[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6281455,"mediaKeyId","2604816-c47dd35e68608f87c9b7c56812c2b879","parentId",2604816,"title","Council agrees to continue I‑70/29 Road interchange work with county, seeks CDOT/FHWA approvals","audioSeconds",1357,"startMs",14633000,"endMs",15990000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2604816-c47dd35e68608f87c9b7c56812c2b879&start=14633&end=15990","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2604816-c47dd35e68608f87c9b7c56812c2b879/thumbnail_14633000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6281455/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Council-agrees-to-continue-I7029-Road-interchange-work-with-county-seeks-CDOTFHWA-approvals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6281455-25c554410433afa41e7fe7fbbd8da47e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146942&Signature=j0VaXXORpSZ5d0lw6fAt13B2xpHxtM5gC8cePKraDWRGWS8pNVEFqakZ9g8XgvuLL31kgPS-tvSaB9WwxkBgIZecCTb3LcBHgIGyOnE0UMh9JF6pYwlu12NrNaDFdK0HUFFdQbZlZGOGWqvUEnu2VpnSbvWjqqwQYKdYZwn32wR-ztbjSUsBs3HpP4lIYNrt-6IciuDLj8B3iUffaYcONtbJJ-YQbCguRP7kDOkkRVShJOKStz4AF4KmLQb2uzKuEiIwAITqEwLL9PKWlmNlJxjJdOmRwt27-qn3Cyrn78vJPvikep0KIJrhMY7VZKwGOLjvIhQHZZrCGPk-~8l1qA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Grand Junction City, CO","date","2025-03-05T00:00:00Z","article","City Council on March 5 authorized staff to continue coordinated work with Mesa County on the proposed Interstate 70 interchange at 29 Road, directing staff to pursue CDOT and Federal Highway Administration approvals and to use available congressionally directed spending to advance design to preliminary stages.

Trent (city engineering staff) briefed council on the project history and funding to date, noting that the city and county have invested more than $2.2 million since 2019 on planning and environmental work and that a remaining balance of roughly $800,000 on the current contract would support further CDOT/FHWA submittals to secure formal approvals. He said the final design estimate for the interchange and 29 Road corridor work is about $3.4 million; current federal earmark and matching funds can be used to advance the interchange to roughly 30% design and take 29 Road improvements to a preliminary phase.

Why it matters: an interchange at I‑70 and 29 Road would reshape circulation in northeast Grand Junction and support planned and potential development on 29 Road’s corridor. However, opponents say the cost, neighborhood impacts, noise, and uncertain funding warrant pause. Proponents said finishing environmental approvals and preliminary design would strengthen future grant and funding requests and produce shovel‑ready plans if voters or granting agencies agree to fund construction.

Council debate covered timing and local priorities. Some members argued for ending work given the November rejection of a bond proposal tied to the interchange, saying continuing design could be perceived as disregarding voter direction. Others said the losses from stopping now would be larger: replacing a near-complete approval package could be harder and costlier later, and finishing the CDOT/FHWA approval process would produce clearer, defensible answers about feasibility, environmental impacts, and exact costs to present to voters or grantors.

Key financial and schedule facts presented by staff included:
- $2.2 million (city and county combined) spent on planning and PEL/NEPA work since 2019.
- Approximately $800,000 remaining in the current contract for revisions and CDOT/FHWA submissions.
- Final design estimated at approximately $3.4 million; existing federal-directed funds and local match would cover about $2.4 million to advance 30% design on the interchange and preliminary design on 29 Road.

Council action: by roll call 4–2 the council authorized staff to continue partnership work with Mesa County on CDOT/FHWA approvals and to follow up on further direction about final design and construction funding later. Council members voting in favor said the technical approvals and a 30% design package would make future funding applications stronger and would better inform voters and officials. Dissenting members said the city should respect the recent ballot outcome and refrain from advancing a project without a clear funding plan.

Next steps: staff will complete the remaining environmental submittals to CDOT and FHWA and prepare the 30% interchange/29 Road preliminary design work under the congressionally directed spending program. Council and staff said future funding decisions — including whether to seek construction dollars or to bring a bond measure to voters — would follow only after the approval package and updated cost estimates are complete.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Grand Junction City Council - Regular Meeting | March 05, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council voted 4–2 March 5 to continue working with Mesa County to obtain CDOT and FHWA approvals and to advance preliminary design for a potential I‑70/29 Road interchange, using available federal earmark funds to produce a 30% interchange design and preliminary 29 Road corridor plans.","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},6281460,"Council approves purchase of 36532 Road property for regional recycling/sorting facility",976,11554000,12530000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2604816-c47dd35e68608f87c9b7c56812c2b879&start=11554&end=12530","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2604816-c47dd35e68608f87c9b7c56812c2b879/thumbnail_11554000.jpg","/articles/6281460/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Council-approves-purchase-of-36532-Road-property-for-regional-recyclingsorting-facility","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6281460-e8cca0032a429732556313e7bbb3654d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146942&Signature=GxCvzxD6n973KjWmqRpz2AG~VyXP5RrTY0FvtIazj~lsJH-5Rg8ZdcyhSh4SkgcVhOF04DQkRtw97SlIk0DV1Sr4-wWah3OIlf06c4U23oobKoMANcm-J0ijjxNFzBZc5S02XuZshWDOYxHDD~QEXYzFXlPY5TpQpi-1GhfdV3Jh4sXPdxTETcGwJN5KfQwB-uZUueX2Rmytb5IvWYHAZR3fuPZxLwFyncumGuRAd4IycwlEdNV3tZDLX5s3ZlX6-Hn9v46xAptJhRO0FvtirqMuJn3SmruQtv1s6U1T6DrjLR35oJGXlkrDd~qr6VeMMiBcuZ4Ta-hkcGYwDfie7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council authorized the purchase of a large industrial property on March 5 as the next step in the city’s planned materials-recovery facility (MRF).

Jay Valentine, the city’s general services director, presented the proposal for the property at 36532 Road, a 58,275-square-foot building on about 10.5 acres in Grand Mesa Industrial Park. Valentine said the purchase price is $5,600,000; a preliminary appraisal provided to staff put market value in a range of $6.0 million to $6.5 million. He said a final appraisal was expected within the week.

Council voted 5–1 to authorize the city manager to sign the purchase contract and separately adopted a resolution formalizing the acquisition. The recorded roll call shows a single dissenting vote.

Why it matters: the site is intended as the central operating location for the city’s planned regional sorting and recycling operations, a project that staff and the council have described as an enterprise fund activity intended to pay operating costs and debt service from user fees and program revenues rather than the general fund.

Valentine described the site and timing: the property is in Grand Mesa Industrial Park; the planned facility footprint and access points were shown to council. He said the plat was still being recorded and that closing was revised to a March 14 target because the plat had not yet been recorded. Valentine told council the city had received preliminary approval from a term lender (AMB Bank) for short-term financing to begin construction once other approvals and agreements are in place.

Council questions focused on the financial model and debt structure. Councilmembers asked whether the debt would be backed by the city’s full faith and credit; staff said the certificates of participation or similar obligations will be structured as enterprise debt supported by facility revenues and not backed by the city’s general fund. Staff added that the project’s feasibility projections show the operation should be solvent without producer-responsibility funds, and that expanded regional volume would strengthen revenues and the financial case.

Following the purchase authorization, council also approved the resolution required for closing and property assignment. The motion authorizing the purchase was made and seconded on the record; council approved the resolution by voice vote. Councilmember Simpson cast the lone no vote on the contract authorization motion.

Next steps: staff said it will finalize the appraisal, complete closing steps including signature of the resolution at closing, and proceed with the financing schedule and construction planning. Staff said the project will be implemented in scalable phases so that as volumes increase the facility can be augmented, and that producer-responsibility funds anticipated from state programs would be used to cover operating shortfalls and assist in debt service when available.

Quotations in this story are taken from the March 5 meeting transcript and are attributed to speakers who appeared during the item.","Council authorized the city manager to sign a contract to buy a 58,275-square-foot building and 10.5 acres at 36532 Road for $5.6 million, as part of the planned regional materials recovery facility; council also adopted a resolution authorizing the purchase.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6281463,"Grand Junction council advances amended impact-fee ordinance after public hearing and months of study",5749,2371000,8120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2604816-c47dd35e68608f87c9b7c56812c2b879&start=2371&end=8120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2604816-c47dd35e68608f87c9b7c56812c2b879/thumbnail_2371000.jpg","/articles/6281463/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Grand-Junction-council-advances-amended-impact-fee-ordinance-after-public-hearing-and-months-of-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6281463-44eb7b4df6395a2c477eb93d86b25e5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146942&Signature=YYtTbY72kQn6VWTaJpA~uwvv83Cx4g8QSeTUhQLtixztpw5UN80vshF3ObIPFBOAU~Wly1ThPR9n0I-g5ApeYkkQsB6TJ3QMq29Fq8QvDYxbLK11ErVgZLHMb6WYP4-QtsssXUUsMaqNhOR8iYPjzTH8YI1E5PrPYUuOw23mbC3~ceyxowM0Su4iZ5FzcUq9662wR1C99kcjbIy8rUfHF4GoGeWHEpC-3Afb8EHMJxrfDunQGg6L8YrWl71rRurUm9JI8eM-6w8gf0IeaLKoc9~cxlloz7jXMu0euL73T42doT~jxXnEaG-F8~ZVZuXRZMdIdc7zMg5iHsbz71J~Sw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City Council moved forward March 5 on revised rules for development impact fees that would raise charges for new residential and some nonresidential construction but phase increases in to ease the cost to builders and homebuyers.

Tamara Allen, the city’s community development director, presented the updated nexus study and draft ordinance, describing impact fees as “one time payments for growth related infrastructure. They're not a tax, but a contractual arrangement to build growth related infrastructure, and they must meet 3 kind of areas of law.” The council voted to publish the ordinance with staff-recommended changes and additional council direction, setting a second hearing for April 2.

Why it matters: the proposed changes would alter how Grand Junction recovers the cost of parks, police, fire and transportation improvements from new development. Staff and consultants said the updated calculations reflect current development patterns and construction costs; opponents said higher fees risk pricing first-time buyers and small projects out of the local market. Council adopted the changes for publication but left final approval to a future vote.

The staff recommendation retained parks, police, fire and transportation within the fee schedule but recommended not adopting municipal facilities fees or a proposed affordable housing linkage fee now. The city retained consultant Tishler Bice to prepare the nexus study, then revised the study after stakeholder meetings and a Feb. 19 council workshop. Allen said the update included two major technical shifts requested by stakeholders and staff: using the 2004 Transportation Engineering Design Standards (TEDS) lane-mile cost for the transportation calculation rather than the 2023/2024 TEDS, and treating the church use as the baseline for the grouped “institutional” land-use category (which includes day care, hospitals and places of worship) to lower the institutional fee.

Allen showed examples to help the council weigh effects on housing: a roughly 2,000-square-foot new house would pay about $8,000 in impact fees under the 2025 rates; the draft study produces higher or lower totals for different unit sizes and nonresidential uses depending on the methodology applied. Allen also presented assumptions used in the affordability analysis, noting those assumptions are conservative and have limits: for example, staff cited an assumed interest-rate figure and a 20% down payment as part of a sample buyer profile.

Council debate focused on three topics: whether to accept the staff recommendation to use the older TEDS lane-mile cost (a policy decision that reduces the transportation fee), how to set the institutional category, and the implementation schedule. Councilmembers said they supported continuing to refine the policy and to give the public time to review the revised numbers. Councilmember Kennedy said the tradeoffs are real and raised safety and design concerns, calling the TEDS choice “a significant policy change,” and added that the city must be clear which costs are being assigned to new development and which will continue to be borne by existing taxpayers.

Public comment at the hearing split along industry lines. Realtors, builders and local business groups warned that higher fees combined with rising costs for taps, materials and interest rates could reduce starts and increase home prices; several urged a longer phase-in. Developers and the Home Builders Association asked for a phased rollout and for staff to correct methodological issues. Civic and parks advocates argued new homes and businesses create direct demand for parks and circulation improvements and that new development should pay its fair share rather than shifting costs to current residents.

Council action: the council voted to introduce and publish the ordinance for first reading as amended by council direction and to set a final public hearing on April 2, 2025. The motion, as adopted for publication, directed staff to incorporate the revised nexus study that uses the 2004 TEDS lane-mile cost, apply the church baseline for institutional uses, and phase the fee increases over three years (the motion as initially offered proposed five years; the council amended that to three years during discussion). The motion passed on roll call 5–1; one council member voted no. Councilmembers and staff said additional technical refinements — particularly on park and open-space valuation and inflation indexing — could be handled between the two readings.

Next steps: staff will publish the revised ordinance and supporting materials, schedule the required public notice, and return April 2 for second reading and potential final action. Staff also noted an option to refer the text amendments to the Planning Commission for review of code language (the commission would not set the fee amounts). Council members asked staff to provide additional detail on park land valuation, the parks fee components, and the projected revenue under phased implementation prior to the April hearing.

Quotes used in this story come from the March 5 council meeting transcript and are attributed to speakers who presented at or participated in that agenda item.","City council voted 5-1 to publish an amended Title 21 ordinance on impact fees for a first reading, directing staff to use older lane-mile standards for transportation fees, set institutional fees on a church baseline, and phase in new rates over three years. The measure remains subject to final passage April 2 and further refinements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council agrees to continue I‑70/29 Road interchange work with county, seeks CDOT/FHWA approvals

Council approves purchase of 36532 Road property for regional recycling/sorting facility

Grand Junction council advances amended impact-fee ordinance after public hearing and months of study