Brandon Leuallen, The Business Times

With the lease for the Homeward Bound Resource Center set to expire April 15, the Grand Junction City Council is considering its next steps for potentially securing a permanent site for the center.

During a Feb. 24 workshop, Grand Junction City Manager Mike Bennett outlined the possibility of purchasing a property at 2851 North Ave. that could be leased to local nonprofits to house the center’s operations, ensuring its long-term operation. Council members discussed key potential decisions, including funding, community involvement, and the city’s role in the project.

The council will explore the viability of purchasing the building during an executive session on March 5, prior to the regularly scheduled council meeting. That meeting could lead to a future vote to decide whether the city will move forward with the purchase. If approved, the city would initiate a request for proposals (RFP) process to assess the capabilities of local nonprofits interested in collaborating on the project.

Council Member Cody Kennedy introduced the topic during the City Council communications segment, suggesting it be added to the agenda for the next meeting. He asked whether the current funding is tied to performance and recommended that the city pause a large chunk of the funding while exploring the more permanent solution.

Bennett clarified that while the city had committed $460,000 annually for the Resource Center’s operations, the funds are paid in quarterly installments of $115,000, rather than as a lump sum.

He also noted the current agreement ends April 15.

Additionally, Bennett said Homeward Bound subcontracts with United Way for some of the labor, with a portion of the funds passed on to them.

Policy and role of the City 

Bennett said city staff members want to ensure any proposal aligns with the council’s comfort level and outlined several key decision points for consideration. These included whether the city will offer the building at a discounted or free rate, and whether the provider can operate with or without a subsidy from the city.

Bennett emphasized the need for a discussion to ensure the city doesn’t unintentionally become the owner of a building and take on more operational responsibilities than planned. He stressed the importance of providing an opportunity for experts to manage operations instead.

The city’s broader role in the center was another point of discussion.

“We need to have a robust conversation about whether this is the right role for us and how we move forward,” Kennedy said.

Mayor Pro Tem Randall Reitz agreed a discussion about the city’s long-term intentions with the Resource Center is necessary, adding, “I do support the idea of having an RFP process to figure out how we would staff it and build the operation.”

Collaboration with county

Additionally, Council Member Scott Beilfuss said while the city has faced challenges in collaborating with the county on this issue, the Mesa County Health Department may be able to assist. He referenced a conversation with Mesa County Executive Director of Public Health Xavier Crockett, who suggested the county health department could potentially provide assistance.

“There are resources and partnerships we haven’t fully utilized. We need to work together on these big issues,” Beilfuss said.

Community engagement 

Council Member Anna Stout asked Bennett if community engagement will be part of the process in determining the types of services local nonprofits can provide.

Meanwhile, Kennedy pointed out the city had not yet engaged with the community on North Avenue, where the site is being considered. He emphasized the importance of speaking with businesses and homeowners  in the area to gather feedback and avoid the challenges that downtown business owners faced when the current Resource Center was established.

As the discussion on the topic drew to a close, Stout said, “I think both of those meetings are important to have, but we do need to acknowledge that one of those will be an executive session and that we’re not trying to (avoid) telling the community about that. We’re doing our due diligence. And then if the due diligence shows that there’s something for us to discuss to move forward, then we have that conversation publicly.”