Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Taxation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Gunnison council scales back advertised 78% ad figure; residents press against any property tax hike

Gunnison City Council · August 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members said the 78% figure in the county notice was a high-end, preliminary filing; after public comment the draft city proposal was reduced to about 29% with further changes possible before final adoption. Residents urged the council to rely on reserves and grants rather than raise property taxes.

Gunnison’s mayor and council opened a Truth in Taxation public hearing after the city advertised a potential 78% increase to the municipal portion of property taxes, drawing sustained public criticism on affordability and transparency. The mayor said the 78% number was a preliminary, legally required top-end figure submitted to the county on June 1 and that councilors have since reduced the draft to roughly 29% and will keep the hearing open for further refinement through the 20th.

Why it matters: residents said the early advertisement alarmed homeowners and argued the council should avoid any increase as many families face stagnant wages and rising costs. Carlton Jensen, a resident who spoke at the hearing, said he calculated that under the advertised increase the average Gunnison homeowner’s annual property tax bill would rise from about $350 to $615 and urged the council to cut discretionary spending instead: “I do not support any increase in the percentage Gunnison taxes on property,” Jensen said.

What council said: the mayor and staff explained the advertised figure reflected a preliminary budget that included one-time shortfalls—lost grant funding for a park reconstruction project, lower-than-expected water revenues and higher public-safety costs—and that state rules require publishing the highest plausible rate before final decisions. A staff representative reiterated that the draft has been pared down and council members said they expect further adjustments before adopting a final rate.

Public response and next steps: speakers pressed the council for clearer, line-by-line numbers showing where cuts could be made and asked for more time to review a posted draft budget. The council voted to keep the Truth in Taxation hearing open and will revisit the proposed rate at a scheduled continuation on the 20th; no final tax rate was adopted at this meeting.