OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Payson Town Council Work Study – March 26, 2025: Procurement Methods and Airport Hangar One Discussion

Town Council & Planning and ZoningWednesday, March 26, 2025
BodyPayson, Arizona
SessionTown Council & Planning and Zoning
DateWednesday, March 26, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:06:58

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

We're on top of the mind.

0:02

Okay.

0:03

So I call this work study meeting of the common council of the town of Payson to order.

0:19

March 26, 2025.

0:22

Roll call again, please, Megan.

0:26

Let the record show that council members are present.

0:30

Councilmember Jen Ferris is appearing electronically.

0:35

Thank you.

0:38

Work studies are intended for council to discuss business.

0:41

No action can be taken.

0:43

As a result, public comment will not be taken during this meeting.

0:48

Purpose of the meeting is a presentation discussion regarding commonly used procurement methods for construction projects.

0:56

Sheila, would you give us the presentation, please?

0:59

You don't want me to give the presentation, but I'll tell you who is.

1:03

Okay.

1:05

Introduce the presenters, please.

1:07

Thank you, Mr.

1:08

Mayor.

1:08

Um, a few meetings back, we had some discussion about why we don't put every single project out to bid and what are some of the alternatives, and what are the circumstances under which we would use those alternatives versus some of uh methods that you might be more familiar with?

1:24

And so we brought in someone that has uh quite a bit of knowledge, skills, and experience in that area to answer questions.

1:32

In fact, um Mr.

1:33

Kramer with CEI, I think not only has the experience living that side of it, but now teaches these methods at ASU.

1:43

And so he'll give you a little bit of his background and uh share with council some of those other types of procurement and why we would use them.

1:51

Can we turn is the air still up or down or whatever?

1:56

Phrase us out.

1:58

Yeah.

1:59

Okay, I'm not the only one.

2:00

Good.

2:02

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

2:04

Uh thank you for inviting me to come spend a little time with you tonight and talk about uh one of my favorite subjects design and construction procurement.

2:12

Uh my name's Jeff Kramer, uh, as uh you were just told, and I've been doing this for almost 40 years.

2:19

Um first uh design and construction procurement experiences as far back as 1989 when I first started procuring design professionals for my employer, and uh continued ever uh since that time being involved in this area.

2:35

Uh and as you heard, not only do I uh lead the program and project management division for CEI, where we assist public agencies and school districts with procurements as well as project delivery.

2:46

I do teach in the master's program in the Del Webb School of Construction at ASU on this topic, uh, and also teach private clients around the state uh how to deliver their projects better and uh to compete more effectively in the procurement process.

3:03

So uh and uh I do also participate in an industry-wide stakeholders committee that deals with these issues and talks about uh changes to Arizona statute uh and frequently consulted by agencies all over the state on the topic.

3:19

So just to establish that this is my foremost area of uh of expertise uh within the design and construction world.

3:29

So we're gonna talk a little bit about how do you procure design and construction services, and uh really it's it's pretty strictly governed by Arizona revised statutes.

3:40

Uh it does grant the authority to procure these services under three different statutes.

3:46

Uh Title 28 applies to ADOT, Title 41 applies to vertical state governments and schools.

3:52

The title that applies to you is Title 34.

3:55

And Title 34, which is called public buildings and improvements actually uh should be called cities, towns, counties, and special districts because that's who that particular title governs.

4:07

And those titles are very similar, slight differences for each, but they're all very prescriptive when it comes to how you do your procurement processes.

4:17

So, what do I mean by that?

4:18

Well, it tells you how you have to advertise how many times and where it tells you what you have to include in your RFQs and what you can't include in your RFQs.

4:30

Uh it tells you how you have to negotiate the selection process you have to follow, who has to be on your selection panel, and then it tells you what you can and can't share in terms of information during the process and when you can share it during the process.

4:48

So it is very prescriptive and very specific as far as procuring design and construction services, and then there are some very uh specific rules that apply to each of the different types of procurement types of project delivery that differ a little bit from each of the other methods.

5:00

And then there are some very uh specific rules that apply to each of the different types of procurement types of project delivery that differ a little bit from each of the other methods.

5:08

So I what I really want to focus on tonight are three main topics.

5:12

The first one is what can you or can't you do with your own staff with town forces?

5:18

Uh then I want to talk to you about procuring professional services, designers, and then last procuring construction services.

5:25

Can I can I ask a question?

5:27

Absolutely, any time.

5:28

So is is our policy here in the town based upon the state?

5:34

Uh policy, and can and if it's so, can we deviate from what the state says and can we develop some of our own procurement policy?

5:50

Mr.

5:51

Mayor, uh, Councilmember Bell, great question, and the answer to that is statute specifically says that you can deviate to be more strict, but not to be less strict.

6:05

There are a couple areas where there is a small differentiation from that, and I'll talk about one of those toward the end of the presentation, has to do with job order contracting, or it allows you to be less strict on one specific topic.

6:21

But for the most part, you have to be equal to or more strict than what the Title 34 requirement is, but you can develop your own policies and procedures on how you implement those statutory requirements.

6:35

Does it have to follow the statute exactly?

6:39

Uh yes, council member, you have to follow the statute exactly, or you could be found in violation.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Airport Management█████████████████████████████████33%
Contract Management████████████████████████24%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████████████21%
Economic Development███████7%
Legal Services Cost Analysis█████5%
Procedural███3%
Procurement██2%
Capital Improvement██2%
Public Engagement1%
Summary of Proceedings

Payson Town Council Work Study – March 26, 2025

The work study meeting of the Payson Town Council was called to order at approximately 7:27 pm in the Town Hall Council Chambers. All seven council members were present (Council Member Ferris via Zoom). Staff and consultants provided two presentations: first on commonly used procurement methods for construction projects, and second on the future management of the Airport Hangar One Complex. No formal action could be taken during a work study, but council members discussed the issues and provided staff with direction for next steps.

Discussion Items – Procurement Methods

  • Jeff Kramer, PE, faculty associate at ASU and expert in design/construction procurement, presented the statutory framework under Arizona Revised Statutes Title 34. He explained three categories of self-performance (force account work) with current dollar limits: building facilities (≈$26,262 labor only), horizontal infrastructure (≈$281,000 total cost), utilities/parks/recreation (≈$250,000), and development agreements (≈$187,000). Kramer noted the town may adopt stricter policies than statute but not less strict.
  • For professional services (architects, engineers, owner’s reps), three methods were outlined: single project (qualifications-based, typically >$500,000), on-call (up to $500,000 per task order, max 5‑year contract, qualifications-based, no secondary procurement), and direct select (single project under $500,000, no formal procurement).
  • For construction services, four delivery methods were discussed: Design-Bid-Build (low bid), Design-Build, Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), and Job Order Contracting (JOC). Kramer explained the two‑step selection process available for Design-Build and JOC (RFQ then best‑value RFP), and that CMAR price competition is currently limited to large municipalities (population ≥1 million) unless legislative changes occur.
  • Council members asked about the $1 million per‑job‑order cap under JOC, noting that council can approve a higher amount at the time of the master contract. They also discussed retention withholding (not allowed in JOC) and monthly progress reporting requirements.

Discussion Items – Airport Hangar One Complex

  • Christine Smith, Deputy Town Manager, provided background: the hangars were transferred from Goodyear in 1991, ownership reverted to the town in 2011 after a 20‑year ground lease. The complex currently operates under a month‑to‑month lease with Payson Hangar One, LLC (PHO‑LLC). There is a 20‑year wait list for hangars (19 applicants for T‑hangars, 9 for box hangars).
  • Dale Mueller, representative of PHO‑LLC, proposed continuing management of the hangars with a 10‑ to 20‑year lease extension. He disputed the condition report’s tone and emphasized that the LLC has insured and maintained the hangars, and that the structure is sound. He argued the $0.19/sq ft member rate includes insurance, taxes, and electricity not included in the town’s $0.35/sq ft rate for newer hangars.
  • Jim Hunt, Chairman of the Airport Commission, presented a financial comparison: PHO‑LLC currently pays $17,100/year in ground lease, plus insurance, electricity, and property taxes. The commission recommended the town take over management, estimating potential annual revenue of $33,000–$45,000 (if all 10 hangars are rented at $375/month), compared to the current $17,100. He stated the hangars are a town asset and liability, and that a new lease to PHO‑LLC would likely need to be competitively bid under FAA grant assurances.
  • Dennis Dueker, Airport Operations Supervisor, reviewed the PCI structural inspection report. He clarified that the hangar structure itself is sound, but the bifold doors have significant weld failures, corrosion, and hinge problems. Replacement doors (Horton stack doors) would cost approximately $14,000–$15,000 per door, and the airport has $160,000 in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds available starting October 1, 2025 that can be used for hangar rehab.
  • Jason Musselman, airport consultant, explained FAA grant assurance requirements (19 pages of conditions) and the risks of non‑compliance, including Part 16 complaints, loss of funding, or repayment. He advised that town self‑management is the safest approach from the FAA’s perspective, and that any new third‑party management agreement would need to be competitively procured.
  • Matt Thomason, Planning Director, confirmed that if the decision is to retain a management group, a competitive solicitation (RFP) would be necessary to comply with grant assurances.
  • Council members discussed legal implications, liability, revenue potential, and the need to resolve the long‑standing inequity of the wait list bypass. The town attorney suggested scheduling an executive session to review legal options and FAA compliance.

Key Outcomes

  • No binding decisions were made, as this was a work study.
  • Council directed staff to work with legal counsel and schedule an executive session to discuss: (a) the legal implications of various management options (town takeover, new lease with PHO‑LLC, or competitive procurement), (b) compliance with FAA grant assurances, and (c) liability issues related to the hangar doors.
  • The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:33 pm.

Meeting Transcript

We're on top of the mind. Okay. So I call this work study meeting of the common council of the town of Payson to order. March 26, 2025. Roll call again, please, Megan. Let the record show that council members are present. Councilmember Jen Ferris is appearing electronically. Thank you. Work studies are intended for council to discuss business. No action can be taken. As a result, public comment will not be taken during this meeting. Purpose of the meeting is a presentation discussion regarding commonly used procurement methods for construction projects. Sheila, would you give us the presentation, please? You don't want me to give the presentation, but I'll tell you who is. Okay. Introduce the presenters, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, a few meetings back, we had some discussion about why we don't put every single project out to bid and what are some of the alternatives, and what are the circumstances under which we would use those alternatives versus some of uh methods that you might be more familiar with? And so we brought in someone that has uh quite a bit of knowledge, skills, and experience in that area to answer questions. In fact, um Mr. Kramer with CEI, I think not only has the experience living that side of it, but now teaches these methods at ASU. And so he'll give you a little bit of his background and uh share with council some of those other types of procurement and why we would use them. Can we turn is the air still up or down or whatever? Phrase us out. Yeah. Okay, I'm not the only one. Good. Good evening, Mayor, Council members. Uh thank you for inviting me to come spend a little time with you tonight and talk about uh one of my favorite subjects design and construction procurement. Uh my name's Jeff Kramer, uh, as uh you were just told, and I've been doing this for almost 40 years. Um first uh design and construction procurement experiences as far back as 1989 when I first started procuring design professionals for my employer, and uh continued ever uh since that time being involved in this area. Uh and as you heard, not only do I uh lead the program and project management division for CEI, where we assist public agencies and school districts with procurements as well as project delivery. I do teach in the master's program in the Del Webb School of Construction at ASU on this topic, uh, and also teach private clients around the state uh how to deliver their projects better and uh to compete more effectively in the procurement process. So uh and uh I do also participate in an industry-wide stakeholders committee that deals with these issues and talks about uh changes to Arizona statute uh and frequently consulted by agencies all over the state on the topic. So just to establish that this is my foremost area of uh of expertise uh within the design and construction world. So we're gonna talk a little bit about how do you procure design and construction services, and uh really it's it's pretty strictly governed by Arizona revised statutes. Uh it does grant the authority to procure these services under three different statutes. Uh Title 28 applies to ADOT, Title 41 applies to vertical state governments and schools. The title that applies to you is Title 34. And Title 34, which is called public buildings and improvements actually uh should be called cities, towns, counties, and special districts because that's who that particular title governs. And those titles are very similar, slight differences for each, but they're all very prescriptive when it comes to how you do your procurement processes. So, what do I mean by that? Well, it tells you how you have to advertise how many times and where it tells you what you have to include in your RFQs and what you can't include in your RFQs. Uh it tells you how you have to negotiate the selection process you have to follow, who has to be on your selection panel, and then it tells you what you can and can't share in terms of information during the process and when you can share it during the process. So it is very prescriptive and very specific as far as procuring design and construction services, and then there are some very uh specific rules that apply to each of the different types of procurement types of project delivery that differ a little bit from each of the other methods. And then there are some very uh specific rules that apply to each of the different types of procurement types of project delivery that differ a little bit from each of the other methods. So I what I really want to focus on tonight are three main topics. The first one is what can you or can't you do with your own staff with town forces? Uh then I want to talk to you about procuring professional services, designers, and then last procuring construction services.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com