Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Truth In Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gunnison council scales back early 78% tax notice after public outcry, leaves Truth‑in‑Taxation hearing open
Summary
Gunnison leaders said the June 1 county notice showing a possible 78% increase reflected a statutory maximum; after residents pressed the council over potential homeowner impacts, staff and council said they’d reduced the draft to roughly 29% and will continue hearings before a final vote.
The Gunnison City Council on June 18 presented a draft 2025–26 budget and defended an early county notice that advertised a potential 78% increase in the city’s portion of property taxes, a figure that drew sustained public criticism.
The meeting’s mayor (name not stated in the transcript) told residents the June 1 filing with the county reflected the maximum taxable amount the law requires be advertised, and that the council had been “whittling it down” since. Dennis, a city staff member who spoke during the presentation, explicitly cited state procedures and explained the notice shows each taxing entity’s maximum so residents can compare line-by-line on their tax notices.
The mayor said the tentative budget initially included a $209,130 increase (about a 78% change to Gunnison City’s share) driven by public safety cost pressures and the loss of a $275,000 grant the city had expected. He told the room the council had asked the police department to use $35,000 in reserves and otherwise continued to reduce budget items; at the time of the hearing, the council's working proposal was roughly a 29% increase on the city portion and staff said they might reduce it further before final adoption.
Multiple residents said even the lower draft would be painful. Carlton Jensen, who identified himself during public comment, said average household income in Gunnison has not risen with inflation and called for fiscal restraint: “I am overall opposed to any increase in the property tax and any unnecessary expenditures in the proposed budget,” he said. Other commenters argued the advertised 78.9% figure misled residents because it applied only to the city portion of the tax bill, not total property tax.
City staff clarified that property valuations also affect bills: even if a rate changes modestly, rising property assessments can raise the total tax owed. The mayor gave a sample calculation for illustration, saying a $415,000 market-value home could see roughly a $90 annual change under the council’s draft assumptions, though he emphasized the number depended on multiple factors staff would finalize.
The council left the Truth‑in‑Taxation hearing open, scheduled further budget work and a continued hearing for June 20, and reiterated that the final budget must be adopted before the statutory deadline for cities.
Why it matters: Residents asked for clearer, line‑by‑line displays of the tax notice and more accessible summaries of how rate and valuation changes affect individual bills. Council members said they would continue negotiating reductions and post updated proposals before final adoption.
