By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
When the City of Grand Junction accepted a $3 million donation from Intermountain Health (St. Mary’s Hospital) in exchange for naming rights to its new Community Recreation Center (CRC), the deal looked like a win for the community.
But behind that vote lies a contract process that critics say gave some bidders an unfair advantage — a deal many providers never had a fair shot at.
A formal ethics complaint filed with the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (CIEC) accuses city officials of shaping a public request for proposals (RFPs) in a way that prioritized money over merit.
Among concerns that contributions guided the RFP process, there’s also allegations that some engaged in negotiating discussions long before the proposal process went public.
Community Hospital CEO Chris Thomas acknowledged being contacted prior to public notice.
He recalled a conversation with then–Mayor Anna Stout before the CRC RFP was issued in September 2023. “She said, ‘We’ve been talking to Saint Mary’s – we felt like we had to invite you to the participation too,’” Thomas shared.
Thomas said he also spoke to former City Manager Greg Caton in August 2022 with an opportunity for Community Hospital to provide physical therapy at the yet-to-be-built CRC.
The cost? A contribution of $1 million annually over 30 years.
“I said, ‘Greg, this is way too rich. If I had 30 million dollars, I’d build my own rec. center,’” Thomas recalled.
Intermountain Health eventually won the contract and provided the donation, securing naming rights to the CRC aquatic center.
But critics say the scoring structure of the RFP made the outcome predictable—and uncompetitive.
“It says you get 30% for being able to provide therapy, 30% for writing a good proposal and 40% for giving [the city] $3 million bucks,” said Kirby Richardson, who owns and runs Fyzical Therapy and Balance Center with her husband Sean.
The scoring model meant even a perfect score on RFP’s service categories wouldn’t be enough to land the contract.
Thomas agreed. “It didn’t matter how good of a physical therapy department you have. You weren’t going to get it unless you had a big check,” he said. “You could have gotten a perfect score on the 60% and still got a D on your RFP.”
That wasn’t the only problem vendors faced. The Richardsons didn’t realize the RFP had gone out until it was too late. It had been sent to a generic email address with the subject line “Solicitation for Naming Rights to Pool.”
“Our office manager would have had no idea what that was. It looked like spam,” Richardson said. “It said, ‘Solicitation for Naming Rights to Pool.’ We had no idea it was for a therapy contract.”
Grand Junction’s Procurement Policy promises transparency, equal opportunity and a fair process for all vendors.
According to the policy, all purchasing must encourage competition, provide equal opportunity and “ensure impartial treatment.”
But critics, including the Richardsons, say the structure of this bid violated those very standards.
The contract awarded to Intermountain Health was based on a scoring model that gave 40% of the total weight to how much a bidder was willing to contribute for naming rights to the CRC aquatic pool.
That structure wasn’t hidden. It appeared clearly in the RFP document.
However, evidence is lacking over whether city council members questioned a formula that gave an unfair advantage to the deepest pockets.
“It didn’t matter how well we did on providing physical therapy. We still couldn’t win with the weight that was given,” Thomas said.
“This was a pay-to-play structure,” Richardson added. “Unless you had three million dollars to give, you couldn’t get in on the game.”
For small, local therapy providers, the cost of entry into the CRC contract wasn’t just high — it was impossible.
“They wanted $40–50 per square foot rent, plus $1 million in tenant improvements. And then said we had to pay for our share of all the common space too,” Thomas said. “It didn’t make business sense for us.”
He added that other small clinics never stood a chance.
“Some of the local independent therapists, they would have never been able to compete with this either,” Thomas said.
Despite these issues over fair competition and transparency, the City Council moved forward with accepting the $3 million donation from Intermountain.
To date, no council member has publicly explained how that scoring model aligned with the city’s stated policy: “Purchasing activities should be conducted openly, with the objective of fair competition.”
Nor has there been policy action regarding the responsibility of assessing “improper practice or deviation” for “disciplinary action.”
Critics say the city’s system for protesting contracts is flawed and lacks independent oversight. Richardson said it leaves no real way to raise ethical concerns.
“You can submit a complaint, for five days after a procurement, to City Attorney John Shaver, who usually writes the contracts. So, please explain to me how there’s any check and balance there?” she said.
Richardson’s search for an explanation turned into action, which included reaching out to city council members and staff, and submitting CORA requests.
When she was explained away, she amplified her questions and concerns in a commentary published in The Grand Junction Sentinel on April 24, 2024.
In the commentary, Richardson pointed to Caton’s response to her claim that the city was unfairly partnering with business competitors. Namely, those who could afford to buy naming rights to the CRC aquatic pool.
During a city council meeting, Caton stated, “We recognized that there could be a naming opportunity, and separately and independently from that, there could be interest to utilize the space, so we were very specific in our request, that those could run independently of one another.”
Yet the RFP was noticed as one combined solicitation online at bidnetdirect.com.
That said, a search turned up no evidence the notice ran on the City’s website, in the local paper or on Public Notice Colorado, despite policy requiring it.
Richardson continued contacting local and state officials, but said none offered a clear way to address what she viewed as an unethical process.
“After all this went down, I filed a complaint with the State Attorney General,” she said. “The Deputy Attorney General told me there were no statutes they could prosecute through the state against a municipality.”
The city’s own policy declares zero tolerance for collusion or favoritism in public contracts. Richardson argues the CRC deal crossed both lines.
“Unless you had three million dollars to give, you couldn’t get in on the game,” she said. According to city policy, any deal over $200,000 without competition still needs Council approval. That gave council members a chance to intervene, but they signed off instead.
“The city appears to have conspired in a pay-to-play scheme—and the Council approved the payment,” Richardson said.
Richardson believes the structure of the RFP—and the Council’s willingness to move forward despite its flaws—has created a model where public contracts can be influenced not by merit, but by financial leverage.
Richardson filed a complaint with the CIEC on March 5, which is currently under review.
In April 2023, Ballot Measure 1A passed to partially fund a new recreation center, which passed with 10,954 votes for and 7,177 votes against an increased city sales tax that will be in place until Dec. 31, 2054.
The ballot measure originally approved $70 million in funding from tax dollars for a 83,000-square-foot-facility. The Daily Sentinel reported that the council, in a December 2023 workshop, expanded plans for the facility by almost 20,000 square feet with an added cost of $10 million.
A groundbreaking ceremony on June 1, 2024 was held marking the beginning of construction for the CRC.
Grand Junction is currently inviting community input on branding for the CRC through an online survey that will be open until April 6.