Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Grand Junction City Council Workshop Summary – April 13, 2026

City Council — Monday, April 13, 2026

BodyGrand Junction, Colorado

SessionCity Council

DateMonday, April 13, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:19

I think we should

Speaker 2

0:20

have something

Speaker 1

0:20

else.

Speaker 3

0:25

We can get a carbon down, right?

0:28

Yeah.

0:29

Speaker 1

0:29

don't know.

1:28

Okay.

Speaker 4

1:39

Okay, it is five

Unassigned speaker

1:42

or three.

Unassigned speaker

1:43

And it is uh Monday, April 13th, and we'll call the Grand Junction City Council shop to order.

Speaker 4

1:50

And as we get started tonight, um, just want to note um council members are all present, including um council member ballard, who is virtual.

Unassigned speaker

2:00

So our um first item on our discussion uh topics for this evening is discuss discussion of resolution thirteen twenty-six, which is a resolution approving the inclusion of adjacent

Speaker 4

2:14

city-owned open space within Camelbeck Gardens Plan Development and uhline development plan.

2:21

So as we get started with this, um Mike, if you want to just

Unassigned speaker

2:25

kind

Speaker 1

2:25

Speaker 4

2:25

tee us off a little bit and then we'll uh work from there.

Unassigned speaker

2:30

All

Speaker 5

2:30

right, thank you, Mayor members of council.

2:33

Uh Jeremiah, did you want to make a statement related to the separation of these or before I do

Speaker 6

2:40

that?

2:40

Yes, thank you very much.

2:42

Uh Manager Bennett.

2:44

Um, just

Unassigned speaker

2:45

Speaker 6

2:45

tee off this particular situation,

Unassigned speaker

2:48

uh,

Speaker 6

2:48

you likely know there are uh may or there was and there may be a future quasi-judicial uh hearing that will come up on this particular matter.

2:57

So as it comes to this particular

Unassigned speaker

3:00

Speaker 6

3:00

discussion tonight, we need to limit it to the resolution and the dedication of the land to the ODP and uh discussion outside those bounds is

Speaker 4

3:09

uh off limits.

Unassigned speaker

3:12

Thank

Speaker 4

3:12

you, Jeremiah.

3:13

We'll be all mindful if anybody feels like we're wandering off topic, whether that's our attorney manager or any members of our council if we just can't ourselves on yes, we're just focusing on this resolution for this.

Speaker 5

3:25

Yes, thank you, mayor.

3:27

Um, so we have we have our our staff team is here ready to answer any questions and also we have a

Unassigned speaker

3:34

Speaker 5

3:34

station that is ready to kind of go back through what the resolution entailed and and some of the history related to that.

3:42

But to kick it off, I just wanted to mention that

Unassigned speaker

3:45

Speaker 5

3:46

course is as you're all aware, you've you've acted on a resolution that enabled the ability for potential future development to calculate and to achieve certain densities existing public land that's in the vicinity of that development that's essentially without resolution cover.

4:07

We can get into more detail on that if you would like.

4:27

There are a variety of uh developments within this larger area that run the gamut of multiple uh density levels that are that are in there.

Unassigned speaker

4:38

Um it's not uh uncommon for the city and certain practices to try to maximize lock coverage, and we do that in other ways and different from this, so this is not this is not directly related, but just in that that uh thought process uh over the years of including right away and calculations.

Speaker 5

4:58

This obviously is different, and this includes large tracts of public land calculated in that um since uh originally this went to our property committee and we had some discussion there, and in hindsight, I think I would like to say I think just because it's so unique, would have been good to come from from that to a workshop and have that discussion prior to going through in the hearing, and so we are happy to dive deeper into what's entailed in that and the resolution just as a reminder and bring up some of those slides if you'd like.

5:32

If you'd like to first kind of start off with the discussion of the council and we jump into that, it's up to you

Unassigned speaker

5:37

all.

Speaker 4

5:37

Perfect.

5:38

I do like the idea of kind of jumping, jumping into this just out of the gate.

5:42

And I'm obviously keeping in mind that we want to stay for away

Unassigned speaker

5:45

from

Speaker 4

5:46

the

Unassigned speaker

5:46

judicial and focus on the resolution.

Unassigned speaker

5:48

Um, I certainly had some concerns when it came to just the uh the real estate um committee,

Speaker 4

5:56

we're having that conversation.

5:58

But I just as we get started, if I could just take a temperature, this isn't an official vote,

Unassigned speaker

6:03

but

Speaker 4

6:04

just so we kind of know if you have concerns that need to be addressed.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning And Development████████████████████20%

Economic Development███████████████████19%

Procedural████████████████16%

Tourism Management██████████10%

Transportation Safety████████8%

Public Safety██████6%

Engineering And Infrastructure██████6%

Community Engagement██████6%

Public Engagement████4%

Summary of Proceedings

Grand Junction City Council Workshop Summary – April 13, 2026

The Grand Junction City Council convened for a workshop on Monday, April 13, 2026, at the Fire Department Training Room to discuss four main topics: the reconsideration of Resolution 13-26 regarding density calculations for Camelback Gardens, a proposal to host the Air Race X international event, a resolution for a Transportation Management Organization/Association (TMO/A) required for the I-70/29 Road interchange project, and upcoming board assignments and mayoral term adjustments.

Discussion Items

Camelback Gardens Resolution 13-26

City Manager Mike Bennett acknowledged the resolution should have come to the workshop for discussion prior to council action, citing its unique nature and the lack of a full public process.
Councilmember Scott Beilfuss raised concerns about the resolution lacking a specific geographic limitation in its text, potentially creating a precedent for similar requests citywide. Staff clarified the resolution is narrowly tied to the specific Camelback Gardens Planned Development and its unique history.
Councilmember Robert Ballard expressed fairness concerns, stating the city is effectively 'picking a winner' by allowing city-owned open space (dedicated by a previous developer) to be used exclusively for this project without a public process or opening it to all adjacent developments.
Councilmember Jason Nguyen countered that the land is immediately adjacent to the development, and using it for density supports the Strategic Plan's housing supply goals. He noted that land cost constitutes a significant percentage of final home prices.
Councilmember Anna Stout supported reconsidering the resolution to allow a more transparent process, emphasizing the importance of accepting public comment, which was not formally solicited before the original resolution was passed.
Mayor Cody Kennedy voiced strong support for holding a public hearing to ensure community input on this unusual policy decision, stating the resolution effectively permits a density change not reflected in the original public process.
Councilmember Laurel Lutz noted the developer had dedicated land under previous codes which have since changed, creating a unique outlying situation. City Attorney Jeremiah Boies confirmed the council has full legislative discretion but no legal obligation to apply this situation elsewhere.
Key Outcome: The council reached consensus to schedule the resolution for formal reconsideration at a future regular meeting, with explicit public comment opportunity added to the agenda.

Air Race X Event Proposal

Ben H. of the Sports Commission and organizer Ted Morris presented a proposal for Grand Junction to host a relaunched global air racing event in April 2027. The event is positioned to include a tech conference and business development component, attracting corporate executives.
The financial request requires an immediate $20,000 deposit to secure the event, with a total city investment of up to $1.2 million. The city would retain 100% of revenues up to $1.5 million before entering a revenue-sharing agreement with Air Race X.
Projections suggested 25,000 to 70,000 spectators and a $12 million economic impact, though organizers admitted hard U.S. data was limited given the relaunch status.
Council Concerns: Councilmembers Ballard, Kennedy, Lutz, Nguyen, and Stout raised several red flags: high upfront public investment, significant financial risk if the event is canceled by weather (high winds in April or aircraft performance issues in summer heat), unspecified additional public safety and operational costs, a compressed decision-making timeline, and a lack of audited financial projections or consulting from Visit Grand Junction.
Councilmember Lutz highlighted the statement 'this is a fast-moving conversation' as a major concern, requesting detailed pro forma financials before any commitment.
Councilmember Ballard emphasized the city could lose the full $1.2 million investment if the weather grounds the event, and noted the city will incur substantial costs beyond the initial investment for police, fire, and cleanup.
Key Outcome: The council directed city staff to conduct a thorough 30-day vetting process, including consultations with all relevant city departments, to evaluate operational feasibility, financial risks, and develop a firm economic analysis before any funding decision is made. The $20,000 deposit was not authorized.

TMO/A Resolution for I-70/29 Road Interchange

Staff presented a required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy needed for CDOT and federal approval of the proposed interchange. The targeted reduction is 230 ramp trips per hour (3%) through alternative transportation.
Strategies include creating a rideshare/carpool app, implementing a school pool program, providing park-and-ride facilities, and building bike/pedestrian infrastructure.
A key clarification was made that support for the TMO/A letter does not obligate the city to construct the interchange. The commitment to the TDM strategies is only enacted if the interchange proceeds to construction.
The entity will be housed within the existing Regional Transportation Planning Office (RTPO) to avoid creating a new government agency.
Councilmember Stout expressed strong interest in implementing the proposed programs, such as the carpool app and school pool initiative, citywide regardless of the interchange timeline.
Key Outcome: The council agreed to place the resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the letter of support on the consent agenda for the next regular meeting.

Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem Term Adjustments

City Attorney Jeremiah Boies outlined charter constraints regarding the mayor's explicitly defined one-year term, complicated by the change from April to November elections creating a 6–7 month scheduling gap.
Council discussed three main paths: an 18-month holdover via the charter's 'until successor' clause, a standard year followed by a short term, or a short term followed by a standard year.
Councilmember Ballard suggested doing the short term immediately to adjust the schedule right away.
Councilmember Stout and Mayor Kennedy supported doing the standard one-year term first to allow more time to publicly communicate the upcoming adjustment.
Key Outcome: The council reached consensus to elect the mayor in May 2026 for a standard 12-month term, followed by a temporary 7-month term to transition to the new November election cycle. City Manager Bennett requested clear public transparency regarding the adjustment. Formal action and board assignments are scheduled for the first council meeting in May.

Other Business

The Parks & Recreation Advisory Board interview committee recommended reappointing three incumbents and one new candidate (a pediatric nurse) for a partial term to gain childhood recreation perspective.
City Manager Bennett alerted council to a potential ban on fireworks sales due to extreme drought conditions matching historical data from previous bans in 2012 and 2018, signaling an urgent need for potential action.
Future workshop topics include the community survey, camping ordinance, redevelopment area incentives, multimodal concepts (7th & 9th Streets), Orchard Mesa Pool, and Whitman Park.

Meeting Transcript

I think we should have something else. We can get a carbon down, right? Yeah. I don't know. Okay. Okay, it is five or three. And it is uh Monday, April 13th, and we'll call the Grand Junction City Council shop to order. And as we get started tonight, um, just want to note um council members are all present, including um council member ballard, who is virtual. So our um first item on our discussion uh topics for this evening is discuss discussion of resolution thirteen twenty-six, which is a resolution approving the inclusion of adjacent city-owned open space within Camelbeck Gardens Plan Development and uhline development plan. So as we get started with this, um Mike, if you want to just kind of tee us off a little bit and then we'll uh work from there. All right, thank you, Mayor members of council. Uh Jeremiah, did you want to make a statement related to the separation of these or before I do that? Yes, thank you very much. Uh Manager Bennett. Um, just to tee off this particular situation, uh, you likely know there are uh may or there was and there may be a future quasi-judicial uh hearing that will come up on this particular matter. So as it comes to this particular uh discussion tonight, we need to limit it to the resolution and the dedication of the land to the ODP and uh discussion outside those bounds is uh off limits. Thank you, Jeremiah. We'll be all mindful if anybody feels like we're wandering off topic, whether that's our attorney manager or any members of our council if we just can't ourselves on yes, we're just focusing on this resolution for this. Yes, thank you, mayor. Um, so we have we have our our staff team is here ready to answer any questions and also we have a uh station that is ready to kind of go back through what the resolution entailed and and some of the history related to that. But to kick it off, I just wanted to mention that of course is as you're all aware, you've you've acted on a resolution that enabled the ability for potential future development to calculate and to achieve certain densities existing public land that's in the vicinity of that development that's essentially without resolution cover. We can get into more detail on that if you would like. There are a variety of uh developments within this larger area that run the gamut of multiple uh density levels that are that are in there. Um it's not uh uncommon for the city and certain practices to try to maximize lock coverage, and we do that in other ways and different from this, so this is not this is not directly related, but just in that that uh thought process uh over the years of including right away and calculations. This obviously is different, and this includes large tracts of public land calculated in that um since uh originally this went to our property committee and we had some discussion there, and in hindsight, I think I would like to say I think just because it's so unique, would have been good to come from from that to a workshop and have that discussion prior to going through in the hearing, and so we are happy to dive deeper into what's entailed in that and the resolution just as a reminder and bring up some of those slides if you'd like. If you'd like to first kind of start off with the discussion of the council and we jump into that, it's up to you all. Perfect.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com

Grand Junction City Council Workshop Summary – April 13, 2026

Discussion Items

Camelback Gardens Resolution 13-26

City Manager Mike Bennett acknowledged the resolution should have come to the workshop for discussion prior to council action, citing its unique nature and the lack of a full public process.

Councilmember Scott Beilfuss raised concerns about the resolution lacking a specific geographic limitation in its text, potentially creating a precedent for similar requests citywide. Staff clarified the resolution is narrowly tied to the specific Camelback Gardens Planned Development and its unique history.

Councilmember Robert Ballard expressed fairness concerns, stating the city is effectively 'picking a winner' by allowing city-owned open space (dedicated by a previous developer) to be used exclusively for this project without a public process or opening it to all adjacent developments.

Councilmember Jason Nguyen countered that the land is immediately adjacent to the development, and using it for density supports the Strategic Plan's housing supply goals. He noted that land cost constitutes a significant percentage of final home prices.

Councilmember Anna Stout supported reconsidering the resolution to allow a more transparent process, emphasizing the importance of accepting public comment, which was not formally solicited before the original resolution was passed.

Mayor Cody Kennedy voiced strong support for holding a public hearing to ensure community input on this unusual policy decision, stating the resolution effectively permits a density change not reflected in the original public process.

Councilmember Laurel Lutz noted the developer had dedicated land under previous codes which have since changed, creating a unique outlying situation. City Attorney Jeremiah Boies confirmed the council has full legislative discretion but no legal obligation to apply this situation elsewhere.

Key Outcome: The council reached consensus to schedule the resolution for formal reconsideration at a future regular meeting, with explicit public comment opportunity added to the agenda.

Air Race X Event Proposal

Ben H. of the Sports Commission and organizer Ted Morris presented a proposal for Grand Junction to host a relaunched global air racing event in April 2027. The event is positioned to include a tech conference and business development component, attracting corporate executives.

The financial request requires an immediate $20,000 deposit to secure the event, with a total city investment of up to $1.2 million. The city would retain 100% of revenues up to $1.5 million before entering a revenue-sharing agreement with Air Race X.

Projections suggested 25,000 to 70,000 spectators and a $12 million economic impact, though organizers admitted hard U.S. data was limited given the relaunch status.

Council Concerns: Councilmembers Ballard, Kennedy, Lutz, Nguyen, and Stout raised several red flags: high upfront public investment, significant financial risk if the event is canceled by weather (high winds in April or aircraft performance issues in summer heat), unspecified additional public safety and operational costs, a compressed decision-making timeline, and a lack of audited financial projections or consulting from Visit Grand Junction.

Councilmember Lutz highlighted the statement 'this is a fast-moving conversation' as a major concern, requesting detailed pro forma financials before any commitment.

Councilmember Ballard emphasized the city could lose the full $1.2 million investment if the weather grounds the event, and noted the city will incur substantial costs beyond the initial investment for police, fire, and cleanup.

Key Outcome: The council directed city staff to conduct a thorough 30-day vetting process, including consultations with all relevant city departments, to evaluate operational feasibility, financial risks, and develop a firm economic analysis before any funding decision is made. The $20,000 deposit was not authorized.

TMO/A Resolution for I-70/29 Road Interchange

Staff presented a required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy needed for CDOT and federal approval of the proposed interchange. The targeted reduction is 230 ramp trips per hour (3%) through alternative transportation.

Strategies include creating a rideshare/carpool app, implementing a school pool program, providing park-and-ride facilities, and building bike/pedestrian infrastructure.

A key clarification was made that support for the TMO/A letter does not obligate the city to construct the interchange. The commitment to the TDM strategies is only enacted if the interchange proceeds to construction.

The entity will be housed within the existing Regional Transportation Planning Office (RTPO) to avoid creating a new government agency.

Councilmember Stout expressed strong interest in implementing the proposed programs, such as the carpool app and school pool initiative, citywide regardless of the interchange timeline.

Key Outcome: The council agreed to place the resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the letter of support on the consent agenda for the next regular meeting.

Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem Term Adjustments

City Attorney Jeremiah Boies outlined charter constraints regarding the mayor's explicitly defined one-year term, complicated by the change from April to November elections creating a 6–7 month scheduling gap.

Council discussed three main paths: an 18-month holdover via the charter's 'until successor' clause, a standard year followed by a short term, or a short term followed by a standard year.

Councilmember Ballard suggested doing the short term immediately to adjust the schedule right away.

Councilmember Stout and Mayor Kennedy supported doing the standard one-year term first to allow more time to publicly communicate the upcoming adjustment.

Key Outcome: The council reached consensus to elect the mayor in May 2026 for a standard 12-month term, followed by a temporary 7-month term to transition to the new November election cycle. City Manager Bennett requested clear public transparency regarding the adjustment. Formal action and board assignments are scheduled for the first council meeting in May.

Other Business

The Parks & Recreation Advisory Board interview committee recommended reappointing three incumbents and one new candidate (a pediatric nurse) for a partial term to gain childhood recreation perspective.

City Manager Bennett alerted council to a potential ban on fireworks sales due to extreme drought conditions matching historical data from previous bans in 2012 and 2018, signaling an urgent need for potential action.

Future workshop topics include the community survey, camping ordinance, redevelopment area incentives, multimodal concepts (7th & 9th Streets), Orchard Mesa Pool, and Whitman Park.

Meeting Transcript