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 Regular Meeting - Wednesday, October 21, 2026

City Council — Wednesday, October 21, 2026
BodyGrand Junction, Colorado
SessionCity Council
DateWednesday, October 21, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:55:58

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

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

14:25

And I will order the Wednesday, October 232.

Unassigned speaker

15:21

Okay.

Speaker 1

15:23

Thank you everyone for being here tonight.

15:26

We do have a little bit of a change in the schedule.

15:30

So in before we do the proclamations and public comment, we are going to have our city manager report first.

15:39

So I will turn it over to our city manager Mike Bennett.

Speaker 2

15:47

All right.

15:48

Thank you, Mayor, members of council, and thank you for everybody who is here tonight.

15:56

Typically I'm reporting uh to you all as uh, but I I want to I want to address uh the audience and especially those of you who are here related to the senior center.

16:07

Um after a lot of feedback and uh over the last week and and over the weekend contemplating and responding to uh the feedback that I received, I've made the decision that in our recommended budget uh to the city council, which they will take up in November, made the decision that we will continue to offer the space at the current uh facility.

16:32

Uh, as you know, we offer free space to a nonprofit uh that runs the senior center, and we will continue to offer that space so that the senior center can may continue to operate as it does uh moving forward in the terms of settings.

16:57

I uh uh I I want to I want to talk a little bit about it and provide and share some things.

17:03

Uh so with this decision, uh I had the opportunity to engage with many people and and we received a lot of very thoughtful uh civil and constructive feedback that provided lots of great examples to help us consider uh things that we needed to consider as we as we made this uh made this decision.

17:24

I hope people understand that we have a leadership team uh that has inherited a structural deficit that began in 2021 as come and has come compounded to this point, and that's made it for some tough budget uh years coming into 2025 and 2026.

17:44

And that's that's led to hundreds of decisions and recommendations that have that equate to multi-millions in reductions and multi-millions in investments and in core services that we provide.

17:57

I also want to I want to own the fact that uh I I want to own that this was this was my decision uh in ultimately in bringing that recommendation at the time that we did in our in our workshops.

18:11

This is not a parks and recreation effort.

18:14

We have passionate, incredible people in our parks and recreation department who are not in the business of parks and recreation to end services, they're in the business to and uh create and expand services and Ken Sherbone does in a tremendous job and and Emily Krause in leading that department.

18:33

And I appreciate their efforts.

18:35

They faced a tough task as all of our departments have this year in addressing our structural deficit with proportional adjustments and reductions that we've had to make.

18:45

If if you don't have the money, you can't spend the money, right?

18:48

And and I think I think our public uh relies on us and expects us to make those tough decisions to make sure that we are our spending within our means and that we are focusing on our core services and delivering those services that have an impact and that we often take for granted because if they're working well, like water and sewer and streets and and uh parks and recreation and police and fire and those types of things, um, and they cost uh a lot of money and and and it's a it's a mutual uh benefit, it's a mutual partnership with the revenues that come in from taxes and the revenues that come in from businesses that go into these uh services uh that we provide.

19:28

So I want to make it uh make it clear that that this was this came this was too abrupt, the communication was too abrupt and too quick, and uh and I own the fact that uh it caused a lot of uh consternation and concern.

19:47

Uh and I apologize for that uh the those who were affected that way.

Unassigned speaker

19:51

I want to thank you, the people that shared that constructive and civil feedback from a standpoint of providing context and helpful.

Speaker 2

20:00

I also want to call out that the angry personal attacks and the non-civil and non-constructive feedback that was received from uh many as well, and hopefully not many of you in this room did not move the needle on this.

20:21

Um it was not it did not go into uh our consideration.

20:26

It was the thoughtful feedback that helped us see that while we are adding resources and new programs at the community recreation center, those are great additions, and they're for all ages, and we have over 2300 seniors who have signed up in different ways, and we see that growing, but they don't replicate what a senior center is able to offer.

20:49

And that was great insight for us to think through.

20:52

In making all these hundreds of decisions with multi-million dollars of effect.

20:56

I know it's hard to understand when something is at a lower amount, um, but all of them add up together, and it and it's a challenge as we work through it.

21:05

70,000 people in this community don't agree on everything and never will.

21:10

And uh, but it's our commitment as a city to listen.

21:14

Uh, we often and I often share in engagements with community members and with our city council and our city council uh in their uh in their own strategic plan and focus on transparency and engagement.

21:27

We commit that while we might not be able to deliver any everything and answer everything because there are limited resources, um, we are going to listen and we are focused on outcomes, and when we're not reaching those outcomes with the efforts that we are contemplating or doing, we're we commit to acknowledging that.

21:47

And and and we're not all nobody's perfect, we're not gonna get it right 100% of the time.

Unassigned speaker

21:51

And

Speaker 2

21:52

that's what local government, the beauty of local government of having engagement and listening and engaging and and taking that into consideration so that we can make better decisions.

22:01

Again, not every decision will be accepted by 100% of the the population at any given time.

22:07

But as we weighed this one with

Unassigned speaker

22:09

that

Speaker 2

22:09

constructive civil feedback uh that we did receive, it helped us see that the benefits outweigh uh the benefits of continuing uh this partnership and this service definitely outweigh uh the the other outcomes that we were working on.

22:26

If you were following along with our budget uh presentations, and you can watch those videos from August 31st and October 5th, and all the documents and all the presentations are on our website uh as well under the budget development tab.

22:40

When we brought up this one, we said it wasn't as much of a budget reduction as it was an efficiency uh standpoint, but that efficiency standpoint overlooked some of the impact.

22:52

And uh, and I just want to acknowledge that publicly and appreciate those of you who were who were civil and who shared insightful uh feedback to us to help us uh make that decision and wanted to share that uh with you tonight and speak to you here in the in the audience on that.

23:10

Um again, I appreciate sorry, let me

Unassigned speaker

23:23

I

Speaker 2

23:23

recognize we could have handled it better, um, but I appreciate the feedback that helped us in the consideration.

23:30

Uh and keep in mind that uh we're still in the process of of making recommended budget.

23:37

That's a the as a CEO of the organization.

23:39

Uh one of the key responsibilities for me as a city manager is to bring a recommended balance budget to the city council, and then in November they have public hearings to make decisions on that.

23:51

Um when you're talking over 300 million dollars in multiple funds, that those funds don't can't fund other things.

24:00

We heard a lot of feedback uh about is this deficit related to a recreation center?

24:05

Uh that's a separate fund.

24:07

That's a that's funding that came only for that purpose, has nothing to do with any of the deficit.

24:12

Um, it has nothing to do with the senior center as well, except for adding other services.

24:18

Uh so uh budgets are complicated, uh, lots of decisions have to be made, and uh the the purpose of local government, public hearings, opportunity to engage, us getting our messages out early enough so that there can be reaction and and feedback helps us make better decisions as a community.

Unassigned speaker

24:39

Again, it's because of the the civil constructive and very specific feedback that helped lead to this decision and not uh the opposite uh type of uh response, not the personal attacks on on multiple uh public employees who only have good intentions of serving this community.

Speaker 2

25:00

Um we appreciate those who who are able uh to help us uh see those things that we could consider and making the adjustment to this uh recommendation at this point in time.

25:12

So thank you for being here.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Engagement██████████████████████22%
Procedural████████████████████20%
Water And Wastewater Management██████████████14%
Technology and Innovation████████████12%
Budget Equity Analysis█████████9%
Parks and Recreation████████8%
Economic Development███3%
Public Safety███3%
Senior Services██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Grand Junction City Council Regular Meeting - Wednesday, October 21, 2026

The Grand Junction City Council held its regular meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, in the City Hall Auditorium at 250 North 5th Street. The mayor presided; Councilmember Stout attended virtually and Councilmember Ballard was absent. The six voting members present approved each item requiring a vote by 6-0, including a supplemental budget appropriation, a data center moratorium, a property rezone, and a wastewater treatment plant engineering contract amendment.

City Manager Report

  • City Manager Mike Bennett, moved ahead of proclamations and public comment, announced that his recommended budget for the November council hearings will continue to provide the current facility rent-free to the nonprofit that operates the Senior Recreation Center. He said the earlier proposal was too abrupt, apologized for the communication, and credited civil, constructive feedback rather than personal attacks for changing the decision.
  • Bennett described a structural deficit that began in 2021 and required hundreds of decisions across a budget of more than $300 million. He added that Community Recreation Center programs, while adding services and more than 2,300 senior sign-ups, do not replicate what the senior center offers.

Proclamation

  • Councilmember Kennedy read a proclamation recognizing October 10, 2026, as the 100th anniversary of Lincoln Park Golf Course. The course opened October 10, 1926, is the oldest golf course in Grand Junction and one of the oldest on Colorado's Western Slope, and has hosted the Rocky Mountain Open since 1939. A course representative accepted the proclamation and invited the community to a Saturday centennial celebration.

Boards and Commission Liaison Reports

  • Council liaisons reported on the Business Incubator's 40th anniversary and the fact that more than 30% of local businesses have worked with it; the Grand Junction Economic Partnership's unanimous endorsement of D51 ballot measure A; the airport authority's 28,000-plus air show attendees, $30 million in runway improvement approvals, 44 consecutive months of passenger growth, and roughly $50 million terminal expansion planning; and a Colorado water roundtable discussion about conservation and $20 million in statewide water project grants.
  • Other reports covered the homeless coalition's REACH program, which has already registered more than 500 students this year versus roughly 300 at this time in past years; urban trails walk audit results; Colorado Municipal League priority topics including ALPR technology and data centers; and Downtown Development Authority work on phase zero of the Terminal project, which includes 112 units of affordable housing.

Consent Calendar

  • The council adopted the consent agenda, items 1-5, by a single 6-0 motion: approval of the October 5 workshop summary and October 7 regular meeting minutes; setting a November 4 public hearing for a Terminal Project bank loan ordinance; setting a December 2 public hearing for Redlands 360 Annexations No. 2, 3, 4, and 5; a North Avenue Enhanced Transportation Corridor MOU with Mesa County; the Ridges Irrigation Pump Motor Control Center Replacement procurement; a resolution authorizing a DOLA HB-1152 ADU grant application; and a resolution transferring a 0.14-acre city parcel to Mesa County for a Grand Valley Transit transportation hub.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • The majority of public comment concerned the Senior Recreation Center. Speakers expressed relief and gratitude for reversing the closure recommendation, but several asked for a permanent commitment rather than a one-year reprieve. Speakers said the center is a social and psychosocial lifeline, especially for isolated seniors, and described the Community Recreation Center as not a substitute; some noted many seniors cannot afford the $30 per month rec center fee, and one speaker said Silver Sneakers was not free because his Medicare plan cost $100 more per month.
  • Carol Rathbun questioned the decision's durability and listed prior city spending she said helped create the budget problem, including $1.03 million in riverfront debt service next year, an $866,000 general fund subsidy, $1.7 million in zip line/Bonsai building incentives, and $1.2 million in city funds for a child care center.
  • Donald Hunger blamed the former city manager and previous council for the structural deficit, naming Greg Keaton and council members Anna Stout, Abe Herman, Randall Rice, and Rick Taggart. He cited failed incentives, closed businesses, and spending on homeless programs and road pilots that were later reversed, and said the current council and city manager did not create the mess.
  • Other senior center commenters offered help raising $100,000 through a 501(c)(3), called for repairs to the center after bingo had been halted and the kitchen shut down, and compared Grand Junction unfavorably to Las Cruces, New Mexico, which funds six senior centers with no membership fees. One board member said she felt threatened with criminal charges over bingo and described the emotional toll on seniors.
  • On surveillance, Carl Doji asked the council to schedule an open agenda discussion of Flock cameras and related systems, citing over 250 cameras, roughly $140,000 paid in 2025 to Flock, Motorola, and Project NOLA, more than $100,000 in recurring subscriptions, and over 300,000 Flock searches per month in early 2026, about 90 percent from agencies outside Colorado. Additional speakers opposed the camera network, cited security vulnerabilities and facial recognition capture of children, and asked for public forums and data-sharing and retention rules.
  • Kristen Hartman requested changes to the VRBO/Airbnb approval process to treat neighbors as impacted stakeholders and consider neighborhood appropriateness, saying more than 500,000 square feet of housing had been converted to short-term rentals during a housing crisis.
  • Other comments addressed Orchard Mesa pool fees for county residents, including a retired nurse who said a recreation center membership would cost $492 a year, $276 more than she pays for the pool; street-sweeping boundaries; and requests to place the surveillance issue on a future council agenda.

Discussion Items

Supplemental Appropriation (Ordinance 5344)

  • Chief Financial Officer Jay Valentine requested $3.5 million in additional spending authority for the self-funded health insurance fund because 2026 claims were trending 20-25 percent above budget, offset by a $4 million reinvestment from participating funds; the General Fund share is about $2.9 million. Brown and Brown analysis showed about $5.8 million in savings since the city moved to self-insurance. The supplemental also covered grant-funded programs, police and fire equipment, water debt service, and a $1 million no-net-impact Visit Grand Junction reclassification.
  • Council discussion covered stop-loss coverage of $175,000 per claim in 2026, increasing to $225,000 in 2027; the fund being restored to only 50-75 percent of recommended reserves; and an average citywide employee premium increase of 34 percent. No public hearing comments were offered. The ordinance passed 6-0.

Data Center Moratorium (Ordinance 5345)

  • Interim Community Development Director Thomas Lloyd presented the ordinance. The city code does not currently define data centers, so the moratorium would pause acceptance, processing, and approval of data center applications for up to 365 days or until Title 21 amendments are adopted. It applies to facilities with a projected, designed, or requested electrical load of 1 megawatt or more, excluding accessory server rooms, specified telecommunications facilities, and minor utility facilities.
  • Staff will study zoning, development standards, and impacts and coordinate with Mesa County and Fruita, which are taking related actions. Council discussion addressed model codes, changing technology, and whether off-grid power could circumvent the threshold; the definition applies regardless of power source. Public hearing speakers urged water-use caps, grid cost offsets, performance bonds, and bans on non-disclosure agreements; some opposed AI data centers entirely. A few asked for an indefinite extension. The ordinance passed 6-0.

Rezone (Ordinance 5346)

  • Senior Planner Lily Sutton presented a request to rezone 2.88 acres at 2324 Highway 6 and 50 from I-1 (Industrial Light) to CG (Commercial General). The property has an existing auto sales use; the owner wants future redevelopment flexibility. The site is within the 24 Road corridor overlay and complies with the Comprehensive Plan's commercial designation and infill principles. No public testimony was given. The ordinance passed 6-0.

Persigo Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase 2 Contract Amendment

  • Interim Utilities Director Ashley Frell requested authorization for a $950,000 contract amendment with AE2S to accelerate design and permitting of a new secondary clarifier, clarifier 3, and evaluate the long-term viability of clarifier 4 after recent failures. Clarifiers 1 and 2 date to 1984, clarifier 4 was added in 2000, and clarifier 3 has never been built. The plant normally operates two clarifiers with a third standby as a permit requirement.
  • Clarifier 4 is out of service due to mechanical and structural concerns; clarifier 1 suffered an influent pipe obstruction, a tire, that caused a reportable overflow and was repaired. The plant currently has no standby clarifier and has notified the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Design completion is targeted as early as December and construction is estimated at about nine months.
  • Council discussion covered accelerated construction at risk, the procurement basis of itemized task hours and rates under a not-to-exceed amount, and capacity: the plant is currently permitted at 12.5 million gallons per day, averages about 8 million gallons per day, and the incoming 15-million-gallon-per-day permit will still require three clarifiers. The motion passed 6-0.

Non-Scheduled Comments and Other Business

  • No non-scheduled public comments were made.
  • Under Other Business, Councilmember Kennedy praised the city manager's handling of the senior center decision, noted the city charter limits council involvement in operational matters, and credited city staff. The mayor raised a concern about a council member's communications regarding staff and said a further discussion is needed; other council members agreed.

Key Outcomes

  • The city manager will include continued senior center space in the recommended November budget.
  • The consent agenda was adopted 6-0, including approved minutes, public hearing dates, an intergovernmental MOU, a procurement, a grant application resolution, and a property transfer resolution.
  • Ordinance 5344, supplemental appropriations to the 2026 budget, passed 6-0.
  • Ordinance 5345, the data center moratorium, passed 6-0; staff will study code amendments and return with proposed Title 21 changes.
  • Ordinance 5346, rezoning 2.88 acres at 2324 Highway 6 and 50, passed 6-0.
  • The $950,000 AE2S contract amendment for Persigo clarifier work was authorized 6-0.
  • Staff will coordinate with Mesa County and Fruita on regional data center regulations.

Meeting Transcript

And I will order the Wednesday, October 232. Okay. Thank you everyone for being here tonight. We do have a little bit of a change in the schedule. So in before we do the proclamations and public comment, we are going to have our city manager report first. So I will turn it over to our city manager Mike Bennett. All right. Thank you, Mayor, members of council, and thank you for everybody who is here tonight. Typically I'm reporting uh to you all as uh, but I I want to I want to address uh the audience and especially those of you who are here related to the senior center. Um after a lot of feedback and uh over the last week and and over the weekend contemplating and responding to uh the feedback that I received, I've made the decision that in our recommended budget uh to the city council, which they will take up in November, made the decision that we will continue to offer the space at the current uh facility. Uh, as you know, we offer free space to a nonprofit uh that runs the senior center, and we will continue to offer that space so that the senior center can may continue to operate as it does uh moving forward in the terms of settings. I uh uh I I want to I want to talk a little bit about it and provide and share some things. Uh so with this decision, uh I had the opportunity to engage with many people and and we received a lot of very thoughtful uh civil and constructive feedback that provided lots of great examples to help us consider uh things that we needed to consider as we as we made this uh made this decision. I hope people understand that we have a leadership team uh that has inherited a structural deficit that began in 2021 as come and has come compounded to this point, and that's made it for some tough budget uh years coming into 2025 and 2026. And that's that's led to hundreds of decisions and recommendations that have that equate to multi-millions in reductions and multi-millions in investments and in core services that we provide. I also want to I want to own the fact that uh I I want to own that this was this was my decision uh in ultimately in bringing that recommendation at the time that we did in our in our workshops. This is not a parks and recreation effort. We have passionate, incredible people in our parks and recreation department who are not in the business of parks and recreation to end services, they're in the business to and uh create and expand services and Ken Sherbone does in a tremendous job and and Emily Krause in leading that department. And I appreciate their efforts. They faced a tough task as all of our departments have this year in addressing our structural deficit with proportional adjustments and reductions that we've had to make. If if you don't have the money, you can't spend the money, right? And and I think I think our public uh relies on us and expects us to make those tough decisions to make sure that we are our spending within our means and that we are focusing on our core services and delivering those services that have an impact and that we often take for granted because if they're working well, like water and sewer and streets and and uh parks and recreation and police and fire and those types of things, um, and they cost uh a lot of money and and and it's a it's a mutual uh benefit, it's a mutual partnership with the revenues that come in from taxes and the revenues that come in from businesses that go into these uh services uh that we provide. So I want to make it uh make it clear that that this was this came this was too abrupt, the communication was too abrupt and too quick, and uh and I own the fact that uh it caused a lot of uh consternation and concern. Uh and I apologize for that uh the those who were affected that way. I want to thank you, the people that shared that constructive and civil feedback from a standpoint of providing context and helpful. I also want to call out that the angry personal attacks and the non-civil and non-constructive feedback that was received from uh many as well, and hopefully not many of you in this room did not move the needle on this. Um it was not it did not go into uh our consideration. It was the thoughtful feedback that helped us see that while we are adding resources and new programs at the community recreation center, those are great additions, and they're for all ages, and we have over 2300 seniors who have signed up in different ways, and we see that growing, but they don't replicate what a senior center is able to offer. And that was great insight for us to think through. In making all these hundreds of decisions with multi-million dollars of effect. I know it's hard to understand when something is at a lower amount, um, but all of them add up together, and it and it's a challenge as we work through it. 70,000 people in this community don't agree on everything and never will. And uh, but it's our commitment as a city to listen. Uh, we often and I often share in engagements with community members and with our city council and our city council uh in their uh in their own strategic plan and focus on transparency and engagement. We commit that while we might not be able to deliver any everything and answer everything because there are limited resources, um, we are going to listen and we are focused on outcomes, and when we're not reaching those outcomes with the efforts that we are contemplating or doing, we're we commit to acknowledging that. And and and we're not all nobody's perfect, we're not gonna get it right 100% of the time. And that's what local government, the beauty of local government of having engagement and listening and engaging and and taking that into consideration so that we can make better decisions. Again, not every decision will be accepted by 100% of the the population at any given time. But as we weighed this one with that constructive civil feedback uh that we did receive, it helped us see that the benefits outweigh uh the benefits of continuing uh this partnership and this service definitely outweigh uh the the other outcomes that we were working on. If you were following along with our budget uh presentations, and you can watch those videos from August 31st and October 5th, and all the documents and all the presentations are on our website uh as well under the budget development tab. When we brought up this one, we said it wasn't as much of a budget reduction as it was an efficiency uh standpoint, but that efficiency standpoint overlooked some of the impact. And uh, and I just want to acknowledge that publicly and appreciate those of you who were who were civil and who shared insightful uh feedback to us to help us uh make that decision and wanted to share that uh with you tonight and speak to you here in the in the audience on that. Um again, I appreciate sorry, let me I recognize we could have handled it better, um, but I appreciate the feedback that helped us in the consideration. Uh and keep in mind that uh we're still in the process of of making recommended budget. That's a the as a CEO of the organization.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com