Kudos to The Daily Sentinel’s Le Roy Standish for continuing to chronicle what may be the most important ballot question facing Mesa County voters this November — whether to increase the number of county commissioners from 3 to 5 (”Adding two to county board costs $1.3 million,” Mar. 4), and for exposing misinformation about the proposal.

In 1994, when Lois Dunn (former Chairman of the Mesa County Republican Party) last participated in a study of the issue, Mesa County’s population was about 130,000 such that $1.3 million spread out over five years amounted to about $2 per resident per year. Today, Mesa County’s population is much large than that, such that the added annual cost of two Commissioners is per person is lower. Perhaps even more significantly, the new and increasing tax revenue being generated by on-going gas production in Mesa County will likely defray most — if not all — of the anticipated cost.

Therefore, the real questions are whether two more commissioners will result in better governance for our rapidly growing community — and whether better governance is worth having. Proponents of the initiative need only cite Commissioner Meis’s conflict of interest as to energy policy and the current commissioners’ failure to address energy-related impacts and watershed protection to answer both questions a resounding “Yes!”

Contrary to Dunn’s outdated opinion, it is relatively easy to provide for more “geographic representation” on the board — simply by adding two “at-large” seats to the existing three geographic districts, while changing the method of election in those three districts from “county wide” to “in-district-only” voting. As a result, both the candidates and the voters would have to reside within the three already geographically defined districts.

Complications arise if the voters opt for five geographic districts, which would result in two rounds of contentious redistricting — one by July 1, 2009, and another after the 2010 U.S. Census becomes available. However, in no case would the district lines resemble “the spokes of a wheel” ˆ since Colorado law requires equally populated and “compact” districts which do not violate existing precinct, municipal, or legislative boundaries.

Thus, if Grand Junction‚s population remains less than 40 percent of the county’s, then it will be entitled to two seats; if Grand Junction annexes enough of Clifton to exceed 40 percent of the county’s population, it will be entitled to three seats. In either case, both the East Valley (DeBeque, Collbran, Mesa, and Palisade) and the West Valley (Fruita, Loma, Mack, and Gateway) would each be entitled to a “rural” seat and thus representation.

BILL HUGENBERG
Grand Junction

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.