PRESS RELEASE: Canfield BikesWe are relocating from Bellingham, WA, to Fruita, CO. We are celebrating 20 years in business and chose Colorado’s Western Slope due to its burgeoning riding community and mountain bike culture, year-long riding season, proximity to a multitude of lift-served bike parks, vast trail networks and alpine riding. The location also offers a logistical advantage for quicker shipping to customers around the country.
In addition, generous incentives were provided by Colorado’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) and the Grand Junction Economic Partnership (GJEP).
“Canfield Bikes is a great addition to the Colorado economy. Canfield chose Fruita—a region synonymous with the outdoors—and the company's investment embodies the business expansion and relocation goals that the Strategic Fund was designed to cultivate,” said Michelle Hadwiger, director of global business development for OEDIT. “Fruita and the State equally invested in Canfield and Canfield’s investment will pay back dividends for Colorado, not only in new jobs but in promoting the healthy and active lifestyle that helps keep our talent pool productive and happy.”
We will receive a Strategic Fund incentive from the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade for the creation of 20 net new jobs over the next 5 years paying 111 percent of the Mesa County average annual wage. In addition, the Grand Junction Economic Partnership (GJEP) will provide matching funds for this performance-driven incentive. Utah and Idaho were also considered for the move.
"Colorado's Grand Valley is a prime location for the outdoor recreation industry, and MTB businesses in particular, thanks to our abundant manufacturing workforce and the close proximity to our extensive trail system making product testing easy," said Steve Jozefczyk, deputy director of GJEP. "What's more, Fruita has a great culture and community of mountain-biking enthusiasts. Canfield Bikes will fit right in."
Lance Canfield in Fruita, CO. Photo: Don Stefanovich
Lance Canfield, CEO, president and designer of Canfield Bikes, is no stranger to Colorado. Although he was raised in Utah where the company started in 1999 prior to moving to Washington state, Lance has been visiting Colorado to ride and race mountain bikes since 1994, and previously worked as an engineer and product designer with White Brothers suspension/EKO Sport (Now MRP) in Grand Junction, CO.
“Colorado’s always had a special place in my heart,” said Canfield. “I have fond memories of working and riding here. The bike community is so amazing and I’ve made so many friends here, I can’t think of a better location to grow our team and the brand in the coming years. I look forward to new rides, new friends and new adventures.”
| I can’t think of a better location to grow our team and the brand in the coming years.—Lance Canfield |
Joining the team effective immediately are Nick Simcik, Don Stefanovich, Jeff John and Michelle Good.
Simcik, an industry veteran and pro mountain-bike athlete, will be functioning as the director of business and product development. He has worked with bike brands such as MRP and FSA, and his competition resume includes gravity racing, slopestyle and big-mountain competitions. Simcik also competed in the 2012 Red Bull Rampage.
Stefanovich joins as director of marketing communications. An avid mountain biker, he has worked at Bike magazine and contributed to publications such as Bicycle Retailer and Industry News and MTBparks.com. He has also worked with brands such as Reynolds Cycling, Rocky Mounts, G-Form, Atomik Carbon, SWAGTRON and the Colorado Off-Road Mountain Bike Association (COMBA).
John, a Grand Junction local and long-time Canfield rider, will be operations and logistics manager. John started mountain biking in the early '90s and is an experienced project manager. He is an expert in logistics and supply chain management, has proven shipping and warehouse management skills and is accomplished in intermodal operations management.
Good, entrepreneur and founder of the popular bike park destination site MTBparks.com and the MTBparks Pass—the only multi-resort bike-park pass—will be chief operating officer. She has served as an industry leader, speaker, consultant and strategist for resorts that offer lift-served mountain biking, covering topics ranging from marketing and operations to improving the guest experience for bike park visitors.
We are in the process of purchasing a property in Fruita that will house office, workshop, retail and warehouse space capable of serving the company as it continues to grow.
"We are happy to support Canfield Bikes with its relocation through the Strategic Fund Incentive. At GJEP, our mission is to grow a strong and diverse economy in Colorado's Grand Valley by attracting companies that share our vision for a vibrant community with an unparalleled outdoor lifestyle," Jozefczyk said. "With plans to bring high-value jobs to Fruita and a company philosophy of giving back to the local trail systems, Canfield Bikes is exactly that type of business we want in the Grand Valley."
-by Don Stefanovich
Of transplants !!!
squareup.com/us/en/townsquare/guide-to-washington-minimum-wage
Incorrect, the only companies that are negatively affected by such policies are those that were barely limping along. It accelerates their inevitable demise. Strong companies either are not effected by the minimum wage hikes, as they are already paying above it, or are helped in the long run as the people with the lowest incomes now have more money to spend.
Wrong! The cost is passed onto the consumer, so their wage bump is null and void in the long run. Look at a McDonalds menu. You don't get out of McDonalds for less than $8 for most meals anymore and the front counter workers jobs have been eliminated and replaced by order kiosks. A bump in the minimum wage is a placebo feel good measure. The previous $1 menu becomes the $5 menu.
@Chris97a: if minimum wages don't have negative effects why aren't we mandating a million dollars an hour?
Think about the math. Employee wages are typically about 20% of cost for an employer. So if that 20% of their cost goes up by 10% why would you see a significant increase in the amount you pay when you make a purchase, at most you would see a 2-4% increase if the business was being fair. But guess what, the business owner had an excuse to make more profit so they up the price a lot and trick you into thinking it is because of employee wages. There is a local coffee chain, where employee wages are something like 15% of cost, they jack up their prices so much it is comical, will never go there.
If minimum wages have negative effects, why do we have them at all?
all snark aside, you are incorrect, the increased "cost" to employers from an increased min wage is not necessarily passed on to the consumer, the owner could in theory take a smaller profit and keep prices the same. the empirical evidence from places that have raised the min wage have shown that it's a net benefit for workers. of course by this rationale one would argue that the min wage should be $1.0million per hour... which is also not true. the min wage needs to be something reasonable, which is where the debate needs to be....
Please do some reading: walterewilliams.com/minimum-wage-cruelty
Or watching: youtu.be/z8uz3uafMe0
The same level of logic that you displayed by suggesting a one million dollar minimum wage was something that my point could lead to.
Do I think that government only shxxs out rainbows? No absolutely not. The current president is a prime example of someone that seems to mostly be in it for power and status. A person that I only knew of as a joke starting in the 90's, a person that went bankrupt and took advantage of anything he could to get himself ahead no matter what it meant for others. He seems to have not really changed. Obama was alright just kinda boring and had some misteps.
Do I think the government has a role in trying to insure that the working people aren't taken advantage of by greedy institutions and individuals? Yes.
Regardless, the real question is should we have minimum wages? Most would say yes. Then the debate is what should that number be. My take is that it depends on where you live, but you should be able to live on your wage at a full time job, like have a place to live, a way to get places, food to eat and access to healthcare. If you think that people should not be able to live on a full time wage, or view some of those things as not necessary, then that is where we are actually in disagreement.
You really don't understand this subject matter. "Why the tiny incremental increases." Pretty self apparent, if the adjustment was a huge jump all at once there would be negative effects because any system needs time to adjust to change. What if interest rates went from 3% to 7% over night? Nothing good.
Your link that seems to suggest that minimum wage increases is the driver behind automation is so far from reality. All companies that make anything are automating and have been for decades, mostly in industries that are not affected by minimum wage because they pay way over minimum wage. Automation is becoming cheaper and able to do more tasks all the time so it is starting to be seen in more industries, has next to nothing to do with minimum wage.
Companies and banks have proven over and over again that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Some will but if there is an advantage in not doing the right thing there are many that will take it, regulations are necessary. Publicly traded corporations have been sued for paying their employees better than they need to retain them.
It was a question pointed at you to get you thinking more in depth about the matter of minimum wages. I understand why the small incremental increases and not more meaningful ones, you don't.
"Your link that seems to suggest that minimum wage increases is the driver behind automation is so far from reality. All companies that make anything are automating and have been for decades, mostly in industries that are not affected by minimum wage because they pay way over minimum wage. Automation is becoming cheaper and able to do more tasks all the time so it is starting to be seen in more industries, has next to nothing to do with minimum wage."
Decades ago you didn't see self ordering kiosks at mcdonalds or other fast food places. As wages are artificially forced up employers will be forced to account for that added cost. Pass it on to the consumer, profit loss, automation, layoffs, reduced services, etc. It'll be specific to the company and industry, but there are consequences to simply mandating higher wages, because you think it's a good idea.
Watch the youtube video with Walter Williams. He's a Phd economist and a very clear thinker.
I do understand the reason for small increases.
You aren't talking to a kid here, I get this stuff. I've lived through several economic downturns. 2008 was due to loosening of economic regulations and a prime example of what happens when there are not safeguards in the system. Alan Greenspan had a great quote after the downturn. "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity". But they did and it bit us in the ass.
I work in a place that uses more and more automation. We have to add it because we can't find good employees. We pay well over minimum wage starting with full benefits and free insurance. Minimum wage is not a driver for automation, period.
Pro tip: people with PHD's get stuff wrong all the time. Greenspan did, and he is not the only example, not will he be the last.
I'm sorry you got caught by this misinformation, but you did.
Wages are a huge driver for automation: www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi/2018/07/11/mcdonalds-says-goodbye-cashiers-hello-kiosks/#7cd1de536f14
I like your pro tip and I couldn't agree more. PHDs, experts, etc, can be wrong and often times are. There is a book called something like "The Experts are Wrong" that I have been meaning to read. Take care, I'm done with this one.
You really like that one guy, he probably hangs out with the one guy that says global warming isn't real.
I could pull a lot of articles from a lot of sources that say the exact opposite of Walter Williams(BTW, didn't anybody teach you to never trust someone with 2 first names).
History shows Laissez-Faire economic policies are only good for one group, the rich and powerful. Nobody points at 1900 America and claims that there was great distribution of wealth and that most people were better off back then. Sure the Rockefellers were doing well, but Mr. Smith was f'd. Government regulations are important because greedy people will make it to the top of corporations and other positions of power and take as much as they can for themselves no matter what the consequences... Example: Trump.
Agreed though, I am also done.