Grand Junction's Community Development department experienced a significant loss of staff over the past year, with 11 employees parting ways with the city between September of 2025 and September of 2026. This exodus included planners, supervisors, and the department director herself. As of mid-September, the department reported six vacant positions that needed to be filled, according to public records.
Four former city employees, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stated their departures were due to frustrations with city management and some Grand Valley real estate developers. These former municipal personnel claimed the Community Development department lost its independence as the city manager’s office reportedly failed to defend it from developers. They also alleged that developers leveraged personal influence and advisory positions to overturn planning and zoning policies. Former staff reported harsh comments from developers and a feeling of being overpowered by area real estate and engineering firms.
One former Community Development employee, who resigned in the last year, spoke on condition of anonymity, describing a negative work environment. This individual, like others, expressed a desire to have stayed, had they felt more supported and that they were doing meaningful work. Many of the 11 former Grand Junction employees have since found new jobs, according to an analysis of their public LinkedIn profiles and company webpages. Some have moved to other parts of the country, but most remain in Colorado, doing similar work for other government bodies or companies. At least two now work for contractors occasionally hired by the city for planning-adjacent work.
The impact of these departures has been significant for the remaining staff. Another former Community Development employee, the most recently resigned staff member reached by the paper, described the exit of 11 department personnel over the last year as a significant loss of staff. This person reported that a typical work week often stretched to 60 hours or more, a substantial increase from previous years as remaining staff absorbed projects from their outgoing peers. This individual indicated that a sense of unease about ongoing events and the heavy workload contributed significantly to the staff departures.
Area developers have also observed the department's struggles, with some attributing project delays to the situation. Jane Quimby, project manager for the Redlands 360 community and a member of Grand Junction’s Housing Affordability Code Task Force, described the department as significantly understaffed. She explained that the remaining personnel become overwhelmed, leading to a pressure-filled environment with inexperienced planners managing heavy workloads.
City Manager Mike Bennett said he was aware of multiple employees who left for personal reasons unrelated to management or developers. He also noted that the short-staffed department has led to increased costs for taxpayers. Grand Junction has recently contracted a private firm, KLJ Engineering, to assist with planning and development code revisions, and similar hourly, outsourced expenses are becoming more common, according to the city manager. Bennett stated this is not a permanent solution and that the city is conducting a study on employee compensation to better attract talent across all departments. In mid-September, Bennett said officials were working to fill Community Development’s open positions, expressing excitement about some promising applicants despite new hires often requiring higher salaries than their predecessors.
A major point of contention for two of the former Community Development employees was municipal leadership’s response to the Housing Affordability Code Task Force (HACTF). Formed last year, this task force includes seven city officials—Council Members Cody Kennedy, Laurel Lutz, and Jason Nguyen, along with four municipal staff including City Manager Bennett—a nonprofit representative, and 14 local real estate, building, and engineering professionals. The group’s stated goal is to reduce regulations they believe cause delays and high costs in housing developments, ultimately increasing prices for homebuyers.
Since its formation, HACTF has proposed numerous policy changes to the city council, securing approval for items like reformed bike parking requirements in apartment complexes, reduced mandatory pre-development meetings, and the repeal of rules intended to protect significant trees. However, skeptics, including the former Community Development staff, argue that this industry-led board has trimmed regulations primarily to improve developers' bottom line, rather than for the benefit of consumers. A third former Community Development employee, also speaking anonymously, remarked, "When you let the monkeys run the circus, it doesn’t always pan out." This individual added that while city staff typically draft zoning laws, with stakeholder input, the task force bypassed staff entirely. They described this as a lack of managerial support and an outside committee influencing staff departures. Two of the former employees also claimed department staff were expected to consult the task force on day-to-day work, from code revisions to educational handouts, despite HACTF's legal status as an an advisory body without final decision-making authority.
