
And the applicant is committed to industrial development
in this area and is currently developing
the industrial properties adjacent to the East
of this parcel.
Thank you.
OK we're available to answer any questions you might have.
OK thank you.
If you just want to remain there while we
in case any of the Council members have a question,
we will come back to council for comments or questions.
The one question I have is.
So when I was reviewing the packet,
I did notice that the neighborhood meeting
was held in October 24 of 2024.
And I was just wondering why it was so long ago.
Yeah, I can speak to that.
So this has been an ongoing application,
and we also had to do a subdivision
prior to this rezone happening.
So with the subdivision happening, the minor subdivision
that happened to make this rezone reason possible.
This has just been kind of a longer process.
OK thank you.
Council Member stout.
Yeah I wanted to say that I will be voting yes for the Amendment
because I find staff and the applicants presentations to be
complete and to be compelling.
And I find that all the criteria has been met.
OK thank you.
Are there any other questions or concerns from or questions
or comments from council.
OK thank you so much.
You can go ahead.
Have a seat and we will open the floor for public hearing.
If anyone has comment that they would
like to enter into the record.
Seeing none, we will close the public hearing
and we will move for last comments or questions
from council.
Seeing none, I would ask for a motion.
Emotion all right.
I would move to adopt ordinance number 5322,
an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan
for approximately 19.83 acres from
industrial to residential low, located
at 860 21 road on final passage and order
final publication in pamphlet form.
We have a motion on the floor from council member Kennedy.
Is there a second.
Second we have a second.
I think Mayor Pro tem van Dijk got that first.
So that would be our second.
And celestina, if you could call roll.
Council Member Stout.
Yes council member van Dijk.
Yes council member.
Ballard yes.
Council Member.
Beilfuss yes.
Council Member.
Kennedy yes.
Council Member.
Nguyen yes.
Mayor Lutz.
Yes The motion passes 7 to 0, and we
will move to our next ordinance, which is an ordinance rezoning
approximately 19.83 acres from Industrial Light
L1 to residential low five RL 5, located
on lot two of monument vista subdivision
at eight 6021 road and Thomas.
Go ahead.
We'll kick it back to you.
Sure yeah, I'll try to shorten this a bit.
Won't be quite as verbose.
I can read the room a little bit.
So this request is from Industrial
Light to residential low five.
So it's the same site we just talked about.
And if you just look at the current zoning
it is I1 right now.
And then to the East is the RL four the RL and
as well as the RL five.
And then more industrial load to the South and Southeast.
All right.
So we'll get into our analysis.
Really a lot of the consistency and comprehensive plan elements
are very similar to the last one.
So rather than getting in too much detail
I'll just hit on some of the principles.
So the first thing we got to discuss when we're looking
at a rezoning, consider when we're
looking at rezoning is that it's generally
consistent with the applicable provisions
of the comprehensive plan.
So you all just amended the comprehensive plan
for it to be consistent with the future land use map.
So that area does have a residential low designation now.
And, our L5, what they're requesting
is an implementing zoning district of residential low.
So we touched on responsible and managed growth policies,
to support the efficient use of existing facilities
and services.
This area is supported by that.
Obviously, the comprehensive plan acknowledges
the growing demand for housing.
So rezoning area from I1 to RL five
increases opportunities for new housing
stock in terms of strong neighborhoods
and housing choices.
It calls on the city to monitor and periodically update its land
use plan and zoning to ensure that the city has
an adequate supply of land for housing.
So it checks that box as well, so just to summarize,
it's consistent with the vision, goals, principles,
and policies of the Comp plan because it responds
to current housing needs.
It promotes compatible and cohesive land use patterns.
It supports the efficient use of infrastructure,
and it advances orderly growth and community livability.
So staff finds that criterion has been met.
Second, we have development patterns, and that the proposed
zoning will result in logical and orderly development
patterns.
So a rezone from r I1 to R5 results in a logical and orderly
development pattern because it aligns the subject property
with the established pattern that is directly to the East as
well as the North, so it creates a more coherent transition
of land uses.
It's already bordered by residential zoning
to the Northeast and the West.
So RL five it's just a logical extension of that with the I-1
zoning to the South, you RL 5 can
serve as a transitional district between the more intense
industrial activity to the South and then the more ag
uses to the North.
I did just wanted to make sure everybody was aware that we do
have residential compatibility standards
between industrial properties and residential properties.
So any industrial property that does develop to the South
if it develops to the South, you we'll
have to have adequate buffers and screening,
where it is adjacent to industrial property.
So I just wanted to make sure that was clear in case there
were any questions about that.
But lastly, residential zoning uses allowed in RL 5 being two
or I guess minimum of 2, maximum or no, it's a minimum of three,
maximum of 5 and 1/2.
Dwelling units better match the established neighborhood context
and reduce future conflicts between adjoining properties.
This rezone provides an appropriate transition.
It supports infill development and promotes
a more cohesive and compatible land use pattern.
So staff finds that criterion has been met.
And then lastly benefits.
We talked about this at the last item in the CPA.
Resigned from IO to RL 5, can help the community
and surrounding land area derive meaningful benefits
by aligning zoning with our current community needs,
one of our main ones being additional housing
and improving neighborhood compatibility
and long term growth.
So staff also finds this criterion has been met.
I'm not going to get as much into these details
just because I think they've already been stated
and they are in the staff report for the record.
So lastly, findings of fact in accordance with section 21.0205
M3 remnant, two of the zoning and development code, staff
has found that this application meets the criteria identified
in the rezoning criteria, and the planning
commission also recommended approval of this 7 to 0.
That concludes my presentation.
Happy to answer any questions.
OK thank you.
With the applicant.
Like to add to that.
Good evening again.
My name is Chris Hernandez.
I'm with River City consultants and just available to answer
any questions if there was any.
And with that, is there any council comments or questions.
If you'll go ahead and have a seat and then
we will open the public hearing.
If anyone has any comment.
Seeing none, we will close the public hearing
and return to council for comments or questions.
Seeing none, I would ask for a motion.
I move to adopt ordinance number 5323, an ordinance rezoning
approximately 19.83 acres from light industrial I-1
to residential low five RL 5, located
on lot two of the monument vista subdivision
at eight 6021 road on final passage, in order.
Final publication in pamphlet form.
We have a motion on the floor from Mayor Pro tem Van Dyke.
Do we have a second.
Second We have a second from council member Nguyen.
And so if you could call the roll.
Council Member van Dijk.
Yes council member.
Ballard yes.
Council Member.
Beilfuss yes.
Council Member.
Kennedy yes.
Council Member.
Nguyen yes.
Council Member.
Stoute yes.
Mayor Lutz.
Yes The motion passes 7 to 0.
And just a quick reminder, council member beilfuss,
if you can use your microphone.
Because just when I'm watching remote or not here,
it's very hard to hear.
So if you could do that.
Thank you.
OK next.
Are we doing OK still.
Everybody OK.
We're going to discuss an ordinance
to vacate the Eastern 15 feet of 24.25 road
public right of way between Canyon view park
and 2426 grams road.
We have a staff presentation from associate planner Sam
wubbels.
Did I say that correct.
You did.
Thank you.
Mayor good evening.
Members of the Council and members of the public.
As stated, my name is Sam wubbels,
associate planner with the Community
Development Department.
This presentation regards a request by 2426 grams road,
LLC to vacate the Eastern 15 feet of the 24.25 road
public right of way between Canyon view park
and 2426 grams road.
The subject properties are located along the Eastern 15,
along 24.25 road and g road.
The city and applicant came to an agreement
to perform a land exchange in which the applicant,
the applicant will receive the Eastern 15 along 24.25 road,
and the city will receive right of way
along g road, which supports the circulation plan to where
the road is brought up to standards
and provided a detached sidewalk in the future.
The site map in front of you highlights the right of way that
will be in the land exchange.
The surrounding properties are currently
zoned P2, Rm 12 LHRH 24, mu2, and PD all
lying within the 24 road corridor.
Design standards.
Pursuant to Section 21 two 0.50 pounds of the zoning
and development code.
Request for a vacation of public right of way
shall demonstrate conformance with the following review
criteria as identified on this and following slides.
Specific discussion and detail regarding
these individual review criteria for the vacation request
can be found and identified within the staff report.
Looking at review criteria number one,
the request does not conflict with the comprehensive plan
or the Grand Junction circulation plan.
Further, the vacation request is consistent
with the following goals and policies
of the comprehensive plan.
Plan principle three responsible and manage growth plan.
Principle five strong neighborhoods
and housing choices.
Policy one promote more opportunities
for housing choices that meets the needs of people of all ages,
abilities, and incomes.
Policy two encourage infill and redevelopment to leverage
existing infrastructure.
And lastly, policy four maintain and build infrastructure that
supports urban development.
Looking at review criteria number 2,
the New subdivision will have access from G road,
with new streets being constructed
inside the subject property for the subdivision development.
The vacation will not landlock any property.
Review criteria number three access
will not be restricted with required conditions.
Additionally, because the parcel does not
rely on the unconstructed 24.25 road right of way for ingress
or egress, the proposed vacation will
not reduce or devalue the property
or any adjacent properties.
Review criteria number four the proposed
vacation will not negatively affect public health, safety,
or welfare.
The right of way is unbuilt and unused, and access via G road
remains adequate for emergency services.
Review criteria number five.
The vacation will not impact public facilities or services.
A private irrigation line that conveys wastewater
for the subject property is located within the right
of way area proposed for vacation, because this line
serves only the subject parcel.
This function will not be impaired by the vacation
and will remain the responsibility
of the property owner.
Lastly, review criteria number six.
The proposed vacation will not hinder public or city functions.
The city the right of way, has not been constructed
and is not utilized.
Upon vacation, the property will revert to private ownership.
The proposed vacation is part of a land exchange between the city
and the applicant.
Through this exchange, the applicant
will acquire the vacated right of way
and the city will obtain additional right of way
along g road.
The acquisition of right of way along g road
supports the city's transportation network and
public infrastructure needs.
After reviewing the 2426 grams road public right of way,
vacation file number vac 2025 202.
Located between Canyon view park and 2426 grams
road, the following findings of fact,
have been made with the recommendation
with the recommended condition of approval
that can be seen on the screen.
The request with the following conditions,
conforms with section 21 two 0.50 pounds of the zoning
and development code.
Therefore, staff recommends approval and the planning
commission at the April 28 hearing
recommends approval with a 7 0 vote.
Other requested right of way.
This concludes my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Is there any questions now.
Is the applicant here all right Yes it's me again.
Hello Chris Hernandez.
Welcome back River City consultants.
Yeah just available for any questions OK.
Great are there any council comments
or questions at this time.
OK thank you so much.
Thank you.
Have a seat.
We will go ahead and open the public hearing
if anyone has comments.
OK, I'm seeing no one.
So we will close the public hearing
and return to council for any additional comments
or questions.
Hearing none, I would ask for a motion.
I move to adopt ordinance number 5324,
an ordinance vacating the Eastern 15 feet of 24.25 road
public right of way between Canyon
view park and 2426 grams road on final passage,
in order of final publication in pamphlet form.
We have a motion on the floor from council member Nguyen.
Do we have a second.
Second We have a second from council
member Kennedy and celestina.
If you could call roll.
Council Member.
Ballard yes.
Council Member.
Yes council member.
Kennedy yes.
Council Member.
Nguyen yes.
Council Member.
Stoute yes.
Council Member Van Dyke.
Yes mayor.
Lutz yes.
The motion passes 7 to 0, and we will now move to number 6
on our agenda procurements.
And this is to authorize a contract
for water treatment plant South tank, interior road recoding.
And we have a staff presentation from interim utilities
director Ashley ferl who waited all night to present.
So thank you.
Thank you for having me.
Good evening.
Council I'm Ashley Farrell, I'm the interim utilities director.
And this is a presentation regarding the contract
to award the interior recoding for the city's
water treatment plant, South water storage tank.
So this is a partial diagram of the water treatment process.
Two four million gallon tanks store
treated water that is distributed
to the system and the community, but they are also
part of the treatment process because they allow
for the contact time or residence
time necessary to ensure adequate disinfection
per regulations.
So water demand can quadruple in the summer,
requiring that both tanks stay online
and operate in sequence so that contact time is maintained,
unlike cure in place pipe projects
where environmental conditions like temperature,
humidity, and precipitation can be more
easily controlled underground.
A large coating project like this on a steel tank
is a much more intensive process.
The existing coating has to be stripped from every surface,
and then the raw steel has to be prepped
for a primer coat, which can involve spot repairs, welding
and rust removal.
The primer coat and all subsequent coats
should be allowed to cure in moderate ambient temperatures
and normal humidity, ideally without large fluctuations in
temperature whenever possible.
So, since the steel tank is so large, 170 in diameter,
25 feet tall in the walls, it's really not
feasible to heat the interior of the tank during this project
if we were to hit really bad weather conditions.
So the storage tank rule is a state regulation, initially
enacted in 2016 and updated in 2021 with policies
to clarify certain aspects, including what constitutes
a sanitary defect and requiring certain qualifications
for personnel that perform certain inspection methods,
including diving into tanks, which
is how our tanks are inspected.
They're required to be performed by these skilled set of divers
that are experienced very specifically with this kind
of work to do these inspections, these guys are completely
disinfected before they enter our tanks,
and we're able to have video and photographs taken of all
the interior surfaces without having to take the tank offline,
which is a really advantageous.
As you can see, there's some photos here from the inspection
where we identified this peeling on the ceiling
and on the interior posts as critical sanitary defects.
So once those are identified as critical defects,
the storage tank rule requires that we should establish
a corrective action plan to address
them in the South water tank.
We needed to address those pretty much immediately.
And we're making an attempt to do that.
We wanted to do that last year, but this year
is the best that we can do.
So that's what the regulation requires us to do.
So the project timeline.
We identified these critical defects in fall of 2024,
and then in the first quarter of this year,
we specified the project scope with the work
breakdown and the coding type.
The IFB invitation for bids closed on March 4,
and after that date, the contractors guarantee
their prices for 60 days.
Now, in the second quarter of 2026,
we have asked for an extended guarantee one time 30 days
from the contractor that we intended to award the bid to
or rather had the lowest price on the IFB
per procurement policies, the city
performed additional due diligence,
including checking references and checking
contractual requirements.
And doing some research on how we could
include those into the final contract.
So due to the constraints of our corrective action plan
and the weather and demand in the summertime needing
to keep those tanks online, we really have
to take those tanks offline.
The day after Labor Day, mobilize
the contractor immediately.
They have approximately 94 days to complete that project,
and then we can close the corrective action plan
and call the tanks sanitary defect free.
Finally funding for this project is included in the 2026 water
enterprise fund adopted budget already,
and that is a picture of the empty water
tank, which is actually really cool to be inside of.
It's very large.
If now I will see any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
So with that, we'll return to council
for comments or questions.
Council Member Kennedy go ahead.
Thank you.
Thank you Ashley.
Thank you for that presentation.
And my sincere appreciation to staff
for doing the extra due diligence that we asked for.
And it's more than satisfies all my concerns and I
and there was a lot of additional information
in the packet.
And I thank you for doing that.
And I didn't mean to make to add the extra work.
I know you're already very busy, so thank you.
I also just as a side note, I mean, again, very supportive
of the staff recommendation.
No hesitation on supporting that tonight.
But just going forward, I think for the sake of that in the best
interest of the city, part of the way council
makes that decision.
Just for the broader discussion with council at some point,
I do like the idea of a local preference policy.
And I know that's not in place now
and that's not what we're talking about here.
But I do see that as being preferable.
But just to keep money in the local market
and employing local people every chance that we can.
That said, you certainly satisfied
the due diligence here.
Thank you for that.
Any other questions or comments.
OK hearing none let's see.
We will open OK.
So we are not going to have comment on this
because it is not a hearing.
We will go ahead and ask for a motion.
I moved to authorize the city purchasing division to enter
into a contract with mandros painting incorporated of Rock
Springs, Wyoming for the WT South
tank interior recording project in the amount of $821,300.
OK, we have a motion on the floor from council member win.
Do we have a second.
Second We have a second from council member Kennedy.
And we do not need to do roll call for this one.
We do.
Oh, OK.
So all in favor.
Hi Any opposed.
The motion passes 7 to 0.
And we will now move to non-scheduled comments.
This is an opportunity for individuals
to speak to city council about items on tonight's agenda.
And time may be used to address city
council items that were discussed at a previous city
council workshop.
Do we have anyone that has a non-scheduled comment.
OK hearing none, we would move to other business.
Does anyone have other business.
Yeah I just have one quick thing.
I want to extend a very sincere thank you
to Councilman beilfuss, who reached out to me today and was
generous enough to let me take the lead with the business
incubator role as well as the Riverview
Technology Corporation.
And just I truly do appreciate that.
And Scott's going to stay on as a backup on it as well.
So we'll be working together with the BIC and Riverview tech.
So thank you very much Scott.
I do truly appreciate it.
Thank you.
Any other business.
Is it bedtime.
I think so.
OK with that, we are adjourned.
Oh, yeah.