Ouray County commissioners on June 25 pressed staff to produce a clearer facilities plan, elevate public input on facility needs and name an internal project manager to ensure contractors meet contract terms.

Commissioners said the county has invested consultant time and ARPA funds in a facilities planning effort but that the process has stalled and provided unclear public outputs. They asked staff to separate "wants" from "needs," prioritize department-level functional requirements, and ensure the public and county employees are engaged as clients of county services.

Why it matters: county facilities tie to public health and safety, department operating capacity and longer‑range capital planning. Commissioners said delaying clarity risks repeated short‑term fixes (storage containers, rentals) rather than a coherent multi‑decade strategy.

Board members described repeated public meetings earlier in the year, but said recent consultant work did not translate into sufficient, public-facing deliverables. Commissioners asked for a plan that: (a) inventories space and functional needs across departments, (b) prioritizes urgent health/safety needs (for example, the Road & Bridge plow shed), (c) identifies sites and acreage required for staged implementation, and (d) specifies whether projects require owner’s representative or in‑house project management at later design/construction stages.

Staff signaled that several departmental interviews and drafts exist and that five department responses to a recent request were pending. County counsel and staff recommended delegating management of construction and design phases to a department head where possible and only procuring outside project management when necessary. Commissioners discussed forming a public/staff hybrid advisory group and using a citizens survey similar to the county’s recent master plan outreach.

Board members also sought clearer public communications about the contractor’s scope of work and payment terms so residents and employees can track milestones. One commissioner proposed building a small, proven example (a Road & Bridge building modeled on a nearby county’s facility) as a rapid, emergency replacement where buildings present imminent hazards.

The county did not approve construction funding or a contract amendment at the session; commissioners confined the discussion to priorities, process and staffing for the facilities plan. Staff was asked to return with: a summary of the contractor’s deliverables and schedule, proposals for internal project‑management assignments or RFP language for new services, and options for structured public engagement.