$221,833,822. Is that the latest jackpot for the Colorado State Lottery? No, it is the total amount for El Paso County’s 2005 budget. It is a dollar amount that is almost too large to comprehend – a figure that is made up primarily of taxpayers’ dollars.As a democratic nation, it is common practice for taxpayers to elect and vote on officials like county commissioners to make sure county dollars are wisely spent.Commissioner Douglas Bruce (Dist. 2) and Commissioner Sallie Clark (Dist. 3) reviewed and offered opinions to the NFH on three processes involving the county’s procurement and contracts department.Use of local vendors“We are not trying to accommodate local bidders, local companies, local vendors,” said Bruce. “We should make things open to local bids more often.” Bruce said the county currently doesn’t do enough business with local vendors and is doing too much “piggybacking” of contracts, meaning the county contracts with agencies outside the county, primarily in and around the Denver area. Bruce said by piggybacking contracts, it not only takes county dollars out of the county, but it makes it difficult for local vendors to do business. “Vendors may not enter into a sale with a service agreement contract up in Denver … may not want to go up to Denver Ö may not want to deal with Denver government.”The county’s procurement and contract department’s policy manual explains in detail the bidding process, including allowing the county to team up with other federal and state entities with regards to contracts. The manual states on page 21, “The County may purchase from State and other governmental entity contracts awarded for goods and/or services required when the award specifically states this is permissible.” In other words, it is permissible for the county to piggyback other contracts, but Bruce questions whether it is the best choice. “This is the choice of the procurement department. They say it is easier, which of course it is, to not have to put things through bid,” Bruce said.Gina Abbott, El Paso County’s director of procurement and contracts department, reported that of the purchases made by the county in 2005, 68 percent were made locally.”Certainly I share Commissioner Bruce’s thoughts with regard to hiring local when we can,” said Commissioner Sallie Clark. “But at the same time, we also have to make sure … we get the best price on the things that we buy.”One of the things you have to remember, too, is that you can’t take all of these things necessarily out of context and then say it is a waste of money, because there are certain types of regulations that have to be followed,” she said. Clark referred to the Motorola system used by the city and county’s emergency agencies. “They have to work off of the same system otherwise they cannot communicate.” Another example she gave was the purchase of bulletproof vests for the sheriff’s department. “You don’t necessarily want to go with the cheapest contractor and certainly there is no local vendor,” Clark said.Using other government fundsClark said that some Bruce’s opposing votes involve the county accepting federal grants. “I disagree with that,” she said. “I think if our taxpayers have paid those funds out to the federal government that we should be able to recoup some of that money through grant programs that are available to us.”I would rather see them come back to the local community to benefit our community than go to other states or even other places in Colorado,” Clark said. “And if we can certainly pool our resources, whether it’s through federal grants or whether it’s through state grants and the things that are available to us, I think that our taxpayers appreciate that because we spend less when we are able to essentially partner or piggyback on to those.”Bruce stood firm on saying he is against that practice. “Their rationalization for this is “Oh, it’s OK, its federal funds,” he said. “It’s still taxpayers’ money, and I’m the only commissioner voting against things. If it is not a proper function of the federal government, I’m not going to accept the money even if they wave it in front of us. Because what we are doing is contributing to the federal deficit.”Hiring consultantsThe commissioners also discussed the issue of hiring consultants for special projects. “We just love to have consultants here,” Bruce said. “Consultants don’t do anything. They just talk and tell us what we ought to do.” His suggestion to county staff employees is hire more people to do the work rather than hire an expensive consultant for a temporary period. Bruce has found his colleagues are not as willing to try that option.Clark is one colleague who disagrees with what she describes as the hiring/firing approach. “The problem arises that it is a temporary thing where you are just trying to get a system up and working,” she said. “Do you want to put someone on salary at a very high cost including benefits?” she said. “Then when the project is done you fire them because you don’t need them anymore?” Clark argued that the government hires consultants simply because of their expertise, and in the end it may be more cost efficient to do so. “It’s cheaper for me to hire a plumber to fix a particular problem and contract out rather than to put a plumber on staff,” she said.Another Bruce suggestion was to use in-house or existing staff members to do special projects. Again, Clark disagreed. “You cannot afford to take someone off the line who knows the county and all of its rules and regulations and policies,” she said. “It is often cheaper to pay a consultant to come in and do that project and then leave rather than to hire a new employee and then in a year or so, when the project is complete then have to let them go.” Clark added that when a consultant is hired there is often a staff person working alongside them.Retroactive contractsBruce also addressed the issue of what he calls “retroactive” contracts. He said that sometimes the board will review a contract several months after it’s expired. “If we are supposed to approve contracts before they take affect, you know what they are doing is just assuming, and they have said so from the podium, that we are going to approve it,” he said. “They are assuming we are going to approve it. So they go ahead and continue the relationship.”Some of this does involve money that was part of a department’s budget from a previous year, but we are still supposed to approve the contract. And I don’t like anybody taking my vote for granted.”Bruce said he finds the retroactive contracts not only disturbing, but also illegal. “We are acting as a legislative body, and it’s not legal for them to in effect negotiate a defacto contract before the real written contract is done,” he said. “People say, ‘oh, what’s the big deal, it’s the same contract as last year’s,’ and I don’t like that practice.”Clark explained that the reason the board is asked to review retroactive contracts is because the county is dependent on other government agencies like the state of Colorado, which may be on a different budget cycle. “Sometimes they will get it and they won’t get it back to us in time,” she said. “It’s out of our control. Sometimes there’s a lag.”If a particular agency does not get the contract back to us immediately or within our budget cycle then sometimes it can be a problem,” Clark said. “It doesn’t mean that we’re doing anything that shouldn’t be done.” Clark added they do try to coordinate all of the contracts so they come back quickly. “I don’t hear from anybody on our board that we think it is okay to do retroactive contracts, but we understand that sometimes we are dependent on other agencies that are not so timely or on other fiscal years.”Spending limit – too high, too low or just right?The county’s procurement and contract department’s policies manual explains the purchase order process, as well as approval thresholds. It states that the spending limits are as follows:Internal County Departments approve: $.01-$5,000Procurement and Contracts Department approves: more than $5,000- $25,000Board of County Commissioners approves: more than $25,000Bruce feels this threshold is too high. He said sometimes the board would review agenda items that may in the end total more than $25,000 but are brought before the board more than once and broken up into smaller amounts.Clark disagrees on both counts. First, she feels the threshold is appropriate or may be too low for a county the size of El Paso. “We are dealing with a lot of really small things sometimes,” she said. “I think our time could be better spent, spending more time with land-use issues … on things that are very specific to what the commissioners are doing.”Clark said the $25,000 gives some semblance of control. The overall budget, as well as each department’s budget, must receive approval by the board. The issues that go before the board are related to money that has already been approved. When an item goes over the $25,000 mark, it must go before the board again. “So essentially it’s already in their budget,” Clark said. “It’s not like we are giving them extra money.” Clark feels that compared to the city council, the board of commissioners has much more oversight of what things cost.Commenting on the issue of items being broken up into several smaller amounts to avoid the item coming before the board, Clark said again that those items are already covered when the fiscal year’s budget is reviewed. “It’s a double-check system,” she said. “You enter once and then if you make a change you enter it again.”A copy of the El Paso County’s procurement and contract department’s policy manual is available at http://www.eplasoco.com. Select the procurement and contract department then click on Procurement Policy Manual link.
