Residents urge Fruita council to abandon condemnation of Beddoes Reminisce Farm; council schedules executive session on 19 Road project

Several Fruita residents on Jan. 7 urged the Fruita City Council to halt any condemnation related to the city's planned expansion of 19 Road, arguing proposed right-of-way widths threaten family farms and the city's agricultural character. Speakers included Paul Schultz of Red Rock subdivision, Shelby Beto of Beddoes Reminisce Farm and other nearby property owners who said the project as proposed would be excessive for a collector road and could harm long-standing farms.

Why it matters: The comments focused on a planned right-of-way acquisition for 19 Road, the scope of proposed widening and whether the city's approach is compatible with the state's Right to Farm protections and Fruita's stated support for preserving agricultural land. The issue prompted the council to schedule an executive session the same night to discuss legal strategy and negotiations related to the 19 Road project.

What speakers said: Paul Schultz, who identified himself as representing area property owners, told council the city should "immediately stop the condemnation of private property at the Beddoes Reminisce Farm and end the city's effort to force out family farms east of Fruita." He described the proposed 80-to-100-foot right-of-way as excessive for a major collector and said traffic counts do not support that width.

Farm owner Shelby Beto said Beddoes Reminisce Farm serves more than 200 members across Mesa, Delta and Montrose counties and that the farm has been in the community for about 18 years. "We are here tonight to ask city council to stop the threat of condemnation on our property," Beto said. She said the proposed 25-foot (sic) dedication the city seeks "is excessive and undermines the Right to Farm Act and breaks promises to support local agriculture." (Transcript note: council later provided a clarifying statement about the size of the dedication; see below.)

Nearby resident Daniel Haney and AJ Armstrong also spoke. Haney said he bought his property because it was in an agricultural area and urged the council to preserve farmland. Armstrong described years of personal investment on his property — irrigation improvements and permits — and said he and neighbors did not expect to be included in an expansion area.

City response and legal context: Interim city staff prepared a public statement the council read into the record and said any claims of unlawful takings are false. The statement said the city generally acquires only the land necessary for a road project and follows statutory processes, including negotiating to purchase right-of-way at fair market value. The statement noted that the Beddoes parcel requires about 6,000 square feet (approximately 0.14 acres) of right-of-way and that much of the small area is already burdened by a plat and multipurpose easement dedicated to Mesa County for utilities.

The statement also said the city prevailed in a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff identified in the record (case number 24CV62) that challenged the city's road-classification actions; the lawsuit was dismissed and the city was awarded attorney fees.

Council action: After public comment and other agenda business, the council moved to convene an executive session under Colorado statutes (C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) for legal advice and 24-6-402(4)(e) for negotiation strategy) to discuss the 19 Road project. The motion to go into executive session passed 6-0. The council said the executive session would include council members, the interim city manager, the planning director and the city attorney.

Ending: The city also said it will publish a statement and materials on its website summarizing the project, outreach and the limited scope of proposed acquisitions. Residents at the meeting said they expect continued outreach and urged transparency and restraint on the size of any acquisition.