Annexation petitions are circulating in the eastern half of Fruitvale.
The petitions are being circulated only to property owners. The question: Do you want to be annexed by the city of Grand Junction?
Mesa County sponsored three meetings earlier this month to inform residents about the petition process and the reasoning behind the effort.
It also sponsored a telephone town hall-type meeting Thursday, calling affected property owners in the eastern half of Fruitvale who are registered voters.
WHY CONSIDER ANNEXATION?
Mesa County Administrator Jon Peacock said that when the county did a community plan for the Clifton area in 2006, the one request officials kept hearing again and again from residents was that the area needs more municipal services such as code enforcement, police, sidewalks and street lights.
In order to get those services, residents could either form a city, create special taxing districts or annex into Grand Junction. The county helped form a resident committee to explore the options.
That committee came to the conclusion that the least expensive and most efficient way to bring urban-level services to the Clifton/Fruitvale area was for annexation by Grand Junction.
AREA PROPOSED
FOR ANNEXATION
The area proposed for annexation is roughly described as east of 31 Road to 33 Road, north of the Colorado River to Interstate 70.
The area annexation would occur in three phases.
The first phase is the eastern half of Fruitvale. This area is roughly described as east of 31 Road and north of F Road and northwest of Interstate 70 Business Loop.
The county has set no time line as to when residents in the other two phases would be asked to voice an opinion on annexation.
Those two areas are roughly located east of 32 Road and east of I-70 B to 33 Road.
PETITION PROCESS
Kimberly Bullen, a senior analyst with Mesa County who has worked on the Clifton/Fruitvale plan for the past two years, said the county chose to use the property owner petition route to annexation “because that is the current process used by the city of Grand Junction to consider annexations.”
During one of the neighborhood meetings regarding annexation, Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland was asked the same question.
“This is for property owners because they pay the property tax,” she said.
Property taxes comprise about 20 percent of the county’s revenue for 2009, said Jessica Peterson, county spokeswoman.
CIRCULATING PETITIONS
At each of the neighborhood meetings, which were attended by 50 to 80 people, there were “count me in” cards and comment cards available. People could fill out the cards and have a petition brought to them to sign or they might be contacted later to volunteer and help circulate petitions.
Hired by Mesa County to coordinate the petition drive for $40,000 is the Denver-based firm of CRL Associates.
Last weekend started with 15 volunteers from the local area and six paid petition circulators, who are being paid $15 an hour, said Sean Mayle, a spokesman for CRL.
Bullen said each person is given 100 petitions to bring to specific property owners.
ANNEXATION OPTIONS
There are two routes the county could have taken for the annexation question.
The first one, the method chosen by Mesa County, allows for petitions to be circulated to property owners. If a majority of the property owners, who hold title to a majority of the lots and more than 50 percent of the acreage in the area to be annexed, agree to be annexed, then the petition is submitted to the Grand Junction City Council.
A signature is equivalent to a yes vote. A refusal to sign equates to a no vote.
The second method would also start with a petition drive, but end with a popular vote. The petition would have to be signed by 75 qualified electors. A question about annexation would then be placed on the ballot for a popular vote, according to state law.
A third method for annexation, which is not an option in the case of Clifton and Fruitvale, is if the area is an enclave.
If this were the case, an enclave may be annexed after three years, according to state law.
THE PEOPLE SPEAK
The petitions must be delivered to the City Clerk’s office 180 days after the first valid signature is obtained.
It will then be up to the clerk to determine if the petitions are valid.
If they are, City Council would debate the pros and cons of annexing the eastern half of Fruitvale into the city.
If the Council were to reject the petition, the area would not be annexed.
Mesa County officials have said that if the area is not annexed it would remain part of unincorporated Mesa County. The county government would continue to provide services, but, county officials contend, those services would not be delivered as efficiently as the city of Grand Junction could.
Residents would have to find other ways to fund increases in service levels if they so desire.
Email LEROY STANDISH
Comments
By dsnoopy4119
Oct 24, 2009 9:01 PM | Link to this
In addition, I have seen through documented court cases, that many times, once incorporated into the City, they turn around and charge the property owners for improvements such as sidewalks, road expansions, etc. I fear that, like me, many of us will be forced out of our homes because of these costs imposed on us.
By dsnoopy4119
Oct 24, 2009 7:58 PM | Link to this
As a property owner and resident of this area, I have yet to see anyone with a petition. I plan NOT to sign because I see no benefit to me. The only benefit I see is to the City of Grand Junction in additional revenues. I truly have yet to see any benefit addressed should I agree to be annexed into the City. Why hasn't the City sent out informational brochures addressing the benefits? To date, we are all in the dark unless we have time out of busy schedules to attend supposed informational meetings from which I have have read about in the Daily Sentinel, which seemed to be met with a great deal of animosity by residents. This almost seems Taxation Without Represention which was the original Tea Party Revolution was all about!!!!
The residents of Fruitvale already pay a great deal more for their utilites because most of us have Grand Valley Power, who plans to build a big new facility and charges aroung $18 per month just for billing and adds a surcharge to pay for their electricity which they buy from Excel! In addition, we also have to buy our natural gas from Excel Energy which charges around $10 per month just for their billing. We also pay for Clifton Water and an exhorbitant amount to Clifton Sanitition in the amount of $22.00 per month. In additon, I also have to pay for trash removal which costs around $20/per month
From talking to friends who are residents of Grand Junction, they pay much less for water, sewer, and trash services.
By mike cook
Oct 24, 2009 7:41 PM | Link to this
this is my take on all this. i think janet roland wants annexation in friutvale because she lives out there! IF THIS PASSES SHE CAN run for city council seat after her term is up at her current county seat! wake up people and vote no for this!
By Sham
Oct 24, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this
As the petition circulator who knocked on my door a couple of days ago said, "The petition drive is not going well" for annexation. Here is to hoping that the county politicians will understand, before they waste any more tax payer dollars on this sham shame, that the people of Fruitvale do not want their increased taxes.
By Don'tBDeceived
Oct 24, 2009 11:54 AM | Link to this
The City Of Grand Junction says it does not have the facilities to provide adequate police and fire protection to the population they already have. Why would any Fruitvale resident want to be part of that?
I am a registered voter, property owner, in the proposed annexation area. I did not receive a call last night to join any forum. This is being done with smoke and mirrors and with such disregard for the will of the people of Fruitvale that I have lost all respect for these slimy snake oil peddling politicians.
By shadyfan
Oct 24, 2009 11:39 AM | Link to this
The property owners here in clifton, can only afford clifton, keep raising the
coats of things and you will have more crime and slums leave us alone, rowland
and peacock nned to give up thier salaries and pay for streets and cutters and
lamps etc leave us alone!!!!!! CLIFTON DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING!!!!!
By shadyfan
Oct 24, 2009 11:19 AM | Link to this
further more so they change to name from clifton to grand junction, what about all the legal stuff, a name change who pays for that!!!! I don't want my address to be grand junction, what a damn mess, leave us alone!!! go get more
money from your buddy obama or ritter, I quit, goodbye mesa county I hope
more people will leave this place you can fix up streets gutters parks who will pay for that!!!!! Foe years riverside and still is an eye sore,, do you really
think grand junction is goingto make clifton BETTER!!! wake-up they are all
lying, GREEDY GREEDY GRAND JUNCTION
By HugeTaxHikes
Oct 24, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this
What a waste of Mesa County taxpayer dollars. If Peacock et al believe their own garbage about this being a community led initiative, then why have Janet Rowland and Peacock been the ones leading the forums? And why is the county the ones laying out the $ for it? Nope, folks, this is just a way for the county to rid themselves of their responsibilities through huge tax increases on Fruitvale residents who cannot afford it. And Peacock's deception about sidewalks and some kind of lamps is pure garbage. If the city puts in any kind of sidewalk, they bill that neighborhood through increased taxes on top of the increase that comes with annexation. Fruitvale property owners' share of the county mill levies will not go down if annexation occurs. As Janet Rowland said, the county will just spend OUR Fruitvale portion elsewhere in the county.
By shadyfan
Oct 24, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this
I'm so not going to be incorporated to Grand junction MY house will go on the
market, I will sell out and head out of town you can have this dump of a county
and the jerks who run it, always hated grand junction always will!!!!You watch
clifton will go further in the dumps, grand junction is not going to make clifton better or prettier it will be worse, they want your tax $$$$$$$
By Comment
Oct 24, 2009 9:44 AM | Link to this
Something to consider... City of GJ will probably enforce you to use THEIR trash service rather than us using the trash service we have now. This will result an increase in trash bills. Plus, the trash businesses will lose more clients like they did when City enforced city residents to use their trash service. And of course, you will get higher property tax bills. Something to think about.
[1 2] next
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.