GVCA Journal for 10/14/07
I don't want any of you to take this personally, this slighting of all of
you by not sending e-mail. For no good reason, I've quit e-mailing everyone,
so none of you should feel exclusively excluded.

The GVCA has been plugging along; I just haven't bothered to report on any
of it. So here's a sort-of summary:

We should all be very proud that our booth at the farmers' market, under the
direction of project coordinator Karen Jensen, contributed over $2,800 to
the Gunnison Food Pantry this summer. Karen and Butch were present almost
every Saturday, with help from a few other volunteers, and we had more local
gardeners making a point to donate produce weekly.

We discussed either selling recycled wrapping paper or wrapping gifts at the
Sugar Plum Festival, with those proceeds going to Jubilee House, but we may
have decided that the entry fee for the festival would be more than we would
be liable to raise.

The school board will discuss bond proposals it received from four companies
at Monday night's meeting (5:30 p.m.; I think at Lake Administrative
Building, which, as an alum, I still want to call Lake Elementary). The
price tag on this bond is likely to be $50 million, if a new high school is
included as many think it should be. It will go before voters in November
2008.

Which, speaking of ballots, Ellen said she helped the county clerk's office
stuff ballot envelopes last week. She thinks the only item on the ballot for
Gunnison voters will be a de-brucing request from the Met Rec District.
There should be a school board election, but since only three people
submitted paperwork for four seats, they will just be appointed, and once
seated, will have to interview and appoint a fourth. So if you're interested
in a public office without having to run for it, this could be your big
chance. Your $50 million chance, if you will.

The county has a moratorium on large-scale projects until it completes its
1041 regulations. I don't know if I heard a timetable, but the county is
expecting to receive a Snodgrass proposal soon after the moratorium is
listed.

And then we get to the city. (I'm sure I managed to mangle some of the
information above; anyone with corrections should just send them on along.)

Gunnison Rising is rising again, with a formal proposal expected to be
submitted to the city any ol' day now.

Proponents, which include Dick Bratton and Shuck the Elder (Steve) and
Younger (I have no idea what his first name is), formally requested that the
city put the project on hold earlier this year, but now they have returned,
still without anything formal on the table.

What the GVCA has pushed for, during this off-again on-again discussion, is
for an official city policy regarding annexation. All annexation. We feel
this would be fair to both the city and to developers, because it spells out
city expectations and processes.

Some city personnel seem to feel there are only two possible points of
annexation, north and east of the city, and that once those are annexed into
the city, there will never be another need for a policy, so spending a lot
of time on such a policy would be a waste of time.

Let's move beyond the arrogant presumption that the city will automatically
say "yes" to any annexation proposal that appears on its doorstep, and look
to the part where the city itself suggested a third location for annexation
(the Van Tuyl Ranch, owned by the city but currently under county
jurisdiction -- this is the part that still runs horses and cattle). And if
the city does annex something boundaries will change, providing potential
for other annexations. And, as I pointed out to council, there's always the
possibility that the council might say "no" to a proposal, leaving open the
possibility of a submittal of a different proposal for the same piece of
property.

So we feel a policy is in order, and our push for this has finally resulted
in a draft policy, which will be discussed Tuesday night. The policy only
became available late Friday, and hasn't been widely circulated. Tuesday is
only a work session, so no decision will be made, but we would like to see
the council offer more time for citizen input on this policy. We feel this
is vey important to determining how Gunnison grows, and the policy should
clearly reflect the master plan, which received input from many segments of
the community.

So we are hoping some of you might be able to turn out for Tuesday's
meeting. (We did a terrible job of encouraging people to attend a recent
work session on Gunnison Rising.)

We do want to remind people that, rather than focusing on any specifics of
Gunnison Rising, we are trying to encourage a policy that the city could
apply toward any annexation of any size, in any direction from the city. The
policy should not tell developers how to do their job, but it should be a
guide for both developers and city officials in determining what would make
a project suitable for inclusion within the city's boundaries.

If you're able, please attend Tuesday's meeting (which starts at the city's
animal shelter at 6:30 and then moves to council chambers at 7 p.m.) and
show support for an annexation policy that is well-done (not rushed just
because a possible annexation is looming large) and details clearly what the
city of Gunnison expects from any and every proposal.

And now I would like very much to go to bed, so I think I will.

Sorry about the long empty silence, and while I'd like to promise I'll be
more regular with my reports, let's not bank on that.

Carpe manana!

TL