Clifton and Fruitvale residents appeared divided Tuesday night over whether to create their own municipality or fold into the city of Grand Junction.
Roughly 150 people crowded a stuffy Clifton Elementary School cafeteria for the first of four meetings this week and next to gather comments about the future of the most densely populated area of the Grand Valley.
Attendees were asked as they left the two-hour meeting to place dots on a map showing where they live and depicting whether they favor incorporation or annexation. Their responses didn’t appear to heavily favor one option over the other.
Mesa County administrators and a group of volunteers spent nearly a year developing a feasibility study that examined governance options for the Clifton and Fruitvale area, which contains more than 14,000 residents and 5,000 properties. Officials say the county government is not set up to provide the urban level of service needed in the rapidly growing area.
“It’s become apparent we cannot rely on the status quo anymore,” said Alan Hassler, a member of the Clifton-Fruitvale Governance Steering Committee.
Annexation into Grand Junction would cost a residential property owner $63.68 a year for every $100,000 of property value and a commercial property owner $232 a year for every $100,000 of property value. Incorporation would be more expensive, costing $82.78 a year for every $100,000 of residential property value and $301.60 for every $100,000 of commercial property value, according to the feasibility study.
In both scenarios, sales tax would be set at 2.75 percent — the same rate as Grand Junction’s sales tax.
Incorporation would give Clifton and Fruitvale the greatest amount of local control over policies and revenue. But it likely would place the new municipality in a position where it would be competing with surrounding jurisdictions for qualified employees, businesses and sales-tax revenue, according to an analysis completed by the steering committee.
Annexation could provide the area with a higher level of service and allow it to potentially benefit from growth in Grand Junction. But there would be no guarantee of when service levels would reach current city levels, or of elected representation from the Clifton area on the City Council, according to the analysis.
“We’re afraid that we’ll become the forgotten stepchild of this end of the valley,” Clifton resident Aleta Ballard said of her and her husband’s greatest fear of annexation.
Three more meetings will be held on the following dates and at the following locations:
• Today at Clifton Christian Church, 615 Interstate 70 Business Loop.
• Tuesday, July 15, at Four Square Cornerstone Chapel, 353 Second St. in Clifton.
• Thursday, July 17, at Rocky Mountain Elementary School, 3260 D 1/2 Road.
•
E-mail Mike Wiggins at mwiggins@gjds.com.
Comments
By Former AMR employee
Jul 9, 2008 11:05 PM | Link to this
Remember when the city didn't want competition from private business in the Ambulance area? They eliminated the competition (AMR) just like the mafia. They said it would save money. Then, oops... it would only cost a few million more, then a few million more, etc... They now charge double what AMR was charging. Guess who got those good firefighter jobs? Friends and family. Once they (government) get a foothold it is like a cancer, always growing bigger and bigger.
By Disillusioned
Jul 9, 2008 7:40 PM | Link to this
There is not enough room for all the current government workers' friends to have a easy high paying job at the people's expense. More must be created. Get ready to watch city trucks drive aimlessly around, government employees to conduct personal errands on our time, and for them to drive our autos home every night. You can't expect them to pay for their own gas making only 20/hr can you?
By Rathburn
Jul 9, 2008 7:23 PM | Link to this
Complain all you want. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for our 'public servants'. They will do as they wish, and grow government, whether you like it or not.
By nina
Jul 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
Annexation into GJ makes the most fiscal sense. We do not have the choice to remain an unincorporated part of the County, and we already have higher gas prices, higher food prices, higher rents, etc. Do we really want to choose a higher level of property taxes via incorporation than less via annexation? And don't think that we will have street maintenance, lights and sidewalks two weeks after incorporation. It's going to take quite a bit of time, effort and community involvement to get up and running fully as a new city. Now here's where I could envision it taking 20 years!
By tasha
Jul 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
We (my family) voted against the annexation before and we will again. We do not want to be part of the city of Grand Junction. Higher taxes and for what, government pockets? NO THANK YOU!!!!!
And P. Rogers - If annexation happens and you don't mind paying the higher taxes, then YOU CAN PAY OURS TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
By SueLynn
Jul 9, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
I like the idea of the County fixing the problems that THEY CREATED by foolishly allowing the city to rule the County government and treating the County Citizens as they were there to serve the pleasure of the city.
The County says that the status quo is not an option and I ask WHY NOT?
WHO are you people that think you RULE the voters?
This is just like the number of County Commissioners, and how they are selected and who they will represent.
They present a couple of options and block out any other possibilities because the other ideas will destroy the influence of the city OVER the County CITIZENS.
I think that it is time for the VOTERS to stand up to these over bloated egos.
By k
Jul 9, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Crusty & Weasel have very good points. I personally donýt want to pay property taxes and wait 20 years to see the result of this increase. The city will do want ever it can to get into our pockets and spend our money. Do they think they are smarter and can spend our money better then we can? I donýt think so.
By Weasel
Jul 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
P. rodgers, did you miss the part where the city folks said they weren't sure how long it would take to provide those services?
You can bet your higher taxes will begin immediately, but your 'services' may be as much as 20 years down the road.
You make the assumption that the city will provide 'higher' levels of service, with nothing to go on other than your personal belief that anybody in charge of providing those same services in the new local municipality is too stupid and barely able to tie their own shoes.
With the known history of the skills and abilities of grand junction bureaucrats, you assessment is so wrong that it makes me think you really don't actually own property in the area.
Are you really a shill for the city? ie; a paid liar hired specifically to convince people that they will get a good deal, when in reality, you already know that is not the truth?
By Crusty
Jul 9, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
Well, let's look at facts.
For the last 30 years, the county has forced every large retailer and nearly all industrial businesses to locate where they can be forcibly annexed into the city of grand junction.
The county has allowed the Eastern end to become merely a bedroom community with very little retail tax base. Even Halliburton on 32 road has been forcibly annexed into the city, so whatever tax available from the industrial properties is not available to the 'new community'.
I see three possibilities to solve the problems the failures of the county government has caused.
A. Only allow new large draw retail and other businesses to locate into the Clifton/Fruitvale area, and get rid of the sewer district that favor the city of grand junction and invalidate all the forced annexations over the last 30 years and allow those tizens and businesses to become part of the Eastern end community.
B. A tax revenue sharing system where the residents of the Eastern end are able to have the taxes they are forced to pay to the city of grand junction to be passed through to the Eastern end community. And yes, they are forced to buy in grand junction due entirely to stupid policies allowed by the county government. And the county should also allow a percentage of grand junction city sales tax to flow to the eastern end for the time and expense of these citizens for having to drive all the way across town to purchase items NOT AVAILABLE on the Eastern end because of the countys refusal to allow retail and industrial infrastructure in this area.
C. Leave it alone and the county can deal with the problems it created through the stupidity of their policies and actions.
Give substantial tax incentives, at the counties expense, to those companies willing to located on the East end and build the infrastructure, and roll back ALL annexations East of 28 road to jump start the tax infrastructure necessary for the development of a self sustaining community in the Clifton/Fruitvale area.
The less intelligent people in the county government has caused this problem, and now the only solution they can come up with is to wash their hands and run away leaving the residents of the East end with a guaranteed to fail local ' municipality'.
The county should deal with the problems THEY CREATED with their shortsighted policies and refusal to deal with the problems as they began arising 25-30 years ago, and continuing to refuse to deal with those problems today.
By P. Rodgers
Jul 9, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
As an owner of several residential homes in Clifton, I would prefer to have my property annexed to the City of Grand Junction. Service levels will be higher and I am willing to pay a higher tax rate to get them.
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.