Grand Junction Initiates Two-Year Clock to Renegotiate Rural Fire Services Contract

The City of Grand Junction has taken formal steps to terminate its contract for fire protection services to properties in rural areas, including parts of Orchard Mesa, the Redlands, and other unincorporated areas surrounding the city. The formal notice, sent Tuesday, Sept. 1, begins a two-year countdown, after which the current agreement with the Grand Junction Rural Fire Protection District will dissolve unless a new contract is established.

Grand Junction Fire Chief Pete Skeris signed the letter, which states the city will continue to provide fire protection for the next 24 months, fulfilling its obligations under the current contract. During this period, the city aims to “work collaboratively” with the Grand Junction Rural Fire Protection District’s leadership to address operational, financial, or administrative matters for either a smooth transition or a new agreement.

City Manager Mike Bennett announced the city's intent to send the notice at an Aug. 31 City Council meeting. Bennett clarified that the move is not necessarily intended to end fire protection services, but rather to ensure that negotiations proceed as the city seeks a larger tax contribution from rural residents. According to city officials, providing fire protection to the rural district costs approximately $2.1 million more per year than what residents in those areas collectively pay for the service through property taxes.

Bennett stated that “Without giving that notice, it makes it very difficult to take actionable steps to change that.” He added that the city is “completely open to continuing that contract” but emphasized the need to renegotiate the agreement within the next two years to avoid operating at a loss for Grand Junction citizens.

The Grand Junction Rural Fire Protection District operates without its own fire department, instead relying on its contract with the city for fire and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) calls. The district funds these services primarily through a 9.668 mill-levy on properties within the rural district, retaining about $35,000 for administrative overhead. This property tax is estimated to generate nearly $3.4 million in 2026.

In recent months, district board members have contended that the city’s estimated funding gap is overstated. They argue that the city’s calculations do not adequately account for contributions from unincorporated residents through Grand Junction’s sales tax base, district payments made through other means, and revenue generated from EMS calls. District board members have also pointed out that municipal annexations in recent years have diminished the property tax base available to pay for fire services. They note that incorporated residents currently pay a lower property tax levy of just eight mills.

Dave Parmley, President of the Grand Junction Rural Fire Protection District Board, expressed surprise at the timing of the termination notice. He remarked that it “came as a bit of a shock to us.” Parmley confirmed the district’s receipt of the notification and stated they “certainly plan to work on this in good faith and with all diligence.” He declined further comment, awaiting input from other board members.

The path forward for negotiations remains uncertain under the new deadline. In July, district board members indicated that any proposal for a tax increase would be a difficult proposition for unincorporated voters to accept. Meanwhile, city officials have repeatedly stated in recent months that they are facing structural budget deficits and cannot continue to provide services at a loss.

Looking ahead, some elected officials have suggested a broader solution: forming a valley-wide fire protection district that would operate independently of existing cities and towns, with its own budget and taxation authority. Among those proposing this idea are a district board member and, more recently, Grand Junction City Council Member Anna Stout. City Manager Bennett acknowledged this as an “eventual possibility” at an Aug. 31 workshop meeting, but clarified it is “not a fix in just the 2027 budget.” Bennett described it as a “bigger-picture, multiple-year fix” that would require collaboration with partners.