[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6165276,"mediaKeyId","5425476-9c739ebef02046722b5a0cc6583c0513","parentId",5425476,"title","Council asks staff for cost modeling on Fourth/Fifth street pilot before deciding on permanent configuration","audioSeconds",504,"startMs",9821000,"endMs",10325000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5425476-9c739ebef02046722b5a0cc6583c0513&start=9821&end=10325","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5425476-9c739ebef02046722b5a0cc6583c0513/thumbnail_9821000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6165276/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Council-asks-staff-for-cost-modeling-on-FourthFifth-street-pilot-before-deciding-on-permanent-configuration","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6165276-bc98e9fc99ba566e1db76b9381a7e024/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198935&Signature=bQ09ZWjMn~sWJdRvkjEa98QV~rih3rZI5WJDAxEHBNAvu60Q5AdmNcTZ9BtliZwbrflD39jcPCYQ0ELJFUaSlDaPVOAacewUK5FlLtnM-shlQW9~MNc0TfjmkuJDndJTTWo5OwHJH0waNcOXDBHpyloyWqXMrFsqTW~sR5~lhaK9tjkaSjq9wyokeCN4BFWAlYhsVNjYvHrcjruyuSVf7d4RqfMY2H6Cb777SIgFoiFPTwsS6A2qgmUsvvCmCzn926p6bxVOTuuGUNTqnJRC1CLaoMjuLY3F5SqKJCtdqc~6Si3sM2B2GeAq0IDLNgXw0P37-6OVAFBcg3zOvwZz3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Grand Junction CO","date","2025-07-14T00:00:00Z","article","Council members asked staff to prepare detailed cost and parking‑impact analyses for the Fourth and Fifth street pilot so council can decide whether to return the streets to their pre‑pilot configuration or make the pilot changes permanent.

Staff said they will bring detailed figures to the next workshop, including the cost of curb work and an estimate of lost parking revenue. Councilmember Kennedy (Mayor) asked staff to show how many parking spaces would be lost under each option and what that loss would cost the parking fund. One council member noted current figures used in earlier discussions — “73 spots and $500 a spot, which is $36,500” — and asked staff to model concrete scenarios comparing the pilot layout versus restoring the former diagonal parking configuration.

Staff (Mike) told council the city will return with an estimate of capital costs (curb cuts and related work), changes to the number of parking spaces, and the budget implications. He also said staff will prepare outreach and hypothetical budget paths: if the council decides to spend existing 2025 appropriations the city can proceed quickly, but if the council decides that work requires a new appropriation it should expect the project to be scheduled in the 2026 budget. \"If we decide, hey. Just pull those bollards out, ping them back to where it was, pre pilot program ... that would be, that was my question, is if that could be approved within a workshop or ...\" a councilmember asked; staff said a public meeting and formal council action would be appropriate for an expenditure decision.

Next steps and public process: Council directed staff to return with capital-cost estimates, the parking-count delta for each configuration and an outreach plan; if council favors moving forward with capital spending staff will place the matter on a regular meeting agenda for a vote rather than acting solely in a workshop.

Discussion versus decision: The workshop did not change the street geometry or commit funds. Council members emphasized transparency and public input and asked that staff model the fiscal trade-offs before taking any final action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Grand Junction City Council - Workshop - July 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council asked staff to return with detailed cost estimates — curb cuts, lost parking revenue and other capital costs — for the Fourth and Fifth street pilot; members signaled they will decide at the next regular meeting after staff provides scenarios and public outreach plans.","taxTitle","Grand Junction, Mesa County, Colorado","taxId",5495,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6165281,"City staff recommends moratorium on enforcing group‑living occupancy rules while state law and local standards are clarified",1434,6658000,8092000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5425476-9c739ebef02046722b5a0cc6583c0513&start=6658&end=8092","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5425476-9c739ebef02046722b5a0cc6583c0513/thumbnail_6658000.jpg","/articles/6165281/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/City-staff-recommends-moratorium-on-enforcing-groupliving-occupancy-rules-while-state-law-and-local-standards-are-clarified","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6165281-aa9d09cfd6cd2487c305092556461033/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198935&Signature=EMBnWPiUTwiKJj1jGzw-1S85wEYyXk8DW39JQQg7f2N6TXj3gvWqjNs-lAU~2aux79gPmlqy52ILL1xJJf9UJk~R94pd4FeR2vlD0UKTsb06Teebdzbhiz1aeybZgXnHThstrkW~j~kgDFeVVkM0AWCcd0TfHGQOqK9kwFXR-iskoC9te4jDegYY01HBUw~1cYqaMqHl3jQZicqmHH1m~T0jlOIy0~YhgzfSu4qk1yjb9TKlgGkt6TeTIGYFhr~RFNYmNJksxUFe8~-KxjsirBGRZ2j0NJRww2i-vQHJsxe1~GRUlii2m9duuEkd8f26Bg0Z7uJ1MQ~5SmG-TXqHVg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff recommended a temporary moratorium on enforcing portions of the municipal code that regulate group‑living occupancy counts so the city can align local rules with a recent state law and, in parallel, evaluate local health-and-safety standards.

The item stems from House Bill 24-107 (referenced during the workshop as the statute that bars local governments from limiting how many people may live together based on familial relationship). Mike framed the issue: the state law “does not allow us to regulate group homes based on a quantity of people,” and the city’s current code contains multiple categories and numerical thresholds that are no longer compatible with that statute.

Nikki, identified as a planning manager, summarized how other Colorado jurisdictions have responded: some (Montrose and others) allow eight or fewer residents by right and require conditional use review for properties with nine or more; others eliminated some group-living categories or treated certain facilities as nonresidential. Nikki said the statutory reference linked the “eight or fewer” threshold to language in state zoning law that treats group homes serving specialized populations as residential when they house not more than eight persons.

John, the city attorney, cautioned that adopting an alternative approach does not remove legal risk but described two parallel paths staff is pursuing: (1) bring a short moratorium on enforcement so the city can pause actions that are facially inconsistent with the state statute while staff completes a code rewrite; and (2) have building and fire officials develop demonstrable health-and-safety standards (for example, International Building Code or fire code metrics) that would legally support occupancy limits. “Well, short answer is no,” John said in response to a question about whether the new information reduced litigation risk; he later recommended the moratorium as the prudent first step.

Council direction: Council did not adopt new regulations in the workshop. Members generally supported placing the moratorium on the agenda for a public hearing and possible vote at the next regular meeting so the city has time to evaluate code changes, consult building and fire officials about measurable safety standards, and monitor related legislative developments. Staff plans to return with draft moratorium language and with analysis of what a code rewrite would entail.

Discussion versus decision: The workshop provided policy direction; an ordinance or resolution will follow at a public hearing. Staff emphasized that the moratorium would be limited to the portions of local code that rely on numeric household/occupancy counts and not a ban on group living per se. Staff also flagged possible ripple effects — reclassifying some uses as nonresidential, adjusting reporting requirements, and determining nonconforming-status rules for existing facilities — that will require careful code drafting and legal review.","Staff advised council to adopt a temporary moratorium on enforcing numerical occupancy limits in the city code for group-living facilities so staff can rewrite local definitions and explore health-and-safety standards; the moratorium is slated for public hearing and possible vote at the next regular meeting.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6165286,"Council sets ranking process to pick members for industry-led housing affordability task force",1661,4054000,5715000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5425476-9c739ebef02046722b5a0cc6583c0513&start=4054&end=5715","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5425476-9c739ebef02046722b5a0cc6583c0513/thumbnail_4054000.jpg","/articles/6165286/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/Council-sets-ranking-process-to-pick-members-for-industry-led-housing-affordability-task-force","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6165286-b4a06443c273e6cad589e5faab32a624/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198935&Signature=YThRW79C2Lpn2VOfOoAEOsm1EvCEswlg2NvJWc0RQwiRJLYAE4u8QxMJEqcCkqJaep7BrJvU1N7b8ek9B2YFugxzUOHRIu63HWs6UWqkn0s6oifi~Yp0SNQyeJGqcItWPdPKrtBVn8hIcCM-lxJA5dwAdlZ4U-DlT4d8~fHWLQPT3fW-anRantBppXIA9QaM3eweTHB58h7ON2ojRdU0Cw0-Otywo5BJ7xrbrtm-rfBh6UABUSnvs6OjEAU-K8t4Vrmf49dm51wVCgWgu3WN2RFI~UKtxRWK-1rAktEXzk4l24GrQNNM7hbijgx3YMSfTGQ7enn~Zg61z8asQLjmTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Johnson City councilors directed staff to use a ranked-selection approach to assemble an industry-led, staff-supported housing affordability task force after receiving more than 40 applications from builders, developers, architects and other housing stakeholders.

Staff member Mike told council that the city had opened a call for applications and received more than 40 submissions. “You can see you have over 40 applicants,” Mike said. He explained the intent: the task force should be industry-led, reflect diverse roles in the development process, and be sized to produce practical recommendations.

Council members agreed to a ranked voting method for selection. Johnny (staff) will distribute a ranked-choice form to council members; each council member will rank candidates and staff will compile the results and return a recommended list of approximately 15 appointees for formal council action. Mayor Pro Tem Cole and other council members emphasized a desire for at least one planning-commission representative on the panel; the planning commission had proposed two names (Sandra Marley and Robert Cantaro), and council agreed that if either planning commissioner ranked into the top 15 they would be included.

Scope and composition: Staff recommended a panel of roughly 10–15 members, representing engineers, architects, developers, builders, nonprofit housing providers and other practitioners who interact with the city’s development-review process. Mike said the task force would be industry led and would determine its own chair, vice chair, meeting schedule and internal procedures; staff would provide administrative support and a staff recommendation where appropriate.

Public process and timing: Councilmembers asked staff to provide applicants’ contact details so they could perform due diligence before voting; staff will first notify applicants that council may share contact details for that purpose. The city will seek to compile council ranks quickly; staff proposed a short window so the compiled list could be placed on the next available meeting agenda for formal appointment. Mike said staff could place the appointments on the following council meeting if members return rankings promptly.

Discussion versus decision: Council used the workshop to develop the selection method and timeline; council did not make final appointments during the workshop. The formal appointment of members will occur at a regular council meeting using a resolution or appointing motion after staff compiles the ranked results.","Councilors agreed to a ranked choice selection process to nominate about 15 industry representatives to a housing affordability task force; staff will email the candidate list and compile rankings for formal appointment at a future meeting.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6165291,"City staff recommends ending automatic backfill for affordable-housing impact-fee waivers",9767,27000,9794000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5425476-9c739ebef02046722b5a0cc6583c0513&start=27&end=9794","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5425476-9c739ebef02046722b5a0cc6583c0513/thumbnail_27000.jpg","/articles/6165291/Grand-Junction/Mesa-County/Colorado/City-staff-recommends-ending-automatic-backfill-for-affordable-housing-impact-fee-waivers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6165291-4e10e2df81b295098236a94ea8a2405e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198935&Signature=gGQ3ALaJ441QAYa3SeDeuhP13irvyT8SQg5-7pyh2fgSB~OW7Nd5ujY1a1nGDN8Y97FiH1mXsSL~gjYJiBIRIJWvteG6yagkXMF42BPILl5dUzhrKLGywJ0tItGGA40CMIpW-wp1BHGoNusppzAW1J2XaLBFgublcl1u73omYpHf57b1GC32s2V9024PthZqytw7CNu~G344LZ~qEh6V-eIf5YMT47IpXKv7W8dPCbfMxQeBjulprdgY8dy-K5T8EYSBPIKUWcSl78Sy5dZ~nuiuZVmEXQASYWCRnkcV8-U04gBf1NJ9KMFtRIYOMuv96W7CzR~xj61S~0lOYUA7xQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff told the Johnson City Council at a workshop that state law permits local governments to waive development impact fees for qualifying affordable housing projects without requiring the city to “backfill” the fee fund from general revenues, and recommended the city stop routinely paying those waived fees.

The recommendation — presented by staff members identified in the workshop as Mike, Tamara and Ashley — would repeal the council’s existing resolution (Resolution 44-24) that had required the city to pay impact fees for projects that received the affordable-housing waiver. “The state statute allows ... a city can waive those impact fees without backfilling,” Mike told the council. He and other staff framed the proposal as a starting point for discussion rather than a final rule.

Why it matters: Under the existing local policy, the city uses general-fund dollars to replace revenue the impact-fee fund would have collected; staff told council that for the current group of proposed projects the backfill obligation would total about $760,000 for one housing authority project and that, across six applications submitted by the July 1 deadline, the city’s projected share under the existing policy would be roughly $4.19 million. “The city would owe on that portion would be 4,190,000.00 and some change,” Ashley said. Staff said changing the policy could reduce the city’s exposure: applying the staff-proposed tiered changes would drop the city’s total to about $1.87 million for the submitted projects, with developers’ net contribution falling to zero under that scenario.

What staff proposed: Staff outlined a multi-part approach: confirm that public housing authorities and entities in which they hold an ownership interest are exempt without backfill; eliminate the city’s standard backfill requirement for affordable-housing waivers; and adopt a tiered waiver structure that ties reductions to area median income (AMI) tiers and to water/sewer enterprise fees. Tamara described options to: (1) waive fees for rental units at 60% AMI and below; (2) allow staggered reductions for units at higher AMIs; (3) waive fees for for-sale units at up to 120% AMI under certain conditions; and (4) waive fees for multi‑unit projects that use income-averaging techniques commonly used in low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects. “We would like to ensure that that's also recognized that any entity that they form a special limited partnership in that they have an ownership interested, is also exempt from paying those development fees,” Tamara said.

Council reaction and next steps: Council members generally signaled support for moving away from the automatic backfill while keeping predictability for developers. Several members emphasized the trade-off: money not used to replace impact-fee revenue reduces funds available for parks, streets, police and fire capacity projects. Robert asked whether the change would reduce funding for needed public improvements; Mike and Tamara confirmed it would, and that the council would need to decide how to budget those trade-offs.

Council members asked staff to return with more precise budget models and scenarios. Mike said staff would prepare estimates that show how many units at various AMI tiers would affect the city’s budget and could be incorporated into the 2026 budget process. “We can try to look at some historical data ... and give you an estimate,” he said. Council also directed staff to develop verification procedures (how income restrictions and long-term affordability covenants would be enforced) if the council proceeds with a program that does not require backfill.

Discussion versus decision: Council did not take a formal vote at the workshop. Staff characterized the presentation as a proposed policy framework and the council provided direction: staff should produce detailed fiscal modeling, draft program rules for verification and covenant length, and a budget proposal that identifies what amount the city would commit in the coming year if the council adopts the changes.

What remains unclear: Staff noted uncertainty about how many projects the market can produce at lower AMI levels without federal or state subsidies. They also flagged administrative complexity tied to water and sewer enterprise fees when other regional entities (such as special districts or county partners) supply service; those partners may require separate approvals or may be unwilling to waive fees. Staff said they will bring back proposed ordinance or resolution language and specific budget figures when council is ready to act.

Ending note: Council members asked staff to build predictable annual allocation rules (a yearly cap and application cycle) so developers can rely on city commitments during pro-forma and LIHTC application windows. Staff said they had already run a July 1 call for requests and would incorporate those applications into the budget modeling and follow-up materials.","Johnson City staff told council that state law allows cities to waive impact fees for affordable housing without backfilling, and recommended removing the city’s policy of paying those fees from the general fund; council signaled support for a tiered, budget-limited approach and asked staff for detailed cost modeling.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council asks staff for cost modeling on Fourth/Fifth street pilot before deciding on permanent configuration

City staff recommends moratorium on enforcing group‑living occupancy rules while state law and local standards are clarified

Council sets ranking process to pick members for industry-led housing affordability task force

City staff recommends ending automatic backfill for affordable-housing impact-fee waivers