Parts of Clifton
already annexed

Amid the discussion about Clifton’s annexation to Grand Junction or the incorporation of Clifton, one stark fact stands out: Major parts of Clifton and Fruitvale have already been annexed by Grand Junction.
A close look at the Grand Junction city-limits map reveals a city boundary that extends to 32 Road, including the Halliburton property and several industrial and commercial developments along D Road. Grand Junction has already annexed the commercial parcels south of Central High School along the I-70 Business Loop at 31 Road, well into Clifton.
Taking commercial and industrial properties into the city limits and new developments of all kinds into Grand Junction is a requirement of the Persigo agreement that the Mesa County commissioners and the Grand Junction City Council signed a number of years ago.
This form of annexation has created a patchwork quilt of city/county jurisdiction throughout Clifton and Fruitvale, making law enforcement, street maintenance and provision of other urban services confusing and a hodgepodge.
Taking revenue-producing properties without taking residential lands shortchanges the residents of Clifton and places continuing burdens on the county to provide urban services, without the additional revenue to do so. As a result, Clifton residents are disenfranchised, since they do not have a vote on City Council, and yet large parts of Clifton have already been annexed.
With annexation, the county would be relieved of having to subsidize the Clifton/Fruitvale area. Property taxes would rise moderately and, with the Grand Junction sales tax in effect, additional revenue from the Clifton commercial areas would help pay the additional costs for extending urban services. The Clifton/Fruitvale area would likely have a representative on City Council.
All of this would have to be gradually phased in, but it offers a solution to an unfair and untenable governmental structure that we now have in Clifton and Fruitvale.
BENNETT BOESCHENSTEIN
Grand Junction
County statisics poor
regarding Clifton area
You have to admire the ability of Janet Rowland and Jon Peacock to maintain their composure and keep fast-talking to an unenthusiastic audience. Unfortunately, their presentation at the Oct. 13 meeting to promote the annexation of Fruitvale and Clifton by Grand Junction brought to mind the phrase “snake oil,” and left property owners with no guarantee of what benefits annexation would bring.
One of the most troubling things about the presentation was inaccurate statistics. Ms. Rowland stated repeatedly that only 12 percent of county residents live in the affected area and “unfairly” account for 40 percent of the Mesa County sheriff’s budget. Also the Community Plan findings estimated only 14,133 residents in the Clifton-Fruitvale area. However, Clifton and Fruitvale are separate census-designated areas, and U.S. Census Bureau data show their populations in 2000 were 17,345 and 6,936 respectively.
More recent estimates suggest 21,973 residents in Clifton and 8,783 in Fruitvale. The estimated population of Mesa County in 2008 was 143,171, so the proposed annexation area actually contains more than 21 percent of the population of the county.
Also, Grand Junction, Fruita and Palisade have their own police departments. Removing those areas from the equation drops the number of county residents who have to rely solely on the sheriff’s department to about 79,000 people, with 39 percent of them living in Fruitvale and Clifton. Using 40 percent of the sheriff’s budget to protect 39 percent of the people doesn’t seem terribly unfair.
One of the many questions left unanswered during the meeting was how much the feasibility study being relied upon by the county cost. If the accuracy of the rest of the study is as good as the population numbers, the answer to that question would have to be, “too much.”
CHERYL JUNTILLA
Clifton

Reasons to reject
Clifton annexation
I live in the Clifton area and I am opposed to annexation by the city of Grand Junction for several reasons other than increased taxes and costs.
According to city ordinances, city residents are subject to fines, costs or prosecution if any of the following are found on your property:
More than two unlicensed/inoperable vehicles; any unlicensed/inoperable vehicle in the front part of the lot or visible from the street; a junk vehicle, nonfunctional metal, wood or plastic equipment; tools, tree branches, weeds taller than 6 inches, goathead weeds, any trees or plants not properly cared for and dead trees.
It is illegal to discharge any type of gun in the city limits, including BB guns, pellet guns, paintball guns or spring-loaded childrens’ toys guns.
A major means of enforcement of these ordinances is by complaints from other residents. In other words, if your neighbor has a conflict with you and any of these items or actions can be found on your property, the neighbor can enlist the city enforcement department to harass you.
The city also has a use tax that is assessed on any business purchase made outside of the city and which wasn’t taxed, such as online auction purchases.
BRUCE MARVIN
Grand Junction

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 am and is filed under Printed letters. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.