Grand Junction council weighs moving municipal elections to November to cut costs, boost turnout

The Grand Junction City Council discussed whether to move regular municipal elections from April to November at a workshop on Jan. 13, 2025, a change that would require a question on the city charter and coordination with Mesa County Elections.

City elections staff presented cost and turnout information, telling council that the city-run April municipal election cost about $168,000 in the most recent comparable cycle while a coordinated November 2023 special municipal election cost a little over $27,000. Staff provided a current estimate of roughly $120,245 for the next election if conducted by Mesa County, and ongoing city-run election staffing costs could range from about $135,000 to $238,000 per year.

The discussion mattered because shifting to November would likely cut direct city election costs and could raise turnout, but would require formal charter amendment language, timetable decisions and coordination with state and county election processes. Staff also flagged practical constraints, including petition certification and the fact that Colorado state processes generally work through counties rather than directly with cities.

City Clerk Celestina (City Clerk, City of Grand Junction) noted operational impacts if the city continued to run April elections itself, saying the April 2023 election had required use of departmental space and that the city should not repeat that approach — "we shouldn't do that again," she said — and urged the council to plan for permanent facility or rental needs if the city runs its own elections.

Bobby Gross (Mesa County Elections) told council that if Grand Junction coordinated elections with the county in November, the city would "certify the ballot content to us and then we do everything else." She also described limits on county participation in advocacy for a ballot question, explaining that the county clerk must remain neutral while others, including county commissioners or citizens, could advocate for a charter change.

Council members raised turnout and timing concerns. One member cited roughly 40–45% turnout in recent odd‑year November municipal elections and noted the city had about 17,180 voters cast in the last municipal contest out of roughly 44,800 registered voters. Several council members said studies show higher participation in November general elections than in smaller spring or summer elections.

Council members also discussed downstream effects of moving the swearing‑in date for newly elected council members. Under the proposed calendar change, elections held in November would seat winners in December 1; several council members expressed concern about incoming members voting on a budget they had not participated in and suggested shifting the start date to January to allow onboarding and budget observation. Staff indicated the charter could set the seating date and said they would research legal and practical implications for starting terms in January.

No formal motion or ballot referral was made at the meeting. Council directed staff to research legal issues and timing implications and to bring proposed charter language and scheduling options back for council consideration and possible agendizing. Several council members expressed general support for pursuing a referral to coordinate with Mesa County, subject to staff follow‑up on legal language, implementation schedule and any side effects on the budget calendar.

The item will return to council for a formal proposal and — if council chooses to proceed — a charter amendment question would be placed on a ballot per charter amendment procedures and applicable state law.