COMMISSIONERS' COURT RECESSED AT 11:2Q~ RM
COMMISSIONERS' COURT RECONVENED AT 11:35 RM
2.11 Consider and discuss proposed alternate procedures by
Contractor, Mart, Inc. (Mike Walker)
ORDER NO. 25347
RGPROVAL TO VARY CONTRRCT WITH MRRT INC. TO
TEMPORRRILY CHRN6E WORN, HOURS FROM NIGHT-TIME
RND WEEN.ENDS TO DRY-TIME WORN HOURS
On this day the 26th day of May, 19'38 upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to vary contract with
Mart Incorpar•ated to temporarily change work hours from
night-time and weekends to day-time war•k hours.
2.10 Consider and discuss fur•ther• revisions proposed by staff
to the Second Floor Courthouse Annex Renovations Flan. (Mike
Walker)
ORDER NO. 5348
RUTHORIZRTION TO PROCEED WITH PLRN OF
COURTHOUSE RENOVRTIONS RND SPECIFICRTIONS
On this day the 26th day of May, 1598 capon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to proceed with plan
of courthouse renovations and specifications based on plans
presented and signed off by the .judges.
COMMISSIONERS' COURT RECESSED RT i2:00 F'M
COMMISSIONERS' COURT RECONVENED RT 1:3~b F'M
Honorable Robert R. Denson was not present.
PRGE 658
COMMISSIONERS' COURT WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION RT 1:~1 pM
III. EXECUTIVE SESSION
3.1 R11 pending and possible litigation. (County Civil
Attorney?
COMMISSIONERS' CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION RT 1:42 p'M
IV. RCTION RGENDA
4.1 Action as may 6e req~_iired on matters discussed in
Exec~.~tive Session.
No action came o~_it of Executive Session.
COMMISSIONERS' COURT RECESSED AT 1:42 FM
pRGE E59
prder t~• 25347
~r~al to wa~,Y contract with
rk
Mart Inc• tO e wo „as to
tes~or~ily Chang ~
s fr~n nigt't~time
time work hours
A'1aY 26 r 1998
Vol V page 658
f:)filDfia hl[:)., c3:Fi:i3~e'7
(iG~'I~'Ii(JV6•ll_. 'T'(:) VF1F'tY f:.C)hI'T'fiflf::'T' W:(.'T'FI 1"16dr:'r :f.hl(::,. 'T'0
TI:::1"IG~'flfi(11:f.L..Y i:a-IAhIGiI-: W(:)Pil: I-If:)1.11~i I'-"f'{Cll"I hl:f.(fiFl'T'--T:I:I`ilc:
61h1T) Wlii:F::IGI=I+IDF.i 'T'C) DRY--'T':I:1"If::: Wf:)Pil: I-I(:AJfiF.i
fh'} tt}:i.<_, d ~y 't;t}r+ i?G,'t;t} clay (:}'(~ I"Iciyy 1.5d':)tl (.(I:}or} m(}'Li.(}r} m<aclca I:~y
(::OII}~}:1.'.3 ~i :1. (:}1')(:?'r• I... (e?{:'Y.y !ii(v?(:: (:}t'1(:I (i?(:1 I:}y (:<:}I)llll :l.'.ii'.ii :l. (:}1'1 (:''r• (7 fi?I'1 :1. (:?'f•y 't;tl (i? f::C)l.l'("(:
unanimc}(.lsl.y capprovE•?d by ca vot(~ of 4•-•(~-•lTy 'L(:} v<:rr•y <:~(:}rrtrr<icrt; w:i.'t;h
I"I<z'r•'b 7:ru:xrrl:}c:rr<:r(;c?el 't;(} 'tx?ml:x:rr<zr:i.a.y r.~l'r<':u'}rir± w(:rr4; hnu'r<s 'r°r•i:}m
ni.iahb°-'lam(.? <arul w~:?<:?hc~?nrJ> 't;(:} rl<ay...t;i.mr~ w(:rrk. Mrn.(r<_:i.
May-18-98 04: 52P Michael Walker, Architect 830 895 3297 P.02
~MMISSIO)\ER4' COURT AGl•.NnA REOliEST
pf FASF FUR~'ISH ONE ORtGLNAL AND FIh OPi OF'I S F.Q~$T ND DOCtI VT
~Q BF RFVIFWF.D B~''I' F. COURT.
MADE BY: MIKE WALKER, ARCHITECT
MEETING DATE: May 25, 1998
OFFICE: ARCHITECT FOR COUNTY PROJECTS
SLiBJF.CT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC)
TIhfE PREFERRED' 11:40 A,M.+~-
To consider proposed alternate procedures by Contractor, Mart, Inc., Mr. Lary Gacel of Absolute
Demolition, as out!iaed itt his attached hfay 13, 1998 letter, and Architect's attached letter of response, dated
May 18, 1998. Contractor proposes working daytime hours on a trial basis, in lieu of the prescribed after
hoots operations required by the Contract Documents. These daytime working hottrs options to
Commissioners Coto[ may represent a swings to County. The Contractor also proposes an alternative
demolition methods, which we recommend tabling until the trial period is elapsed.
E.YECI"TIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: l0 minutes
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Mike Walker and Lary Gabel
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title
5, Chapter 551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows
Mceting scheduled for Mondays: 5:00 P.M. previous Monday
THIS REQUEST RECENED BF:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVER ON:
~w
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has
been prepared for the Court's forrnal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your ccxiperation
will be appreciated and contribute towards you request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See
Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners' Court.
61e:kcw¢mdA(N~
r

MART, INC.
P O Box 170983
Irving, Texas 75017
May 13,1998
Kerr County Commissioners Court
c% Mike Walker Architect
1303 Vesper Lane
Kerrville, TX 78028
Rc: Kerr County Courthouse Second Floor Detention Facilities Demolition
ALTERNATE PROCEDURES PROPOSAL
Deu Sus:
As specified, we intrnd to saw-cut into manageable pieces the walla and ceilings of the concrete jail cell
structures. The whining vibration on a concrete saw will moat certainly roquin "after hove" work. Working after
hours poses some noteworthy restrictions. Them are duce areas of eoncem we wish for the Commissioners Court
to consider that we believe they may appreciate the benefits of altemate methods to complete.
Being familiar with nighttime work conditions, one of the most limiting factoro is responding to unexpected nerds.
ff a water line is brokrn of a hydraulic line is snapped or even just a question about an e!ciating system scheduled
to remain; the ability to respond becomes exponentially more dif5cult and usually is deferred to a "daytime entity"
to properly react. viost serious or high exposure concerns are much more effectively deah with during regtilar
busineu hotus. It is therefor our desire to propose an alternate acceptable method of demolition that would
allow our force to work from 7 a.m. un413:30 p.m. each day, concurrent with County work forces. We believe
their input and cooperation would uhimately be beneficial to both partite as we cottunurricale, correct, and cope
with tht inevitabilities of conetnution in an occupied budding.
Concrete cutting requires a steady supply of water flowing at the cutting edge; always mobile and di>iiculf to
contain. Aa we have a "slab over slab" condition, water seepage may be diticult to recognize and contain tmtil it
"shows up" down baba, Ono of die moat potrntiaily dattuging wncems of thin pmjat is the accidental release
of water to the Boos below. The altettute method we propose would reduce the amount of cortcrcu cutting
required by up to 75% and thereby reduce the hecessiry far VOLUV¢S of water.
Daytime work allows a men effective and efficient use of our I$~ which will expedite the project and reduce
out collective "sufferings" as the demolition processes are added to the daily grind at the county annex. Reduced
Fxt>nct;ttF beneSU both occupants, admittiatraton and contractors. Hy saving time, ndue:ing exposure, and
/-. eliminating concrete cutting, I believe we can Savo ;vlONEY as is detailed on the following offering.
I9'd 866 T~8I6~ZTS OW3Q 31C11~S8tl Wd ZZ: £0 36-bT-AtlW
~ Alternak Demolition Method
Kcrs County Courthouse
Page 2
AT.TF.RAfAT . D .MO tT10N METHOD
Aa opposed to sawing into slabs and removing the concrete jail colt structtues, we propose to we a hydraulic shear
on a skid steer loader to remove virtuaQy atl the walls and ceilutga and steel by "nibbling" through the concrete
and steel and removing it as rubble. This is NOT a pcrcwaion toolll It is the equivalent to a pair of scissors
desigtLed to cut concrete and steel. Not only w~71 this signiiicmt}y reduce the need for water use but abo reduce
the tree of an aeerytene torch which also has associakd cxpostm concerns.
The shear is capable of cutting 6" concrete tit SO" "bites" artd can cut steel tubing up to 4" across. it is mounted
on a Bobeat diesel powered skid steer loader designed for we in mirtirtg operations and has a tower
hydrocatborVeaot output than propane combwtion ettgbtea.
~ONSID R 4TiOT;S ND CONCERNS TO OVERCOME
POIIVT LOADING OF FLOOR
The skid steer and shoat will weigh about 8500 pounds. '17tis load transferred to four wheels is 2125 pounds per
wheel. On pmriow projects we have found that shoring poste (2" pipes with an adjustable ratchet) can be added
~_ to the door below in minimal strategic locations so as to signiEcantly reduce the carrying capacity of the post
tension slab above. If familiar engineering practicca are acccptabk in tltis building wo aze suggcsttng that
approximately S -10 posh would be located as is convenient for the County Clark for approximately 6 weeks of
the project. For compazative data, a parking garage conritucted of lightweight concrete beams (2 I!2 "thick) with
a 4" concrete tapping is typically rated for 2500 pounds per wheel. Tho annex building slab, with a minimal
amount of addifionai support may be able to perform much more substantially than prcviowly thought.
Further beneEt toward adequate support would be to reduce the current load on the floor by removing the
majority of the nonconack makrials prior to introducing the skid steer shear. We have c:alettlated the
apptoaomate weighU of construction matetiala already is place and offer this favorable data verifying the slabs
perfotrttance to date:
t?laater and futiah-out makriala	140,000t-
Steel Exttrra and doors	130,000#
Concrete watla and cetl'tttga	330,000#
Concrek floc topping-2" avg.	315,t)40ri
if we Ern remove the plaster walla, ceili:tga, and futiah-out materials and diaaasembte steel fixtures, we could
aigniEcantly reduce (era much m 200,000#) of the existing load. Again, tltie is prior to bringing in the skid steer
shear. Additionally, the 2" concrete topping slab with 6x6x10 w.w.m. reinforeemertt will act a, a mat to spread
the point load to the support beams.

Z9'd 9661+Sr6+ZSS OW3Q 31f1,OSg~1 Wd ZZ:°_9 86-bi-AHW
~~
r Alternate Demolition Methods
Kerr County Courthouse
Page 3
NOISE A9ATEMFNT
We are etttrently working in hospitals, trtalls, computer taanufacturing facilities and office towers where
concurreat daily operations of those facrlitiea are negotiated with the occupants. Tn some cases we havo started
demolition at 5 a.m. and by 10 a.m. only clean-up (less potential for sharp noises) continues until 2 p.tn Ai ocher
locations, security and control facton aro b..ttet dealt with during 8 a.m. -S p.m. scheduling. The point being, we
quickly learn what >a allowable and what is not. The tenants also learn that what was thoup~tt to be an
unmanageable conflict is not so imposing and possibly even entertaining to monitor progress and processes.
COST CONSIDERaTIQNS
We have budgeted S3i,000 for concrete cutting and coring. There wr71 still be a need to cut at "existing to remain"
areas. We can reduce the amount of cutting by 7S% using a shear. Additionally, we would expect a reduction in
time and labor to work during dayli~tt hours which could save S3, 500.
!n consideration of the additional equipment coats and additiottat shoring that may be required, we are offering a
shared cost savings robato to tho owner of FJFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS (515,000). We ba6eve thin
~ innovative approach to concrete removal will atiow us to wont safer, cleaner and faster. if all goes well we could
potetttialfy reduce the entire time in progress by 2 weeks.
1n sammaty, to offer our beat efforts, control the excesses as efficiently as possible, respond immediately to the
incidental circumstances and SAVE TIMF, r4\'D MOIr'El' for both parties, we ask you to consider our altemak
proposal to demolish and remove the second floor detention facr7iry.
Sincerely,
T
ssu ~
I wrence J. t:}abel, Jr.

^z0'd 066T ~9I6fZIS OW3Q 31~11058tl Wd ZZ=°_0 86-bT-.ltlW
ARCHITECT
TRANSMITTAL VIA FACSIMILE -ORIGINAL HAND DELIVERED
May 18, 1998
The Honorable Jonathan Letz
Commissioner Precinct 3
Kelr County Commissioner's Court
Kerr County Courthouse
700 Main Street
Kerrville, Texas 78028
Re: Phase 2 -Kerr County Courthouse and Annex Renovations
Our Projects KCC, KCT, KC2(this Phase)
Dear Commissioner Letz;
MICHAEL
WALKIIt
This letter is written in response to the attached May 13, 1998, letter to Commissioners' Court
from Mr. Larry Gabel, of Mart, Inc., Contractor for the Phase 2 Work. As you and I discussed
via telephone May 15 (and after reviewing this letter of proposed procedural and specifications
changes with our Structural Engineers), we aze making several recommendations concealing
these proposals.
First, let it be cleaz that Mart, Inc. is set to begin the Work per Bidding/Contract Documents as
originally issued with no changes. What Mr. Gabel suggests is to attempt improving the proce-
dure (in his experienced opinion) and sane the County money in the process. This sounds good
on the surface; however, there are still some unlalowns in his suggestions. We understand and
do not disagree with much of the reasoning and motivation behind Mr. Gabel's proposals for
daylight demolition, water control and cost benefits therefrom; we commend his suggestions to
improve the process. However, I respond below to those issues about which the Architect and
Structural Engineers have some concern. Therefore, I request that Commissioners' Court con-
sider with the following 2 major concerns when deliberating the Contractor's Proposal:
1. The first issue is the Mart request to perform 75% of work during daytime hours of County
operation, which saves $3,500. It may be worth a trial period to verify the viability; I suggest
until the June 8 Court Meeting or until affected departments find it a problem, whichever occurs
first.
2. This Contract is for less than 90 days. The Contractor must first remove most materials, ex-
cept the concrete cells, prior to the need to "cut versus shear" the majority of concrete. The Con-
tractorneeds one month notice to order and mount the sheaz machine; therefore, this decision
can be postponed until the June 8 Court Meeting, after it is determined the level of success with
1303 VESPER LANE • ICERRVILLE,'I'EXAS 78028 • (830) 895-ARCH • FAX (830) 895-FAXS • E-mail mkwalket@hilconet.com
Commissioner Jonathan Letz
May 18, 1998
Page 2
rescheduling the Work to daytime. These aze our observations and concerns on the "cut versus
sheaz" decision, which the Contractor initially proposes to sane the County $15,000.00:
a) Mr. Gabel or his companies have not worked with this shearing equipment that he pro-
poses to use; neither have this Architect or our Engineers.
b) Vordenbaum Engineers and Wunderlich, Consulting Engineer, recommend that no mov-
ing point dead-loading, such as ashear-mounted-vehicle, be undertaken without a thorough
engineering study, either by our Engineers or an engineer of the Contractor's choice. Our
estimate is $5,000.00 or less in fees, which includes a small portion for Architect's coordi-
nation and which should be deducted from proposed savings.
c) Our Engineers aze generally dubious of shoring off of only the First Floor, rather it may
need to be extended to Lower Level, too; the engineering study will indicate extent requir-
ed.
d) Mr. Gabel and I did a cursory on-site review of the possible locations for shoring; the 2
to 3-inch shoring jack locations do not readily locate well structurally without interference
to operation below (Court-at-Law and Tax Assessor-Collector, County Clerk northwest cor-
ner).
e) The likelihood of falling chunks of sheazed-off concrete and clean-up being quiet
enough to not disturb the occupants below seems remote to us; however, it would be a wel-
come surprise were it to be the case, as we would be pleased if the work could be conducted
and observed at normal business hours. The two week trial period may help tell us that.
Please be awaze that we (Architect and Engineers) are performing services beyond the scope of
what the parties aze obligated to do, in order to sane the County cost and add convenience to the
Contractor. Please factor into any consideration of these issues that you should expect some bill-
ings for Additional Services for change orders, directives, submittal reviews, correspondence,
etc., depending on the complexity of the revisions to the Contract.
Respectfully submitted,
VV-
cc: Mr. Larry Gabel, Mart, Inc. (fax and U.S. Mail)
Mr. Stuart Vordenbaum, P.E., Vordenbaum Engineering (fax)
Mr. Curtis Wunderlich, P.E., Consulting Engineer (fax)
file:kc21tr.01 I
pxdex ~, 25347
pPPx°val to wavy c°ntzaCt With
Inc. to ~pxk $ to
te~orafx~n ni9chht etude aT~- fiend
day- work hO'~S
MaY 26, 1998
Vol V Page 658
t:lf'tT)I:I't hlt:l,. i?;i`i3~o'7
(aG~'F'1'tClVfal... 'T'fr VAIzY C(:II+1'T'fiFaC'r' W:f.'T'I-I I•Ifar't'r :I:hlt::,, 'T't]
'r'I:_t•IG't:rfifafi:I:L..Y t';I-IAI+IGiIE: Wi7P'{I: I-If:rl.Jf2': f'fi01"1 I+rf.t3l-rr--rxl•If:::
fa1+IS7 WI:Eiaaii:hlr)fii 'T't7 1DfaY- 'T':I:I•Ilc: Wta(il: I-It:It.lfi;ii
On 'ta'i :i.<, d<ty •laie:~ c.'.firla't d<ay ca'P I'la~y., :1.4)'i)tl ialacan nurLi.cn'i m<aclca lay
C:omm:i.<.:;<.:>:i.orurr L_e•~'try ~:>s~e~t:n'uae~rl lay t.emnn:i.<.:><s:i.caru±r f7e±l'iae+'r.r then C:oi.crt;
Ull Cil'1 ]. nic)llST.y xTap•rcavE•+cl Fay c~ v~atra of ~r-~O-A, t;r.~ v<ary rsarrFrr:acrl: w:i.'ta'~
Irlcrr't: Tnpc::rrryarar<:rt;exl t-ra te~mlacar<:rr•:i.a.y c~l'i<:u'yar-± wo'rl:. I'ie>ur<.:; i`riam
nn i.ral'rt:--ti.mF:~ <:md we~~rtl;r-rru.1<.:> Lc~ rl<ay...'t:i.nu> wcrrk 1'icai.i'r<s,.
May-18-98 04:52P Michael Walker. Architect 830 895 3297 P-02
~OMMIS~IOI\FRS' COtiRT ACF.irDA RF.Q 'F~. T
P] FASF FURY SH ONE ORiGLNAI AND FIVF COPIES OF'ItIIS REQ TFC~ T ND j?OCUMEVT$
TO BF. RENEWED BY'I'HE COURT.
MADE BY: MIKE WALKER, ARCHITECT
MEETING DATE: May 25, 199R
UFFICE: ARCHITECT FOR COUNTY PROJECTS
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC)
TIME PREFERRED: l 1:40 A.M.+~-
To consider proposed alternate procedures by Contractor, Mart, Inc., Mr. Larry Ga'cel of Absolute
Demolition, as outliaed in his attached May 13, 1998 letter, and Architect's attached letter of response, dated
May 18, 1998. Contractor proposes working daytime hotus an a trial basis, in lieu of the prescribed after
hours operations required 6y the Contract Documents. These daytime working hours options to
Commissioner's Cour[ may represent a savings to County. The Contractor also proposes an altena?ive
demoliticn methods, which we recommend tabling until the trial period is elapsed.
E,KEt'U77VE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: l0 minutes
IF PERSUN:~EL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Mike Walker and Lany Gabel
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title
5, Chapter SS I and 552, Government Code, is as follows
Meeting scheduled for Mondays: 5:00 P.M. previous Monday
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED $1':
THIS REQLIF.ST RECEIVED ON:
rw
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has
been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your ctxiperation
will 6e appreciated and contribute towards you request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See
Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners' Court.
61e:kcca¢endA(x.
i-
/"`
MART, INC.
P O Box 170983
Irving, Texas 75017
May 13,1998
Kea County Comrnissioncrs Court
c% Mike Walker Architect
1303 Vesper Lane
Kerrville, TX 78028
Re: Kea County Courthouse Second Floor Detention FaciliRes Demolition
ALTERNA'T'E PROCEDURES PROPOSAL
Dear Sirs:
As specified, we intrnd to rsaw-cut into manageable pieces the walls and ceilings of the concrete jail cell
structures. The whining vibration on a concrete saw will moat certainly rogttire "after hours" work. Working aftct
hours poses some noteworthy rostrictiona. There are three areas of contxm we wish for the Commissioners Court
to consider that we believe they may appreciate the benefits of alternate methods to complete.
Being familiar with nighttime work conditions, one of rho most limiting factors is responding to unexpccicd nods.
ff a water tine is brokrn a a hydraulic line is snapped or even just a question about an existing system scheduled
to remain; the ability to respond becomes exponentially more difficult and usually is deferred to a "daytime entity"
to properly react. ~ Most serious or high exposure concerns are much more effectively dealt with during regular
business hotus. It is therefore our desire to propose an alternate acceptable method of demolition that would
allow our forces to wont from 7 a.m. unn7 3:30 p.m. each day, concurrent with County work forces. We believe
their input and cooperation would Wtimately be brneficial to both partia as we cotttmutticate, correct' and cope
with the inevitabilities of construction in an occupied btulding
Concrete cutting rcquirra a steady supply of water flowing at the cutting edge; always mobile and difficult to
contain. Aa we have a "slab over slab" condifion, water seepage may be difficult to recognize and watam until it
"shows up" down bebw, One of the most potrntially damaging concerns of this psoject is the accidental release
of water to the floor below. The alternate method we propose would reduce the amount of concreu cutting
required by up to 7596 and thereby reduce the necessity for VOLULfES of water.
Daytime work allows a more effective and efficient use of our ]~ which will expedite the project and reduce
our collective "sufferings" as the demolition processes are added to the daily grind at the county annex. Reduced
Fxanct:uF ienefits both occupants, adminiatraton and contractors. Sy saving time, reducing exposure, and
~-. eliminating concrete cutting, T believe we can save MONEY as is detailed on the following ofFering.
T9'd 866 i~8 T6+~ZTS OW3Q 3111 "10S3H Wd ZZ: £8 36-bT-AtlW

Alternate DemoGtioa Method
Kerr Counry Courthowe
Page 2
As opposed to sawing into stabs and removing the concrete jail cell structtrres, we propose to use a hydraulic shear
on a skid stew loader to remove virtually atl the walls and ceilings and steel by "nibbling" through the concrete
and steel and removing it as rubble. This is NOT a percussion toolll It is the equivalent to a pair of scissors
designed to cut concrete and steel. Not only wr71 this significantly reduce the need for water ux but abo reduce
the use of an aceryIene torch which also has associated exposure concerns,
The eheaz is capable of cutting 6" concrete in ]0" "bites" and can cut steel tubing up to 4" across. It is mounted
on a Bobcat diesel powered skid steer loader designed for use in mining operations and has a lower
hydrocarbon/soot output than propane combustion engines.
TJw skid steer and eheaz wiU weigh about 5500 pounds. 71tis load transferred to four wheels is 2125 pounds per
wheel. On previous projccta we have found that shoeing poste (2" pipes with an adjustable ratchet) can be added
r to the Hoot below in minimal strategic locations so as to significantly reduce the carrying capacity of the post
tension slab above. If familiar rngineering practices are acceptable in this building we arc suggesting that
approximately S -10 posts would be Located as is convenient for the County Clerk for approximately 6 weeks of
the project. Far comparative data, a pazking garage constructed of lightweight concrete beams (2 1!2 "thick) with
a 4" concrete topping i, typically rated for 2500 pounds per wheel. The annex building slab, with a minimal
amount of additional support may be able to perform much morn substantially than previously thought.
Further benefit toward adequate support would be to reduce the current Joad on the floor by removing the
majority of the non-concrete materials prior to introducing the skid steer shear. We have calculated the
approximate weighb of construction matetiala already in place and offer this favorable data verifying the slabs
performance to date:
Plaster sad finish-out materials	140,000#
Steel fixtures and doors	130,000#
Concrete walls and ceilings	SS0,000#
Concrete floor topping-2" avg.	373,000#

If we first remove the plaster walls, ceilirtgp, and finish-out materials and disassemble steel fixtures, we could
significantly reduce (as much as 200,000#) of the existing load. Again, this is prior to bringing in the skid steer
shear. Additionally, the 2" concrete topping slab with 6x6x10 w.w.m reinforcement will act ~ a mat to spread
the point load to the support beams.
Z9'd 966 Tt8T6~ZTS
OW32 31010S3H Wd ZZ: ~9 86-bi-AHW
f'
Alternate Demolition Methods
Kerr CoTmty Courthouse
Page 3
We are cutrendy working in hospitalq,"malls, computer manufacturing facilities and office towers where
concurrent daily operations of those facilities are negotiated with the occupants. Tn some cases we havo started
demolition at S a.m. and by 10 a.m. only clean-up peas potential for sharp noises) cantlnues until 2 p.m At other
locations, security and control factors are batter dealt with during 8 a.m. -S p,m. scheduling. The point being we
quickly learn what is allowable and what v not. The tenants also Learn that what was thoup~tt to be an
unmanageable conflict is not so imposing and possibly even entertaining to monitor progress and processes.
C09T CONSIDEttaTtQNS
We have budgeted S3S,000 fot concrete cutting and coring. There wt71 still be a need to cut at °existing to remain"
areas. We can reduct the amount of cutting by 7S°k using a shear. Additionally, we would expect a reduction in
time and labor to work during daylight hoots which could save 53,500.
In consideration of the additional equipment coati and additional shoring that may be required, we are offering a
aharcd cost savings robate to rho owner of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS (515,000). We believe thin
~ innovative approach to concrete removal wi11 allow us to work safer, cleaner and faster. If all goes well we could
potentially reduce the entire time in progress by 2 wceks.
Tn summary, to offer our best efforts, control the excesses ae efTiciently as possible, respond immediately to the
incidental circumstances and SAVE TIME A,\'D IviOlr'El for both parties, we ask you to consider our alternate
proposal to demolish and remove the second floor detention fact7ity.
Sincerely,
r
T
~~
t wrence J. Clabel, Jr.
Y9'd 066T ~8T6~ZT5 OW3Q 31l110S8H Wd rte. £0 86-bT-AHW
ARCHITECT
TRANSMITTAL VIA FACSIlVIILE -ORIGINAL HAND DELIVERED
May 18, 1998
The Honorable Jonathan Letz
Commissioner Precinct 3
Kerr County Commissioner's Court
Kerr County Courthouse
700 Main Street
Kerrville, Texas 78028
Re: Phase 2 -Ken County Courthouse and Annex Renovations
Our Projects KCC, KCT, KC2(this Phase)
Dear Commissioner Letz;
MICHAEL
HEAL
WALKIIZ
This letter is written in response to the attached May 13, 1998, letter to Commissioners' Court
from Mr. Larry Gabel, of Mart, Inc., Contractor for the Phase 2 Work. As you and I discussed
via telephone May 15 (and after reviewing this letter of proposed procedural and specifications
changes with our Structural Engineers), we aze making several recommendations concerning
these proposals.
First, let it be cleaz that Mart, Inc. is set to begin the Work per Bidding/Contract Documents as
originally issued with no changes. What Mr. Gabel suggests is to attempt improving the proce-
dure (in his experienced opinion) and save the County money in the process. This sounds good
on the surface; however, there aze still some unknowns in his suggestions. We understand and
do not disagree with much of the reasoning and motivation behind Mr. Gabel's proposals for
daylight demolition, water control and cost benefits therefrom; we commend his suggestions to
improve the process. However, I respond below to those issues about which the Architect and
Structural Engineers have some concern. Therefore, I request that Commissioners' Court con-
sider with the following 2 major concerns when deliberating the Contractor's Proposal:
1. The fast issue is the Mart request to perform 75% of work during daytime hours of County
operation, which saves $3,500. It may be worth a trial period to verify the viability; I suggest
until the June 8 Court Meeting or until affected departments find it a problem, whichever occurs
first.
2. This Contract is for less than 90 days. The Contractor must fast remove most materials, ex-
cept the concrete cells, prior to the need to "cut versus sheaz" the majority of concrete. The Con-
tractorneeds one month notice to order and mount the shear machine; therefore, this decision
can be postponed until the June 8 Court Meeting, after it is determined the level of success with
1303 VESPER LANE • ICERRVILLE, TEXAS 78028 • (830) 895-ARCH • FAX (830) S95-FAXS • E-mail mkwalker@hilconet.com
Commissions Jonathan Letz
May 18, 1998
Page 2
rescheduling the Work to daytime. These are our observations and concerns on the "cut versus
shear" decision, which the Contractor initially proposes to save the County $15,000.00:
a) Mr. Gabel or his companies have not worked with this shearing equipment that he pro-
poses to use; neither have this Architect or our Engineers.
b) Vordenbatun Engineers and Wtmderlich, Consulting Engineer, recommend that no mov-
ing point dead-loading, such as a sheaz-mounted-vehicle, be undertaken without a thorough
engineering study, either by ow Engineers or an engineer of the Contractor's choice. Our
estimate is $5,000.00 or less in fees, which includes a small portion for Architect's coordi-
nation and which should be deducted from proposed savings.
c) Our Engineers are generally dubious of shoring off of only the First Floor, rather it may
need to be extended to Lower Level, too; the engineering study will indicate extent requir-
ed.
d) Mr. Gabel and I did a cursory on-site review of the possible locations for shoring; the 2
to 3-inch shoring jack locations do not readily locate well structurally without interference
to operation below (Court-at-Law and Tax Assessor-Collector, County Clerk northwest cor-
ner).
e) The likelihood of falling chunks of sheared-off concrete and clean-up being quiet
enough to not disturb the occupants below seems remote to us; however, it would be a wel-
come surprise were it to be the case, as we would be pleased if the work could be conducted
and observed at normal business hours. The two week trial period may help tell us that.
Please be aware that we (Architect and Engineers) are performing services beyond the scope of
what the parties are obligated to do, in order to save the County cost and add convenience to the
Contractor. Please factor into any consideration of these issues that you should expect some bill-
ings for Additional Services for change orders, directives, submittal reviews, correspondence,
etc., depending on the complexity of the revisions to the Contract.
Respectfully submitted,
cc: Mr. Larry Gabel, Mart, Inc. (fax and U.S. Mail)
Mr. Stuart Vordenbaum, P.E., Vordenbatun Engineering (fax)
Mr. Curtis Wunderlich, P.E., Consulting Engineer (fax)
file:kc21R.011