During its regular meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 20, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) approved a motion to direct the county manager to work with Performance Services Inc. to finalize and sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a county facilities feasibility study to be performed.
The motion was approved by a split vote of 2-1, with commissioners John Ranson and Warren Brown approving and Commissioner Veronica Medina voting against the motion.
Earlier that day during a work session, the BoCC heard a presentation from representatives of Performance Services.
Business Development Manager Kate Sawyer briefed the BoCC on what her company provides, the work its does “and potentially supporting [the county] around a feasibility study for this piece of land, and also the different buildings you all own and operate and lease as well.”
Sawyer explained that, based on previous discussions with current and former county administrators, and with Brown, the county has multiple facilities without adjacencies, aging buildings and needs a clearer plan on how to move forward.
Sawyer explained that her company is a design-build company that is “fully integrated” with architects, engineers and construction teams that have projects in 16 states that are “design-build friendly.”
She also noted that her company is currently active in maintaining more than 1,000 projects.
“Once we help you get you to where you need to go, we don’t just leave, so we stick around,” Sawyer said.
She described her company as a “one-stop shop,” noting that “there’s a lot of different things we can handle,” including looking at new builds, renovations and infrastructure improvements.
Sawyer also noted that Performance Services only works in a “deign-build capacity.”
She then mentioned that Performance Services would also support understanding of funding for the project, and possible bond elections or certificates of participation (COPs).
In response to a question from Ranson, Sawyer explained that bigger projects that get up to the $100 million mark usually require a tax increase, whereas smaller projects can be done through COPs or lease-purchase options, noting that it is all “very project dependent.”
Principal Architect Tim Weber joined Sawyer during the work session, explaining the differences between a “traditional” design-bid-build process and what his company offers, the design-build process.
Instead of hiring an architect and engineer on the front end to provide drawings for a general contractor to then seek subcontractors, in a design-build process there is basically one contractor and the design-builders “take on 100 percent of that risk.”
The risk being referred to is the possibility of change orders coming from the project in the event there is any confusion between the architect, engineer and contractors.
In response to a question from Medina, Weber stated, “we are very local focused,” explaining that there are options for sourcing materials locally.
Brown asked for clarification on if there would be no change orders if the county were to select Performance Services for the project.
“We do offer no change orders,” Weber said.
Weber explained that change orders may occur during the project, but they would not be the responsibility of the county, adding, “they’re ours.”
Ranson mentioned recent issues the county faced with running into rock when trying to build the new transit center at Harman Park, asking if Performance Services would look at stuff like that ahead of starting the project.
“You will find that we are very careful on the front end,” Weber said.
Weber explained that his company would start with a needs assessment by reviewing the situation and establishing goals with the county, performing stakeholder interviews, survey buildings, and identify needs, solutions, costs and benefits.
That assessment typically takes about 12 to 16 weeks, Weber noted.
Sawyer spoke more about the “no-change-order guarantee,” reiterating that her company takes on that risk.
She stated that her company does not use change orders as an excuse to make more money or delay projects.
“It’s just not an excuse,” she added.
Medina described the no-change-order guarantee as a “great selling point,” noting the “trauma” the county has experienced with previous projects’ change orders and asked what percentage would be padded on in the front-end of the contract for potential change orders.
Sawyer explained that her company is always upfront with that as it is part of negotiations.
“It really is project dependent,” she said, noting it could range from 5 percent to 20 percent of the total project cost.
In response to a question from Brown, Sawyer also explained that there is no charge for the feasibility study, even if Performance Services is not selected to do the actual build.
Sawyer also explained that the feasibility study is intended to be dynamic, with updates made as needed.
Pricing and costs included in the study may have an expiration date, but the study itself is flexible, she explained.
Ranson mentioned that he is familiar with COPs and bond financing, commenting, “This community went through a very painful COP a few years back.”
He described the COP as a hard sell and a “difficult decision in my mind.”
Ranson also asked about the potential of remodeling existing buildings being a suggestion put forward based on what is discovered through the feasibility study.
“We’re definitely gonna look at that,” Sawyer said, explaining that the county is currently leasing a building as well.
“If it turns out that it would just be absolutely cost prohibitive to do one option over the other, ... you’re gonna know really, really quickly after the study,” Sawyer said.
She also noted that Performance Services does not advocate or recommend any certain option, but simply provides data to let its clients make the best decision possible.
County Manager Longinos Gonzalez explained that this is an opportunity for the county to obtain a feasibility study for free, and, based on the commissioners’ priorities for this year, “this really gives an opportunity at no cost to the public to get ideas.”
Later in the day, during the BoCC’s regular meeting and prior to approving its motion, the BoCC heard comments on the matter from other elected county officials, Assessor Johanna Tully-Elliot and Treasurer Elsa White.
Tully-Elliot spoke with reasons for justification of a new county administration building to be built, stating, “The county’s current facilities no longer meet the operational, safety, legal or service delivery requirements of our own county government.”
She stated that having county employees working across multiple locations and in spaces that do not meet standards, constituents are forced to navigate a confusing system for routine county business.
Tully-Elliot encouraged creating a centralized, secure and efficient location for county services that will improve compliance, safety and legal access.
“This fragmented model creates daily inefficiencies,” she added.
Tully-Elliot also mentioned the lack of storage space for county records, noting that currently records have to be stored off-site in rented units.
She also mentioned the lack of basic security infrastructure in the county’s current buildings.
“Exterior doors and windows do not provide adequate protection from angry taxpayers,” she said, adding, “We’ve already experienced the repercussions of windows that are not secure.”
White expressed that it should not be just the county’s elected officials who are able to provide input on the matter, but everyone else who would be going into a new building, as well.
Tully-Elliot added that the existing building is not suitable for long-term use as it has sewer issues and sub-par electrical systems.
She added that the county’s decision is not to spend the money or not, but rather how the money should be spent.
Tully-Elliot stated that a consolidated county facility “represents a strategic capital investment that stabilizes cost, reduce risks, improves safety and compliance, and creates a durable public asset while flattening long-term operating expenses.”
Medina commented that it does not make sense for the county to spend money on a building “that currently does not meet the needs of the county.”
She noted the discussion has been going on for years now and has been a topic for the BoCC before mentioning that constituents have expressed to her that the county does not need a new building, and if it does, if services would be provided five days a week, and if additional services — like driver’s license services — could also be brought in.
“Just know that I’ve been asked that multiple times,” Medina said.
Ranson acknowledged Tully-Elliot’s and White’s input, stating that many people within the county are unhappy with him right now, “but I’m elected by the people.”
White noted that she is also elected by the people.
Ranson then indicated that if the project moves forward with a new building being built, “I’m not gonna vote for a COP.”
Ranson motioned to direct Gonzalez to finalize and sign and MOU with Performance Services for a feasibility study.
Before voting on the motion, Medina explained that she agreed with a lot of what’s been said, adding, “I do feel like we need a building.”
However, given where the county’s at, “unfortunately, this is not one of the priorities this year for me,” Medina said, noting that the budget is tight and fixing the county’s road situation is more of a priority for her.
Brown explained that four years ago the county began talking about this and taking public input as the plan was to have one location for county services.
Along the way, the public asked the BoCC to be mindful of costs, Brown explained.
He noted that he is pleased with the opportunity to have a feasibility study performed for free in hopes of getting a better idea about what the county’s best option is moving forward.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>