[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6281459,"mediaKeyId","2604843-149f821a72684a3ab4f1b6bff41065ac","parentId",2604843,"title","Consultants tell Grand Junction to tighten application completeness, project management to meet Prop 123 90‑day deadline","audioSeconds",1449,"startMs",550000,"endMs",1999000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2604843-149f821a72684a3ab4f1b6bff41065ac&start=550&end=1999","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2604843-149f821a72684a3ab4f1b6bff41065ac/thumbnail_550000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6281459/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Consultants-tell-Grand-Junction-to-tighten-application-completeness-project-management-to-meet-Prop-123-90day-deadline","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6281459-ae1aac4c67e1c15124b2f26144cdc871/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452835&Signature=OzFYo4t6HWaOHwow5~g8uAjezQx3ORbKjp5m7EZ3soBXgofnJNWq5n9GI4DBHNVWAtfvbIzn31~N7sc6zqL5aznScGWwY7pon~ygIkrfVKN0TDCyQzKGOL~0Eq0FI1JW6zeliDsOmdfBhvfoNcXZr3bSJZSogkKeE3vROLkB626s~uN82HMTHU5vnER1VT8T-V5rF1aNYJvlMMPZjrL5UC5N8yQGrqF9DMXFDLGx4F1JYm1RZvPECmkQgJkAnS5vYLb2Dz~ODJYI1xijsnyh45KeRGNoyBFIups3OBSVzBPEgl1MNGC9aTZxIAWr-B2LAgcPF6RV5safIoGbP8rF9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Grand Junction City, CO","date","2025-03-06T00:00:00Z","article","Christian Vaughn, a manager at consulting firm Baker Tilly, told the Grand Junction Planning Commission that the firm found opportunities to speed reviews and improve predictability as the city prepares to comply with Proposition 123 (codified as Article 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes).

Baker Tilly’s review focused on the law’s expedited‑review provision, which applies to housing projects that contain 50% or more affordable units and requires “a final decision on approval or denial [to] be made within 90 days of a complete application submission,” Vaughn said.

The consultants said their work produced 32 recommendations aimed at moving the city toward that 90‑day standard while improving review for other project types. Elaine Costello, a Baker Tilly consultant, summarized the recommendations as changes to process, people, regulation interpretation and technology: “we came up with 32 recommendations,” Costello said during the presentation.

Why this matters: Article 32 requires municipalities to demonstrate compliance by Nov. 1, 2026 if they want to remain eligible for state incentives tied to affordable housing. Baker Tilly said the city’s existing review flow and practices commonly produce multiple review cycles for the same application, increasing the time to decision and making the 90‑day target unlikely under current practice.

Major findings and recommended changes

- Require a sufficiency check before accepting an application as complete. Baker Tilly urged the city to perform a content review at intake so the first comprehensive review is less likely to spawn repeated resubmittals. The consultants recommended clear checklists and sample submissions to make it easier for applicants to submit a complete package.

- Different turnaround standards by project type. The consultants recommended setting explicit turnaround targets calibrated to project complexity rather than maintaining a single three‑week target for all reviews.

- Train and empower planners as project managers. The report recommends assigning an experienced planner to serve as the main contact and timeline manager for each application, convening reviewers and monitoring progress to reduce handoffs and idle time.

- Create an interdepartmental affordable‑housing team. To administer the Article 32 expedited track, Baker Tilly suggested a standing group with planning, public works, fire, city attorney and other reviewers to determine eligibility, maintain checklists and resolve issues quickly. The consultants noted the state allows limited extensions (a 30‑ and a 60‑day extension), and recommended the city use them sparingly.

- Use technology to increase transparency. Baker Tilly said Grand Junction’s EnerGov system can provide applicants more visibility into application status and that analytics could flag stalled files for follow up.

What presenters and staff said about timing and scope

Baker Tilly told the commission the draft implementation action plan would be delivered “in about 2 to 3 weeks,” and that the city could aim to have the expedited program operational in roughly 6 to 12 months so it is tested before the November 2026 compliance date. City staff noted the local volume of Article 32‑eligible projects has historically been low, but said preparing the broader review process will benefit other housing and nonhousing projects as well.

Questions from commissioners focused on whether prioritizing affordable projects by location (for example downtown) is consistent with state rules; Baker Tilly and staff said eligibility is driven by the Article 32 affordability threshold and local eligibility criteria the city may adopt, and that the 90‑day rule applies regardless of project location.

No formal action requested

The presentation was informational. Baker Tilly and staff said further outreach to the development community and additional internal work will follow, including the implementation action plan and incremental operational changes. Commissioners asked follow‑up questions about staffing, the risk of rushing review items, and how the expedited track would affect other applicants.

Ending: Next steps

Staff and Baker Tilly said they will circulate the draft implementation action plan to city leadership and stakeholders, begin targeted operational changes, and schedule follow‑up briefings. The consultants recommended testing procedural changes on a small number of projects before full implementation to reduce rollout risk.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Grand Junction City Planning Commission - Workshop | March 06, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Christian Vaughn, a manager at Baker Tilly, told the Grand Junction Planning Commission that the firm found opportunities to speed development reviews and improve predictability to meet Prop 123’s 90‑day requirement for qualifying affordable housing projects.","taxTitle","Grand Junction, Mesa County, Colorado","taxId",5495,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6281454,"Grand Junction staff outline Title 21 impact‑fee text amendments, council directed three‑year phase‑in",510,3600000,4110000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2604843-149f821a72684a3ab4f1b6bff41065ac&start=3600&end=4110","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2604843-149f821a72684a3ab4f1b6bff41065ac/thumbnail_3600000.jpg","/articles/6281454/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Grand-Junction-staff-outline-Title-21-impactfee-text-amendments-council-directed-threeyear-phasein","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6281454-80294e4ceb7f49c9d368253bfb9585bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452835&Signature=UoVV2~aV8CWH-bX7BJGuDLgC-wkXGFETOoqTYmuYPoFTf4uwnuIefyDraapu3hAS1-UQunU3zidxQiG025e9P9coFJBf1oou75ejcklaomp-CnUG4XGG~g2TGnDxXvGnzg38yLSbB~LyJX8hIcwJmineSJ9jt2K5EjDBqxqQ0nNeGe~n7kqJ9xeZOWv0VgARbeWmBL-u07J-Py2v-Nkn5340ZyMFpg3ehL-MV2cAHFQIDalDcQvOjTpuWpSWtv81PI0Q1odz2JGVYmxFBej2epkkPTx3OCxnq~TSA4-lNWR~CKaNw~1ZvfZLeWmVW-XZY~8S7whH8dH9~W8Bx7NH6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff presented proposed changes to Title 21 that would revise how Grand Junction calculates and applies transportation, parks, police and fire impact fees and how certain land dedications are credited.

What staff proposed. The key changes explained to the Planning Commission are:

- Right‑of‑way credits: Instead of requiring unconditional dedication of additional arterial and collector right‑of‑way at no cost, the code would allow an equivalent value credit or payment to reflect the developer’s proportionate share of the higher‑classification road improvements needed to serve growth.

- Active‑transportation credits: If a developer constructs an active‑transportation corridor beyond the baseline sidewalk requirement, the new methodology would allow a proportionate‑share credit and include acquisition costs in the fee base rather than treating the corridor as a sole developer responsibility.

- Parks / open space: The current code requires either a 10% land dedication or an in‑lieu fee for projects that create 10 or more lots/units. The proposed methodology rolls the park land proportionate share into the overall parks fee instead of requiring a separate dedication or in‑lieu payment. Staff said the historical in‑lieu amount averages about $1,063 per unit for the dedicated land component, and that the change is intended to reduce uncertainty for developers while ensuring park needs are funded.

- Update frequency: Staff proposed removing the prescriptive five‑year mandatory update for the impact fee study and relying instead on periodic review with an inflationary indexing approach (a 10‑year rolling inflation index is used for some components) so the fee keeps pace but the city does not have to rework the full study on a fixed five‑year cycle.

- Phase‑in schedule: Staff told the commission that city council directed a phased implementation of the new fee schedule over three years (six incremental steps) beginning Jan. 1, 2026, with the goal of smoothing the transition for development activity. The fee revenue would continue to be deposited into dedicated capital accounts and not the city’s general fund.

Why this matters. Staff and commissioners said the changes are intended to make fees more predictable, avoid ad hoc land deductions that can fragment development sites, and align developer obligations with the city’s state of service and standards for transportation and park facilities. Presenters said the city previously applied some impact charges decades ago and that updating the methodology reflects current construction costs and level‑of‑service expectations.

Commissioner questions and staff responses

Commissioners asked whether the right‑of‑way or park credits would create a net benefit for developers or simply shift timing of payments. Staff explained credits are intended to offset otherwise duplicative obligations (for example, building a higher‑classification road section in lieu of paying a transportation fee), and the net effect depends on land use and the project’s circumstances. Staff also said existing subdivision payments for park dedication would be administratively tracked so developments are not double‑charged if a subdivision already paid a park dedication at platting.

A planning commissioner asked what protections exist to prevent rushed reviews on projects subject to expedited procedures; staff said the expedited process would include the same technical checks and review standards and that subdivisions generally remain excluded from Article 32’s expedited track because their complexity makes a 90‑day target unrealistic.

Council direction recorded, no commission vote

Staff said city council had already reviewed the study and directed a three‑year, six‑step phase‑in starting Jan. 1, 2026. The Planning Commission’s role at this meeting was to review the proposed text amendments; staff indicated they would return with formal ordinance language for the commission and council to act on according to the standard public hearing process.

Ending: Next steps and outreach

Staff offered to provide commission members with the council presentation materials and more detailed spreadsheets on how fees change by land use. They also said the fee study and proposed text are the product of several stakeholder meetings dating to mid‑2024 and that additional community outreach and technical refinements will continue before any ordinance adoption.","City staff outlined Title 21 text amendments that change how right‑of‑way, active‑transportation and park land are credited against impact fees and said council directed a three‑year, six‑step phase‑in beginning Jan. 1, 2026.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Consultants tell Grand Junction to tighten application completeness, project management to meet Prop 123 90‑day deadline

Grand Junction staff outline Title 21 impact‑fee text amendments, council directed three‑year phase‑in