City of Grand Junction Referred Measure 2B
This measure would increase Grand Junction’s sales and use tax from 3.39% to 3.46%, generating an estimated $1.9 million in 2027 to finance the renovation, repair, and replacement of systems and equipment at the Orchard Mesa Swimming Pool. The city would be authorized to issue up to $12 million in debt, with a total repayment cost of up to $19 million, for the project. The measure specifies that the existing six-lane, 25-yard-by-25-meter pool would not be expanded; the tax rate would be reduced by 0.04% after the debt is paid, with the remaining 0.03% continuing to fund operation and maintenance of the pool.
Supporters say:
The measure would provide the roughly $12 million needed to repair and modernize Orchard Mesa Pool, including its aging mechanical, HVAC, electrical, and filtration systems, while keeping the existing six-lane pool rather than expanding it. Supporters, including the Save Orchard Mesa Pool Committee, argue that the facility is an important community resource, particularly for Orchard Mesa and other residents who may have difficulty accessing the new Community Recreation Center. They also argue that repairing an existing facility is preferable to losing the pool and potentially having to build another one later. The proposed tax is 0.07% — about 7 cents per $100 spent — and after the pool-related debt is paid off, the rate would fall by 0.04 percentage points, leaving 0.03% for ongoing pool operations and maintenance.
Opponents say:
The principal concern is the additional sales tax burden and the city’s ongoing financial commitment to operating the pool. City staff have noted that Grand Junction already faces other long-term financial obligations, including subsidizing the new Community Recreation Center, and that the city does not currently have enough discretionary revenue to absorb another long-term pool subsidy. There is also a question about future demand since the city’s 2023 pool study projected that participation could decline substantially once the new Community Recreation Center is fully open.
Our Alliance's position:
We encourage voters to vote YES on Referred Measure 2B.
Mesa County School District 51 Issue 4A
This measure would increase property taxes for Mesa County Valley School District 51 by up to $23.2 million in 2026, with the money collected beginning in 2027 through a mill levy override of up to 7.850 mills (a unit of measurement equal to one dollar of tax for every $1,000 of a property’s assessed value). The increase would cost the owner of a $400,000 home about $18.09 per month based on current assessment rates. The money would support school safety and security, career and technical education and STEM programs, hands-on learning, teacher recruitment and retention, and annual salary and benefit increases. It would also require an annual independent audit.
Supporters say:
Supporters, including the Citizens for D51 campaign, argue that D51 needs additional locally controlled revenue because its per-student funding is among the lowest in Colorado. They say the money would address three specific priorities: expanding safety personnel and security support, expanding CTE/STEM programs tied to local workforce needs, and making compensation more competitive so the district can attract and retain employees. Superintendent Brian Hill has also said the district has already made central office and other spending reductions and is running out of options for addressing these needs.
Opponents say:
Opponents have concerns about the district’s spending and financial management, whether additional property taxes are affordable, declining enrollment, and whether taxpayers have sufficient assurance that new revenue would be used effectively. Some specifically objected to describing the measure as not being a tax increase, arguing that if the existing tax burden would otherwise decline, continuing it represents an additional cost to taxpayers.
Our Alliance's position:
We encourage voters to vote YES on Issue 4A.
Town of De Beque Issue 2C
This measure would create an occupational tax of up to $5 per pound on medical marijuana and marijuana products sold or transferred by medical marijuana businesses located in De Beque, including dispensaries, cultivation operations, and infused product manufacturers. It would generate an estimated $40,000 annually beginning in 2027. The revenue would be collected and spent by the town as voter-approved revenue and would be exempt from applicable TABOR and other revenue/expenditure limitations.
Supporters say:
The tax would make marijuana businesses contribute toward the municipal services associated with operating those businesses, while generating a relatively small amount of local revenue without imposing a tax directly on ordinary residents or businesses.
Opponents say:
The tax adds another cost to an already regulated medical marijuana industry, potentially making local businesses less competitive or encouraging sales to occur outside De Beque; critics could also question whether the town has demonstrated that the additional revenue is necessary.
Our Alliance's position:
Our Alliance is neutral regarding Town of De Beque Issue 2C.
Town of Palisade Issue 2A
This measure would increase the Town of Palisade’s sales tax from 2% to 3%, beginning in 2027 and ending December 31, 2034. The additional 1% sales-tax revenue would be dedicated primarily to street repairs and improvements to Peach Bowl Park, the swimming pool, and Riverbend Park, with 25% of the new revenue dedicated to emergency services. The town estimates the increase would generate about $600,000 annually in its first full year, and the measure would allow the town to retain and spend the revenue outside TABOR limitations.
Supporters say:
Town officials argue the increase is needed because the cost of providing municipal services has risen substantially since the last sales-tax increase more than 20 years ago. Mayor Greg Mikolai has specifically pointed to deteriorating streets, park and pool maintenance, and the difficulty of recruiting and retaining firefighters, EMS personnel and police officers when neighboring communities can offer higher salaries. Supporters also emphasize that visitors and nonresidents who shop in Palisade would contribute to the sales tax revenue, rather than the entire burden falling on Palisade residents.
Opponents say:
The proposal would raise the cost of taxable purchases for consumers and businesses in Palisade, and critics question whether the town’s proposed projects and emergency service needs justify an additional 1% sales tax. Palisade voters rejected a different and larger 2% sales tax increase in 2024, which would have raised the town’s rate from 2% to 4%.
Our Alliance's position:
Our Alliance is neutral with regards to Town of Palisade Issue 2A.
Palisade Rural Fire Protection District Issue 6A
This measure would increase the Palisade Rural Fire Protection District’s property-tax mill levy from 5.242 mills (a unit of measurement equal to one dollar of tax for every $1,000 of a property’s assessed value) to 11.5 mills for general operations, creating a total levy of 12.5 mills when existing capital and pension levies are included. The measure is expected to raise about $185,000 annually, estimating an additional $42.55 per year for every $100,000 of residential value. The money would fund emergency services, including fire response and prevention, inspections, medical response, facilities, equipment, and other district needs, while allowing the district to retain the revenue outside TABOR limits.
Supporters say:
The district needs substantially more property tax revenue to support the full-time fire and EMS service that rural residents currently receive. The district’s existing levy is 5.242 mills, and the measure would increase the operating levy to 11.5 mills (with the district’s existing capital/pension levy bringing the total to 12.5 mills). The Town of Palisade has said the current rural contribution was established when the department was largely volunteer and is no longer sufficient to cover the cost of today’s full-time fire and ambulance service; without additional funding, the town has warned that service levels could have to change or service to the rural district could eventually end.
Opponents say:
There is little organized opposition, however the strongest objection is the size of the property tax increase: rural property owners would continue paying substantially more each year for fire and EMS, and taxpayers could question whether the district should increase taxes this much rather than reduce costs, restructure the service arrangement, or find other funding sources.
Our Alliance's position:
Our Alliance is neutral with regards to Palisade Rural Fire Protection District Issue 6A.
