Huerfano County BOCC tables contract with emergency management consultant after questions on scope, address and liability

The Huerfano County Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 11 tabled consideration of an amended and restated services agreement with Britney Charles' Emergency Management Consulting LLC after commissioners asked for more detail on scope, duration and liability terms.

Commissioners voted to delay a final decision “until next week,” citing concerns about open-ended contract language, the contractor’s listed business address and what insurance or indemnification would be required. The motion to table was approved on a voice vote recorded as “Yes. Yes.” in the meeting transcript; detailed roll-call names were not recorded in the transcript.

County staff introduced the contract as a continuation of work on several active grants and projects, including the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant, a state homeland security grant, a fire-suppression/pond designation project that requires water-court work, and the AMPG grant. Staff said the consultant’s assistance would include closing out grant reporting, helping with reimbursements and supporting transition and training for a future emergency manager. The contract term was described in the packet as running through December (end month specified as December in the discussion).

Commissioners asked for specific end-state targets and clearer limits on scope and travel costs. One commissioner said the address listed in the contract — 142 Seneca Circle — raised questions about whether the business filing and jurisdiction were correct; staff responded that the business had been registered in Colorado at that address when it was formed and that additional filings might be required in Arizona if the contractor operates there. Commissioners also asked whether the consultant should carry specified insurance limits; staff noted the contract includes an indemnity clause requiring the contractor to indemnify the county for liability but that strict dollar-limit insurance requirements had been omitted because high insurance limits can make such engagements prohibitively expensive for individual consultants.

The board discussed pay and compensation structure in the contract. Staff said the contract sets compensation at $45 per hour for time worked rather than a flat monthly fee. Commissioners asked about anticipated total costs and whether the county should set a “not to exceed” amount; staff offered preliminary estimates for certain tasks (training and transition work estimated in the low thousands, with one comment pointing to roughly $5,000 for some training elements and another $5,000 range for other tasks depending on who is hired). For the fire-suppression/water-rights work, staff said substantial litigation- or process-related work remains (the water-court rounds of notice and related filings), so cost estimates vary.

Staff explained the practical benefit of retaining the consultant for wrap-up work: specialized grant reporting often includes serial numbers and barcodes for equipment purchases and specific reporting requirements that are difficult for a new staff member to pick up midstream. Staff said having the consultant finish reporting would help secure reimbursements and avoid reporting errors.

No formal approval of the contract occurred. A motion to approve the agreement was initially made, then another commissioner moved to amend the motion to table the item until the following week to allow staff to provide clearer scope language, liability/insurance options and a time/cost estimate; that motion to table carried.

Next steps noted in the meeting: staff will provide additional contract detail and a clearer estimate of hours/costs and recommended insurance or indemnity language for the board to consider at the follow-up meeting.