During the August 3rd Grand Junction City Council workshop, I called HomewardBound’s proposed funding model a “non-starter.” That comment was in response to a specific funding request HomewardBound presented to Council that evening.

Beyond the workshop itself, there is some important history behind my response that I felt was worth sharing with our community. That history includes conversations I was directly involved in last year as HomewardBound faced a serious financial crisis.

That context matters, because the funding request presented to Council on August 3rd was very different from the circumstances under which the City had previously provided financial assistance to HomewardBound. To understand that distinction, it helps to start with what happened during the rest of the workshop. My comment wasn’t in opposition to HomewardBound, and it certainly wasn’t in opposition to helping people experiencing homelessness. It was a response to a very specific proposal: HomewardBound wants local governments to collectively fund approximately 20 percent of its annual operating budget every year going forward, with Grand Junction’s contribution increasing from $185,000 to $225,000 next year and eventually $260,000 annually. This funding model is what I called a non-starter.

The distinction matters, particularly because of what happened during the rest of the workshop.

Before HomewardBound presented, Council heard from Grand Valley Catholic Outreach, Hilltop Community Resources and the Joseph Center. Those organizations were selected through a competitive, three-year City RFP (Request for Proposal) designed to provide funding for specific homelessness services and produce measurable outcomes. I personally support all three organizations, and I was very positive about much of what we heard.

Catholic Outreach told Council how they were using City dollars to prevent evictions before people become homeless. Importantly, they don’t simply hand someone a check; they review household finances, provide budgeting assistance, work directly with landlords and track whether families remain housed.

The Joseph Center reported significant success moving women and families into permanent housing, including some who no longer require housing subsidies. Some of these stories are well-documented on the Joseph Center’s social media. I encourage you to take a moment to hear these heartwarming stories.

Hilltop reported significant progress in emergency and transitional housing, case management and a bridge-housing program designed to keep people from returning to the street while permanent housing is being secured. They are also working with United Way to extend the impact of the City funds they have received.

Those presentations demonstrated exactly why the City used an RFP in the first place. We can identify the services we want to fund, establish expectations and then ask whether taxpayers are getting the outcomes we intended as we consider the next year’s funding request. 

HomewardBound was different. They had requested an opportunity to give Council an organizational update. During that update, however, they pivoted and presented an ongoing funding request to Council. Eventually Mayor Laurel Lutz reminded everyone that the item had been publicly noticed as a HomewardBound update, “not a funding request,” and redirected the discussion.

There is another important piece of context. The City’s previous $185,000 contribution to HomewardBound came from previously budgeted but unspent funds and was provided for a specific purpose: helping keep HomewardBound’s shelters operating through the coldest part of the winter while North Avenue remained open and the organization transitioned toward consolidation at Pathways. It was never a commitment to provide permanent annual funding, much less a starting point for increasing annual operating subsidies.

I know that history particularly well because I was directly involved in those discussions. Last November, when I was mayor, I sat down with Mayor Pro Tem Laurel Lutz, City Manager Mike Bennett, then-City Attorney John Shaver, and HomewardBound’s leadership team for an extensive discussion about the organization’s finances, shelter operations and the path forward.

The financial situation HomewardBound described to us was serious. They explained that operating both the North Avenue shelter and Pathways was unsustainable. North Avenue had to close or, as we were told during that meeting, “the organization will fold.” The plan was to get through the coldest part of the winter, close North Avenue, consolidate operations at Pathways, reduce costs, restructure the organization and build a financially sustainable one-shelter model.

That was the context in which the City ultimately provided crisis-specific financial assistance. We were trying to help HomewardBound get through a specific financial crisis and keep North Avenue operating through the winter while the organization transitioned to a model it believed it could sustain.

In fact, one of the most important things HomewardBound told us on the morning of November 17th, 2025, was that simply finding more money wasn’t the solution. Discussing the restructuring, Dan Prinster, then interim CEO, said, “I felt it was incumbent upon me not to just say, ‘Oh, you’re short cash. Let’s go find the cash.’ It’s figuring out where we go in the future.”

I agreed then, and I still do.

That November conversation was not about establishing a permanent municipal operating subsidy. The focus was getting through the immediate crisis, consolidating to Pathways and creating a sustainable organization for the future.

In our recent workshop, Council member Robert Ballard raised essentially the same concern, asking whether the $185,000 had ever been intended as recurring annual funding. The answer is simply that there was no multi-year City commitment establishing $185,000 as an annual baseline.

Yet HomewardBound’s presentation treated that $185,000 as the baseline, proposing $225,000 next year and $260,000 thereafter as part of a broader goal of having local governments fund approximately 20 percent of its operations.

That’s why the context matters.

I supported helping HomewardBound through a financial crisis because I wanted the organization and the services it provides to continue for the benefit of those they serve. Turning that crisis-specific assistance into the baseline for an increasing annual operating subsidy is a very different proposition.

Beyond the funding request, it’s important to note that HomewardBound reported some genuinely encouraging changes. It has reduced its annual budget from approximately $2.6 million to $1.7 million, consolidated operations to the Pathways shelter, increased case-management requirements and reported the highest housing-placement rate in its history. I sincerely commend them for that.

In many respects, those changes are exactly what we were talking about last November. HomewardBound has made difficult decisions, reduced its costs and changed its operating model. This is significant progress, and it deserves to be acknowledged. But an organization doing good work does not automatically create an obligation for taxpayers to fund its general operations.

If the City supports specific services through an RFP, we know what outcome we’re trying to achieve and can hold organizations accountable. General operating support is different. Is an additional City appropriation paying for another case manager? Another shelter bed? Housing placement? Administrative overhead? Existing obligations? Payroll? Paying off debt? With an RFP, we can answer those questions before we appropriate the money.

Those aren’t hostile questions. They’re the questions Council should ask before spending public money. And the implication that this position somehow reflects opposition to nonprofit organizations or homelessness services doesn’t survive even a casual examination of my record. I personally give to Catholic Outreach, the Joseph Center and Hilltop. Last year, I donated all of my after-tax income from serving on City Council to United Way of Mesa County to fund unhoused services.

I mention this because there is an important distinction between private generosity and public responsibility. I am free to give my money to organizations whose work I believe in. As a Council member, when I’m voting to spend your money, I have a fiduciary responsibility to demand a clearer public purpose, measurable outcomes and accountability.

The City has its own financial challenges. Our strategic plan prioritizes core responsibilities, including public safety, streets, utilities, and parks and recreation. There isn’t an unlimited pool of discretionary money sitting around waiting to be distributed.

So yes, I called the expectation that the City should assume an increasing, ongoing share of an outside organization’s general operating budget a non-starter.

And knowing the history of how we got here only reinforces my position.

Cody Kennedy is a Grand Junction City Council member.