OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Grand Junction, Colorado/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Grand Junction City Council Workshop Summary: June 1, 2026

City Council — Monday, June 1, 2026
BodyGrand Junction, Colorado
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, June 1, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:11:24

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:58

It is 5 30 on Monday, June 1st, and we'll now call it

Speaker 2

1:02

order.

1:02

Um the workshop for today.

1:05

And uh we are going to be starting with discussing the 2026 community survey graph with you.

1:15

Did you want to introduce

Speaker 3

1:17

sure?

1:17

Thank you.

Unassigned speaker

1:18

Uh

Speaker 3

1:18

mayor members of council.

1:20

This first item is to review our community satisfaction survey for 26.

1:26

We do this every two

Unassigned speaker

1:28

years, or because that's been the uh the tradition, the majority of questions remain the same for the ability to benchmark against our ourselves and many other cities throughout the country.

Unassigned speaker

1:42

Uh the in the packet that was provided publicly contained the 2024 survey as was written in that items we want to make uh minor changes to.

Unassigned speaker

1:55

We want to hear any feedback or from council related uh

Speaker 3

1:59

survey.

2:00

The end result of tonight

Unassigned speaker

2:02

is we

Speaker 3

2:03

also

Unassigned speaker

2:03

have uh

Speaker 3

2:03

direction from the city council

Unassigned speaker

2:05

to

Speaker 3

2:05

discuss some

Unassigned speaker

2:06

of the questions related to orchard municipal.

Unassigned speaker

2:09

So we uh have a the handout that was just handed out to you all from our communications and engagement manager, Kelsey Coleman.

Unassigned speaker

2:18

We also that we

Speaker 3

2:19

want to

Unassigned speaker

2:20

talk through to meet the time frame to have results of this community survey in time, the deadlines related

Speaker 3

2:29

to

Unassigned speaker

2:30

if we

Speaker 3

2:30

were

Unassigned speaker

2:31

to receive enough receive feedback that would help council

Speaker 3

2:37

decide to possibly put questions on the ballot.

2:41

We would need we would actually we need to finalize these questions or add this in uh we to be able to have that turnaround where we would

Unassigned speaker

2:56

be tight on a August, the first workshop in August, but possibly the second or first or second workshop in August,

Speaker 3

3:04

which are

Unassigned speaker

3:05

the

Speaker 3

3:05

last opportunities we have to discuss before making a decision to put something

Unassigned speaker

3:10

on ballot so basic

Speaker 3

3:13

county.

Unassigned speaker

3:14

So

Speaker 3

3:14

uh we have time tonight, and uh the next two hours are

Unassigned speaker

3:18

not as long in

Speaker 3

3:21

likely

Unassigned speaker

3:22

in discussion.

Unassigned speaker

3:23

So want to make sure we end with some consensus on the questions.

Unassigned speaker

3:28

We

Speaker 3

3:28

also

Unassigned speaker

3:28

have virtually uh on with us representatives from uh the company that we're working with, and I'll let Kelsey introduce them and then walk you through a brief presentation, get some feedback, but just doesn't introduce that's what we're trying to do.

Unassigned speaker

3:43

Uh with this direction

Speaker 3

3:46

final craft.

Speaker 2

3:47

And before we dive in, umard is um remotely.

Speaker 4

3:54

Thank you, members of council outside of the year tonight to talk about this.

3:58

I know this has been um an ongoing survey, we've talked about it many times, and we're uh adjusting and acting a little bit to meet some of the the needs that we're currently seeing.

4:09

Um, as our city manager mentioned, we have representatives from RC associates on the call tonight.

4:16

We have uh CEO of RRC Sean Mahr, and then we have Ethan Adams, who's an expert in statistical research.

4:23

So in case any questions come up, he can um answer those for us.

4:29

You all have a handout that handout will match the presentation tonight, so those at home can see what we're looking at

Unassigned speaker

4:35

here.

Speaker 4

4:38

Members of council brought to staff um to ask some questions on this survey.

4:44

We talked about this in the last workshop, and this is some of the language that we have drafted for your review tonight.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Engagement████████████████████████████████32%
Procedural███████████████15%
Parks and Recreation████████████12%
Affordable Housing████████████12%
Procurement Policies█████████9%
Fiscal Sustainability█████5%
Technology and Innovation████4%
Real Estate Committee████4%
Homelessness███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Grand Junction City Council Workshop Summary: June 1, 2026

The Grand Junction City Council held a workshop on Monday, June 1, 2026, beginning at 5:30 PM in the Fire Department Training Room. The meeting covered the draft 2026 Community Survey with a focus on Orchard Mesa Pool questions, a consultant request for the Housing Affordability Code Task Force, and a review of the standing Real Estate Committee. The workshop was adjourned at 7:40 PM.

2026 Community Survey Draft Review

Staff and representatives from RRC Associates presented the draft survey. Council discussed minor wording adjustments, statistical validity, and maintaining consistency with prior surveys. The primary focus was on the proposed questions regarding the future of the Orchard Mesa Pool.

Council deliberated on the framing of the questions and background information:

  • Councilmember Stout requested context on the per-user subsidy and the breakdown of city vs. non-city patrons.
  • Councilmember Ballard expressed concern that the 90-patron average lacked context of the pool's boiler-related closure and suggested using historic averages or clarifying the individual subsidy.
  • Mayor Kennedy emphasized presenting facts neutrally and recommended language stating the city is "considering whether to ask voters" to avoid the appearance of a predetermined decision.
  • Councilmember Van Dyke cautioned against including speculative statements about usage changes or potential partnerships, advocating for non-speculative facts.
  • Councilmember Nguyen questioned the value of a question about the site's future if the pool were demolished, viewing it as a council decision.

Key Outcomes:

  • Questions regarding support for funding were separated from questions about placement on the ballot.
  • Language was clarified to distinguish between supporting a ballot measure and how one would vote on it.
  • Council agreed to add context on subsidy percentages compared to Lincoln Park Pool and a breakdown of city vs. non-city usage.
  • References to forming a special district were removed due to concerns about confusion and jurisdictional limitations.
  • The proposed question about future use of the site if the pool were demolished was eliminated.
  • The Orchard Mesa Pool section was reduced from four questions to three, and staff was directed to revise the wording accordingly.
  • The survey consultant confirmed the survey will remain statistically valid.

Housing Affordability Code Task Force Consultant Request

Staff and Task Force representatives requested Council direction on hiring a consultant to assist with review and recommendations related to specific sections of the Transportation and Engineering Design Standards (TEDS) and the Land Development Code (Sections 2105, 2106, 2107, and 2109).

Reason for Consultant:

  • The workload for reviewing code changes is significant.
  • Current staffing shortages within the Community Development department have limited capacity.
  • The consultant would serve as a neutral facilitator, evaluate code barriers, draft recommendations, and accelerate progress.

Task Force Progress: Staff reported completed work including ADA digital compliance revisions, making pre-application meetings voluntary, checklist improvements, pedestrian access and connection updates, and clarification of code citation requirements.

Key Outcomes:

  • Council supported moving forward with the consultant procurement process.
  • The selection committee will include two Council representatives from the Task Force (Councilmembers Kennedy and Van Dyke), alongside staff and two Task Force co-chairs.
  • Any consultant contract will return to Council for formal approval, as the expense is not currently budgeted.

Councilmembers Lutz and Nguyen emphasized that direct cost savings per housing unit should not be expected from code changes, as housing prices are market-driven. Councilmember Stout inquired about cost ranges and stressed the importance of Council approving the contract. Councilmember Van Dyke raised questions regarding consultant alignment with the city versus the task force.

Real Estate Committee Review

Council revisited the purpose and necessity of the standing Real Estate Committee.

Discussion Points:

  • Whether real estate matters could be handled through workshops, regular meetings, or executive sessions when appropriate.
  • The value of broader Council participation in significant property decisions.
  • Concerns that decisions made by a smaller committee may not benefit from the full range of Council perspectives.

Councilmember Kennedy cited the Calback Gardens situation as an example where having a few more voices and perspectives would have been beneficial.

Key Outcome:

  • Council generally supported discontinuing the standing Real Estate Committee.
  • Future real estate matters will be handled through existing Council meeting processes, with executive sessions used when negotiations or legal considerations require confidentiality.

Council Communication & Other Business

City Attorney Recruitment: Deputy City Manager Bullen reported that staff completed the selection process for the search firm. 19 applications were received, the top 4 were interviewed, and a firm has been selected. Notifications are being completed.

UTC Letter: Councilmembers Kennedy and Nguyen have drafted a letter related to the Union Pacific right-of-way. The draft will be circulated to the full council for review and agendized for a future discussion.

River Encampments: Staff has received requests for restroom facilities, water stations, and dumpsters near river encampments. City Manager Bennett indicated no changes are planned at this time pending further Council discussion.

America 250 / Proclamation Requests: Multiple organizations requested proclamations for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Council supported preparing a single proclamation that can be shared with multiple organizations.

Title VI (Animal Code): Council expressed support for moving forward with revisions to the Animal Code through the regular Council process.

Next Workshop Topics (June 15, 2026):

  • Grand Valley River Corridor Initiative presentation.
  • Redevelopment area discussion, including Dos Rios.
  • 7th and 9th Street multimodal corridor concepts.
  • America 250 / Colorado 150 celebration planning.

Meeting Transcript

It is 5 30 on Monday, June 1st, and we'll now call it order. Um the workshop for today. And uh we are going to be starting with discussing the 2026 community survey graph with you. Did you want to introduce sure? Thank you. Uh mayor members of council. This first item is to review our community satisfaction survey for 26. We do this every two years, or because that's been the uh the tradition, the majority of questions remain the same for the ability to benchmark against our ourselves and many other cities throughout the country. Uh the in the packet that was provided publicly contained the 2024 survey as was written in that items we want to make uh minor changes to. We want to hear any feedback or from council related uh survey. The end result of tonight is we also have uh direction from the city council to discuss some of the questions related to orchard municipal. So we uh have a the handout that was just handed out to you all from our communications and engagement manager, Kelsey Coleman. We also that we want to talk through to meet the time frame to have results of this community survey in time, the deadlines related to if we were to receive enough receive feedback that would help council decide to possibly put questions on the ballot. We would need we would actually we need to finalize these questions or add this in uh we to be able to have that turnaround where we would be tight on a August, the first workshop in August, but possibly the second or first or second workshop in August, which are the last opportunities we have to discuss before making a decision to put something on ballot so basic county. So uh we have time tonight, and uh the next two hours are not as long in likely in discussion. So want to make sure we end with some consensus on the questions. We also have virtually uh on with us representatives from uh the company that we're working with, and I'll let Kelsey introduce them and then walk you through a brief presentation, get some feedback, but just doesn't introduce that's what we're trying to do. Uh with this direction final craft.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com