HomeMy WebLinkAbout022425 - Correspondence re Statesman Modular Systems PAWC_
Uvirkme�Lr
11 ! I I ! I 2 Z LI I Z�'
Panelized & Modular Systems /
BOCC PUBLIC COMMENT 2-24-25
John Holbert PE, Brinnon resident and Statesman Project Manager
On Friday 2-21-2025 Statesman's board of directors voted "no confidence" in the county's contract
planner and DCD ability to manage that contract and get this project across the line. After 15 months
and$200,000 of direct invoicing for time. There is 12 days left of the 90 days allotted of Pre Plat review
and there is no ability for anyone on the side of DCD to provide a scope of what is needed to complete
Pre Plat.The county website shows a published fee of$10,377 for this review. If the contract planner had
confined her review to determining if our application conformed to the terms of the development
agreement,we believe the application would have been granted months ago. Unfortunately,the planner
seemed more interested in expanding her scope and billable hours.The planner always makes the
excuse that she is waiting for a response from PHMPR. I have the best team of engineers, hydrologists
and geo-engineers money can buy answering her lists of questions but it is never enough to get her to
prepare her report. Last Tuesday the contract planner announced that she would need another$42,000
engineering review and five months of her time to finalize our application.The county's description of
preliminary plat review allows 8 hrs. or$888 for the same review by public works. Every attempt made
by me to meet with the director of county planning to get the planner back on task was refused.The
county reviewed her work product in July and withdrew it to be reworked down to pre-plat items only.
75%of the task list was redacted and it still required$123,000 and five months to complete. Most of
that work was redundant or not related to pre-plat.
1) Statesman approved the County's request to hire a contract planner for the purpose of
reviewing our preliminary plat application and preparing a report for the hearing examiner.
2) The County's published fee for the standard long plat preliminary review is$10,377
3) Statesman submitted our preliminary plat application on 11-20-2023, 15 months ago!
4) The contract planner's estimated time to complete her report for the examiner was 5-7 months.
5) 12-21-2023 county issues a notice of incompleteness followed by our production of the
requested documents and a letter of completeness on 4-16-24
6) On 4-29-2024 PHMPR had a meeting with the county DCD to dispute the contract planner's
scope of review which in our view deviated from the county's standard published review process
7) 5-6-2024 PHMPR received a letter rejecting our concerns over the contract planner's scope of
review
8) 7-3-2024 PHMPR received the contract planner's technical and civil review comments.
9) 7-24-2024 PHMPR requested a review of the comment letters as we believed them to be
inappropriate for the preliminary plat review.The county agreed with our assessment and
withdrew the letters.
f v.-. E
rproir
�Y S" ',) i y h h byYJ V" j
.. `yTC -r (
y
♦
10) 8-16-2024 PHMPR received a 75%redacted replacement letter of technical comments from the
contract planner.
11) Six of the 26 redacted comments were for non pre-plat related items
12) Three of the comments required PHMPR to file redundant reports at a cost of$123,000 which
netted no significant changes to the originals
13) Five of the 26 comments were made in reference to Jefferson County Colorado codes
14) The engineering review was not performed in accordance with WAC-23-020 as we had advised
the contract planner it needed to be.
15) While PHMPR was working to answer the contract planner's comments there should have been
no billable time from the contract planner for our MPR.
16) On 1-16-2025 PHMPR received invoices for September, October, and November with about
$25,000 for time spent by the contract planner and Jeffco staff on our project.
17) On 2-18-2025 PHMPR received a description of the planned work for the contract planner and
her review team. Her team's civil review,duplicating the work we objected to on 4-29-24 was
proposed at an additional cost of$42,000. The contract planner's time was proposed to continue
as an hourly bill out without even a budget estimate.The time to complete her review and
report is estimated at five months.
18) The county has expressly forbidden the PHMPR team from attempting to modify the contract
planner's scope in violation of the terms of the future staffing agreement.
19) When PHMPR questioned the invoicing or scope of the contract planner's review we were
threatened by the county asserting that the questions amount to unlawful harassment. Letter
dated 6-20-2024.The county and the contract planner have also threatened denial of service if
we did not comply with their demands.The county failed to follow the explicit terms of the
future staffing and consultant agreement as to dispute resolution.