1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Wednesday, August 2, 2000 11 1:30 p.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X 2 August 2, 2000 PAGE 3 1.1 Approval of Change Order No. 3 for Kerr County 4 Annex Renovation Phase 3 3 5 1.2 Longevity and Educational pay increase policy 85 6 1.3 Approval of Nash Compensation Study 111 7 1.4 Sheriff Hierholzer's salary proposal in lieu of Nash Compensation Study 130 8 1.5 Approval of 2% COLA for County employees 144 9 --- Adjourned 146 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Wednesday, August 2, 2000, at 1:30 p.m, A special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, and the 4 following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 August the 2nd, Year 2000, and we will call to order this 8 special Commissioners Court meeting. The first item on the 9 agenda for consideration is to consider and discuss the 10 approval of Change Order Number 3 for Kerr County Annex 11 Renovation Phase 3 -- actually, Phase 3-A. Mr. Longnecker, 12 do you want to start off and explain to us what we have 13 here? 14 MR. LONGNECKER: I believe the architect has 15 presented all of you with a copy of Change Order 3, which he 16 has diligently prepared to cover everything that we feel is 17 necessary to go in the change. It is listing, item-for- 18 item, everything that's going to cost in this change order. 19 The change order was prepared in two different ways. One, 20 indicating the number of change directives and the actual 21 price of each change directive, and amounting to $73,910.23. 22 And then we -- the second preparation was done using those 23 same items, plus the addition of extended contract time for 24 discovered -- discovered conditions, which is $41,921.64. 25 Those are -- that's been presented two different ways. 4 1 There is some controversy on the extended conditions or 2 extended time that's been included in the second 3 presentation. If you want, we can go item-for-item and look 4 over everything that's been -- been done from Change 5 Directive Number 8 through Change Directive -- I believe 6 it's 16. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: What is the pleasure of the 8 Court? Do we want to take that change directive by change 9 directive or -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I have some 13 questions. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's start with Number 8. 15 MR. LONGNECKER: Check Directive Number 8 is 16 for brackets or struts, which are to be and have been 17 attached to the existing structural system or floors of the 18 existing building to support the new masonry walls that have 19 been built around the building. Those -- there was a 20 problem with the reinforcing, which is post-tension in the 21 existing slab, something you dare not penetrate or break. 22 The -- it was discovered that these were in bundles along 23 the edges. There was no plan or anything to know exactly 24 where they were located. Therefore, the structural engineer 25 needed to come up with a solution or some method of 5 1 fastening these struts or brackets to this floor without 2 interfering with these reinforcing tendons. The contractor 3 has asked for $14,149, and then he wants to extend the time 4 of 60 days over and above that. This is in your manual, if 5 you all see that, and that about explains that. So -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That prompts me to 7 ask a question. I look at the -- the letter that comes from 8 Stoddard Construction with regard to Directive Number 8, 9 brackets, and it says something to the effect of the minimum 10 days that we will accept is 75 days. Either design team or 11 Stoddard is at fault for this item. Per your note, you 12 indicated they only had 54 days, and so forth and so on. 13 Who is responsible for this time delay? 14 MR. LONGNECKER: Well, the County is 15 responsible for discovered conditions. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 17 MR. LONGNECKER: But I'm not sure that this 18 is the right amount of time for this so-called delay. This 19 is all happening during the 390-day time period for the 20 construction, and it's all been completed, but we are at 21 this point certainly willing to pay for the additional 22 brackets, the additional labor, the materials that it took 23 to bring this into -- but it's the time extension we have a 24 question with. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me ask a question. 6 1 What height are these brackets installed at? Are they 2 throughout the -- 3 MR. LONGNECKER: They're installed underneath 4 the floor slab at the -- I believe the first, second, and 5 roof floors. And they have an arm that comes out and 6 fastens to an angle that's on the backside of the concrete 7 block, which is in the new masonry walls to hold it up. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I'm recalling the 9 phase -- and I agree totally; I mean, this is something that 10 was unforeseen, the actual cost of the brackets. I mean, we 11 had no idea going in that we'd find these. But, on the 12 time-delay issue, as I recall, construction on the outside 13 wall -- exterior wall started, so I presume we had the 14 brackets at that point, and then it languished for -- seemed 15 like months and months before anything was really done. And 16 it was -- and I know there was a section that was done out 17 here, and then probably maybe a third, maybe halfway down 18 this building, and it came to another break, it seemed not 19 much being done, and then it kind of sped up and got to 20 where we are at this point over here. So, I don't see how 21 there is a 60 -- I mean, from when I first saw the walls 22 going up, I would presume the bracket problem was figured 23 out by then and was solved by then. And I don't see that -- 24 you know, that that was a 60-day time lag in there. It just 25 seems like that was a lot of time -- there was a lot of 7 1 delays on the masonry work that had nothing to do with these 2 brackets. That's just -- I mean, I'm trying to figure out 3 where the 60-day delay came in. 4 MR. LONGNECKER: Basic foundation, if you go 5 clear back to the very beginning of the project, was slow in 6 getting the foundation wall itself done, and from there on 7 it's been slow ever since, as all of my previous reports -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9 MR. LONGNECKER: -- indicated. So, this is 10 the one controversy that -- in this directive that needs to 11 be resolved before this change order really can be approved. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you have a recommendation, 13 Keith, as to what you think would be a legitimate extended 14 period, if any? 15 MR. LONGNECKER: The only thing I would 16 recommend is 30 days. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 18 MR. LONGNECKER: Does that cover that item? 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want to ask any 20 questions about Directive Number 8? Okay. 21 MR. LONGNECKER: Okay, we'll move on to the 22 next item, Change Directive 10 and 11, and Directive 14, 23 Item 2. Contractor instructed to proceed on following 24 built-in furniture unit price items as indicated on -- this 25 is all pretty much understandable here. The concrete panels 8 1 that were removed from the outside walls of the second floor 2 were not disposed of by the contractor. They were hauled 3 off by the Gun Club, and they utilized the use of them. 4 That was a credit for $8,500. The built-in furniture was 5 not accepted in the original option -- original contract. 6 It was an option to be accepted, and $15,160 is for that 7 built-in furniture that went into the Court Coordinator and 8 secretary's offices. And that left a net of $6,660. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- only question 11 I have is, who approved doing it? I guess my question is -- 12 I mean, we specifically left it out because of the budget 13 considerations. It was added back in. I'm -- I mean, I -- 14 I don't know that I wouldn't have voted to do it, but I'm 15 kind of concerned about whether it was you or Linda or -- or 16 the architect or who, you know, kind of got us into doing -- 17 MR. LONGNECKER: Seemed to come under a 18 general consensus, Jonathan, that this was -- I certainly 19 didn't give any written approval of it, but it was necessary 20 that these be built-in, and they went ahead and -- and put 21 them in. As a selection -- Mike, can you offer any -- 22 MR. WALKER: They were in the original 23 contract. They were bid as this. They were actually, in 24 truth, bid way under what the value is, but we held their 25 feet to the fire, and they stepped to the plate and they did 9 1 them. The -- I think there was a consensus, as Keith says, 2 at that time that they had to be done. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Consensus among whom? I 4 don't think there was any discussion at the Court level that 5 this item needed to be -- 6 MR. WALKER: I do not know what Keith 7 discussed with the Court members, but I do -- I know that -- 8 that the building team talked about it, and it needed -- it 9 had to be in there. What official blessing it got from 10 Commissioners Court, I'm not aware of it. 11 MS. UECKER: I think, Judge, they were in the 12 plans that the -- the last plans that we all approved and 13 went to Court for approval. They showed to be built in 14 there. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: But no one other than the 16 five of us have the ability to spend money that's not 17 already budgeted. That's the issue. Coming in here -- 18 they're coming in here asking for $15,160 for work that's 19 already been done, and that money has never been 20 appropriated, never been approved. That's the issue. Any 21 other questions about 8 -- or Number 10? Okay. Let's go on 22 to 12, then. 23 MR. LONGNECKER: Change Directive 12. This 24 is a discovered condition on the north end of the building, 25 where a siamese connection was found to not have been 10 1 addressed on drawings and specifications, and as a result 2 the plumber had to spend $2,200 to relocate, rework that 3 siamese connection for fire protection. Also includes a 4 needed conduit metallic for the telephone company to get 5 from first floor to second floor that it was discovered had 6 to be put in. That was not anticipated in the drawings and 7 specifications. So, there's -- this includes several items, 8 as it's written here in this -- and a lot of these items, 9 like just like the last one -- I mean, if we did not -- if 10 we waited till we had approval to spend the money, it would 11 delay the construction even that much more. This is 12 something that needed to be done. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions about Number 14 12? If not, let's move on to Number 15. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 13. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: 13, I'm sorry. 13, I stand 17 corrected. 18 MR. LONGNECKER: 13. These are discovered 19 conditions to courthouse footings. The work is complete. 20 There was also another condition up in the courtroom where 21 there was concrete block exposed towards the courtroom, 22 which would be seen in the courtroom. It was suggested by 23 the contractor that something be done about it. It was 24 changed. There was no price given to me ahead of time on 25 this one. Contractor went ahead and did it in good faith, 11 1 thinking that it would be considered as a change order. 2 That work is also complete, and as I see it, that would also 3 include some carpet, some wood base, things that would be 4 very much outstanding. If you -- if you know what I'm 5 referring to, it's that small little adding room right to 6 the -- as you face -- in Courtroom 1, as you look to the 7 right, where the Judge enters the bench area, that little 8 area there. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keith, explain, 10 please, for my purposes why this Number 3 item would create 11 a 23-day extension of time. 12 MR. LONGNECKER: I can't. I'm going to have 13 to ask the contractor to explain that when he gets a chance 14 to talk. I mean, I think we will reserve time for them to 15 speak to these added changes. I can't explain it. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody behind you 17 is standing up. 18 MR. WALKER: I approved it -- Mike Walker, 19 architect. I approved it on the basis of -- of negotiation 20 with the contractor, who wanted quite a bit more time than 21 that. On the basis of it was -- it almost fell under an 22 emergency situation, where it would have been a major delay 23 had it not gone forward. The time there is for the ordering 24 of the -- the finding the condition, the further excavation, 25 the ordering of the steel, which was probably the biggest 12 1 delay, and getting the steel back up here. I'm not quite 2 sure why it took so long and never was clear about that, but 3 I did know that we had to allow a reasonable amount of time, 4 at least two weeks, in order for that steel to be ordered 5 and brought in and then put it in place. So, that was -- 6 and also they had to pour some concrete piers up off of the 7 sono tubes, if you know what those round tubes are, that had 8 to be brought up to extend the floor up to where it needed 9 to be to support the floor properly, because the piers were 10 not as they showed on the original drawings. And I thought 11 that was a reasonable amount of time in order to be able to 12 get that done. 13 MR. LONGNECKER: The -- there's a letter from 14 Stoddard Construction with your -- that indicates they 15 have -- and they've asked for 35 days. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The letter says they 17 will accept 35. The item says 23, so where -- are we 18 somewhere in between 23 and 35? 19 MR. LONGNECKER: We're at 23. That's what's 20 been requested; that's what we have on -- included in the 21 time consideration on the presentation of the change order. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tell me again why this delay 23 was necessitated. 24 MR. WALKER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why the delay was 13 1 necessitated. 2 MR. WALKER: The delay was necessitated 3 because the original plans for this 1926 courthouse showed 4 the piers to be up at a certain elevation, which was -- 5 would have been right below where the floor level was. When 6 the contractor started excavating, he didn't hit any piers, 7 so he kept going, and he eventually found the piers -- what, 8 Frank? 9 MR. THOMPSON: About 5 feet. 10 MR. WALKER: Five feet deeper than what they 11 showed on these drawings, so he had to come up, had to dig 12 down through those piers, come off of those piers with four 13 little pony piers, and bring it up to the point where we 14 could have a level floor and a tunnel connecting the two 15 lower levels. And, so, that required complete -- and he 16 already had steel on the job for the way it was supposed to 17 be, and he had to order new -- new reinforcing steel and, of 18 course, do the excavation, the form work, quite a bit more 19 work than -- than he would have done otherwise had he found 20 those -- those big, square footings up where they should 21 have been. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, are you saying that in 23 preparing the plans and specifications for the renovation, 24 you relied exclusively on the 1926 drawings? 25 MR. WALKER: We had -- yes, sir, we relied on 14 1 some of them. It was 10 feet under the ground. 2 MR. LONGNECKER: They're under the ground; 3 there's no way of knowing other than the record drawings of 4 the existing building. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions about 6 Number 13? If not, let's go to Number 16. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 14. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Or 14. 9 MR. LONGNECKER: 14. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: 14. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're trying to move 12 this along, aren't you? 13 MR. LONGNECKER: Replace and repaint 2-by-4 14 fluorescent light fixtures in the exterior plaster soffit, 15 east entry lower level. This is at the sallyport; is that 16 right, Mike? 17 MR. WALKER: Yes, correct. 18 MR. LONGNECKER: They were not shown on the 19 drawings. And, decided that they were needed, and that's 20 what that was added -- that addition is for, was the 21 switching and so forth. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions? Now we can go 23 to Number 15. 24 MR. LONGNECKER: Okay. This begins with the 25 changing of sheet vinyl in the corridors on both sides of 15 1 Courtroom Number 1 and the north hallway, from vinyl to 2 carpet, and rubber base. There was a discussion while I was 3 not here, and perhaps Mike should discuss this one -- 4 address this first item, Number 6. 5 MR. WALKER: That item was -- again, in Mr. 6 Longnecker's absence, some of the staff -- judicial staff 7 came forward and said, we need carpet in the corridor for 8 more acoustical -- less acoustical transmission out in the 9 hallway, so they could have more quiet in the courtroom. 10 This was specifically against what the maintenance folks had 11 asked for, which was to have a slick surface, an easy-to- 12 maintain surface, but it was -- it could have caused some 13 noise problems in the corridor. This was an acoustical 14 improvement over what was -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This raises the same 16 question Commissioner Letz raised earlier. Approve -- it's 17 already done. We took a header on $1,688 of purchased stock 18 that couldn't be returned, and nobody down here knew 19 anything about it. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: If truth be known, that was 21 right about the time that I sent the memo to Mr. Walker and 22 everyone involved that they did not have the authority to 23 authorize expenditures without the approval of this Court. 24 MR. WALKER: That is correct. And, sir, I 25 did not make the decision to go with this. 16 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Who did? 2 MR. WALKER: I do not know. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Somebody did. I doubt that 4 Mr. Stoddard did. I doubt that Mr. Thompson did. 5 MR. WALKER: There was no directive issued 6 for me until after the work was already done. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: This one bothers me, 'cause 8 this was brought to my attention two days before I got 9 married. I was called in here to an early morning 10 meeting -- had three meetings, issued a memo to Mr. Walker 11 and everyone else involved reminding them that they had 12 absolutely no authority to expend funds not otherwise 13 budgeted on behalf of Kerr County. The only people who had 14 the authority to do that was the Commissioners Court. And 15 they went ahead and did this. I'm saying -- not necessarily 16 saying it was not necessary, but I'm saying that they went 17 ahead and did it knowing that they didn't have the authority 18 to do so. 19 MR. LONGNECKER: When I received the 20 information on this, it was supposed to have been a wash 21 between vinyl and carpet and labor and everything. And I 22 understand that the Maintenance Department would like to 23 have the vinyl, since it couldn't be restocked, to be used 24 in another facility belonging to the County. And, I asked 25 at that time for what the cost would be. The contractor 17 1 went ahead and put the carpet in anyway before I ever had a 2 chance to see any figures or the architect had a chance to 3 see any figures. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who ordered it? Who 5 ordered the carpet? 6 MR. LONGNECKER: It was requested by the 7 clerk -- or the court staff upstairs. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Henderson? I mean -- 9 MR. LONGNECKER: Well, Judge Ables and Prohl 10 and Henderson. And they asked that this be done -- or 11 requested it be done. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's clearly one 13 that should come to the Court, right? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 MR. LONGNECKER: I agree. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I mean, there's no 17 question on that -- on that one. 18 MS. UECKER: In their defense, I don't think 19 that they -- they requested it, and I was up there at the 20 time, and I did too. And I said, you know, this is -- this 21 is going to be real noisy coming down the hall with two 22 courtrooms and station -- 'cause you can hear. And we even 23 did -- closed the door and did some walking tests. But I 24 don't think it -- it was their understanding or mine that it 25 was going to be done prior to the approval of this change 18 1 order, which it was. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess part of the 3 problem I have is that, I mean, we're building a facility; 4 we want it to be nice, but I'm going back to whenever we 5 renovated the first and second floor of this building -- 6 Mr. Walker will remember that -- that we cut things out 7 specifically because we couldn't afford them. One of the 8 things they cut out was all the Commissioners have windows 9 that are drafty; we didn't replace them, and Mr. Walker -- 10 we redid some of them in the building, but we just got to 11 the point we couldn't afford to redo them all, and we just 12 make do with, you know, something that's not real 13 convenient. And to have, you know, individuals in the 14 County government making decisions of expenditure of funds 15 is just -- drives me crazy, plus being illegal. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any 17 questions about Number 15? 18 MR. LONGNECKER: That's Item Number 6. 19 Eight -- this is in the -- which is a discovered condition 20 for $121 to fix the lights after a new ceiling was put in 21 the Court of Law courtroom over here on the first floor, and 22 that's that the electrician wanted to remove some flanges 23 from those lights so they would fit the new ceiling. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keith, going back to 25 Number 6, the sentence says owner may purchase and take 19 1 possession of sheet vinyl floors which could not be 2 restocked for credit of $1,600. Do we now have that in 3 storage somewhere? 4 MR. LONGNECKER: Glenn, do you have that yet? 5 MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir. 6 MR. LONGNECKER: No, it hasn't been delivered 7 yet by the contractor. 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 MR. LONGNECKER: It's supposedly in storage. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we going to -- what 11 are we going to do with it? Why do we want it? 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: My understanding is that 13 Mr. Holekamp was going to basically purchase it out of his 14 budget for using out at the jail. Is that correct, Glenn? 15 MR. HOLEKAMP: Sheriff's Office -- excuse me. 16 Sheriff's offices, dispatch, and break room, which we're 17 trying to eliminate the carpet in there because of the 18 inability to clean it properly. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 20 MR. HOLEKAMP: Those are areas that we have 21 dust problems and -- 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: So you're going to write us a 23 check for $1,688, is that it? 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: Write a check? 25 (Discussion off the record.) 20 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Number 9. 2 MR. LONGNECKER: Number 9, North Entry EIFS 3 redesign. This is another one that the contractor insists 4 that was changed from the original drawings and so forth; 5 that the subcontractor is looking for another $171 there, 6 something I did not approve. That's the way it's coming in 7 in our construction meetings to try and get all of the 8 changes together. Is it basically for some reinforcing -- 9 MR. WALKER: Yes. It's an issue here, but 10 the -- back in the last Court, we -- they accepted the bids 11 based on a product called Phypon, which is a little bit 12 tougher than the EFIS that was put out there. It was my 13 decision to get a cost. It's not been put on. It's a cost 14 for some protective angles on that EFIS. If you've ever 15 seen it installed in shopping centers and so forth, it gets 16 banged up on the edges. And with all the dollies and 17 license plates and everything going in and out, it just 18 seemed to be the thing to do to protect it a little bit 19 more, just do a little bit more, go down the side to protect 20 those edges. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Number 13 we like, I believe. 22 MR. LONGNECKER: That's the one that I issued 23 an owner's directive to change. They went ahead and did 24 that prior to giving me a price, but it did come out as a -- 25 a deduct of $624. Number 17, the Sheriff's Department has 21 1 asked for -- as well as fire officials, that door X-15, 2 which is an existing door at the top of the stairway just 3 behind the existing elevator, which is out of the men's 4 holding cell, to the stairway. Sheriff asked that this door 5 be permanently closed or taken out and blocked up. We gave 6 the contractor the option of either putting -- taking the 7 door clear out and blocking up the wall, or simply welding 8 it shut, take the glass out of it, and make sure it was 9 sealed at the bottom so that nothing could be slid under the 10 door, and that it would not be any longer used. They opted 11 to do the latter, to weld it shut. And this, of course, is 12 the price that they are wanting for that change in the work. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: By welding it shut, I 14 mean, they just welded the door to the jamb? 15 MR. LONGNECKER: The door to the jamb. They 16 took the glass out, put a steel plate in it, put an angle 17 across the bottom that seals it to the floor. It's locked 18 and everything; there's no way to slide anything under the 19 door. 20 MR. WALKER: It's a thing of beauty, 21 Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm just looking 23 at -- that's probably a couple hours worth of welding for 24 $1,000 dollars. 25 MR. WALKER: They had to add some plates to 22 1 it. 2 MR. LONGNECKER: Steel plates, steel angle. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Weren't there some things 4 that they would have done that they didn't have to do, 5 though? 6 MR. WALKER: They would have had to paint it. 7 MR. LONGNECKER: Yeah. The painting is -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 9 MR. WALKER: They'd have to replace the 10 glass -- exterior glass. And, I -- I felt like that this 11 was a little bit high, but at our last construction meeting 12 it was agreed upon, so it was -- let's carry on, present it 13 to you for consideration. I still feel it's high. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So do I. 15 MR. LONGNECKER: 19 is another one I never 16 have approved, and feel like that when the electrician saw 17 the door move, he should have moved the switch with it. 18 (Off-the-record discussion between Mr. Longnecker and Mr. Walker.) 19 20 MR. LONGNECKER: That this should have been 21 moved and placed when the door was moved from one side of 22 the office in the hallway to the other side of the office. 23 Simply didn't get moved and was left, and now the switch is 24 about 10 to 11 feet away from the door. That work has not 25 been done yet. And 21, speakers, buzzers, and that stuff, 23 1 this work has not been done yet. This is a system whereby 2 the Court Coordinator and/or secretaries can open the doors 3 to their departments from the public area that's at this end 4 of the second floor outside of Courtroom 1. And that's what 5 the 11 -- that $1,107.70 is for. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other option is to 7 use a key? 8 MR. LONGNECKER: Get up and go open the door. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Could those two items be done 10 after the project is completed? 11 MR. LONGNECKER: I believe so, yes. 12 MR. WALKER: There may be some wall damage 13 done as a result of the work that they do there. They will 14 have to fish wires down in the wall. We certainly prefer 15 that they not surface-mount it. But there was no conduit or 16 anything involved; it's all low-voltage wiring that can be 17 fished into the walls. And, as I understand it, the staff 18 feels like that they need it immediately. This is something 19 that was only brought to our attention in June, later in the 20 project, and we looked at several options. Some even had -- 21 they had color monitors where you could see exactly who it 22 was, and that was -- you know, they ranged up to, like, 23 $5,500 for that. But they opted to go for this sort of a -- 24 this is really the low end of the spectrum in -- in the cost 25 of communication buzzer systems. 24 1 MS. UECKER: Mike, that was discussed -- I 2 remember those discussions in the initial -- before the 3 plans were even drawn, when we were saying this is what we 4 need and this is what we don't, and I specifically remember 5 that conversation, that that should be part of that system. 6 MR. WALKER: I respectfully disagree with the 7 honorable County -- District Clerk, rather. 8 MS. UECKER: Bite me. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, 22. 10 MR. LONGNECKER: 22 has not been completed 11 either. Those are condensate drains that will drain the 12 condensate from the rooftop condenser units to the roof 13 drains. In fact, this is PVC pipe, probably one inch in 14 diameter, that will keep the water from running on the roof 15 and creating a mess. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why are these add-on? It 17 would seem to me those would be fairly fundamental to have 18 in the original plans. 19 MR. LONGNECKER: I agree. 20 MR. WALKER: Sounds like me. Possibly so. 21 The value that you're getting for them is not any more or 22 less than had they been put on now or put on later. 23 Certainly, an add-on deal -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: But if they'd have been put 25 on originally, we'd have borrowed the money for them. 25 1 MR. WALKER: I understand, sir. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure that I intend to 3 take money from the taxpayers to make up for somebody's 4 inability -- 5 MR. WALKER: Will the taxpayers still not get 6 $499.50 worth of value, sir? 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a good question. 8 Seems to me that if we engage somebody to provide us with a 9 full set of plans and specifications, that something that 10 they missed that was fairly obvious is something that 11 probably should be their responsibility. 12 MR. WALKER: So the County should get it for 13 free? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you not agree with that? 15 MR. WALKER: The County should get it for 16 free? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: I didn't say that, but I said 18 shouldn't it be the responsibility of the person who didn't 19 perform their duties in the original -- 20 MR. WALKER: It is not -- in our estimation, 21 it was not totally necessary. There was some problems 22 created by the slope of the fill that was installed up there 23 that caused the water to pond rather than drain off. It 24 would have been preferable to have it. I would remind you, 25 sir, that, with all due respect, part of our job was to 26 1 attempt to bring this thing in for budget. Had I looked 2 back at this -- hindsight is perfect -- and said right now, 3 would I have put them in knowing what it came in for? Yes, 4 I would. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many drains is this 6 one -- how many units are up there? 7 MR. WALKER: Seven. 8 MR. LONGNECKER: Seven, mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just -- I mean, I'm -- 10 I agree, it needs to be done, but I'm just looking at the 11 price. I mean, Maintenance Department could do it for a lot 12 less than $500. We're talking about no more than $50 worth 13 of PVC, 100 feet of PVC -- that's actually 200 feet of PVC, 14 probably, and then the labor. 15 MR. WALKER: Have you seen the plans, sir? 16 It's considerable; it's a lot of it, and it is -- it is 17 labor-involved. And, I think that you would want them 18 installed in such a way that you don't have any problems, 19 and it would be properly supported. If Maintenance wants to 20 do it, I think I'd be glad to show them how it needs to be 21 done. 22 MR. LONGNECKER: Any more questions on that 23 item? They're not complete yet. If you want to move on to 24 23, the circuit breakers are -- have they been put in, Mike? 25 MR. WALKER: They're put in. I don't think 27 1 they -- 2 (Off-the-record discussion between Mr. Walker and Mr. Thompson.) 3 4 MR. WALKER: They have not put them in, I'm 5 incorrect on that one. They are not complete. 6 MR. LONGNECKER: Did you explain to the Court 7 why those are necessary? 8 MR. WALKER: Those were existing units that 9 were moved to the outside of the buildings so we could save 10 the money and not buy new condensing units and air handlers, 11 and they just simply extend them out to the outside. When 12 our electrical engineer did those, he missed the fact that 13 they were 3-pole instead of 2-pole. There are -- were other 14 solutions, but by the time they got to this point, the 15 easier, less expensive thing to do was put in 3-pole 16 breakers. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Our electrical engineer? Who 18 are we referring to? 19 MR. WALKER: Lux Engineering, the folks that 20 work for me. 21 MR. LONGNECKER: The fire marshal added a 22 fire exit map sign on the second floor annex. And is that 23 complete? That's not complete yet, it says. 24 MR. WALKER: No. We've approved the shop 25 drawings, but they've not been released to be constructed. 28 1 It's just one extra sign, fire exit sign. 2 MR. LONGNECKER: This total is $8,104.51 for 3 this Directive 15, of which four items are not complete, and 4 the other items are all complete at this time. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see six items not 6 complete. 7 MR. LONGNECKER: Yeah, six items are not 8 complete and four are -- or four -- five are not. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions about 10 Number 15? 11 MR. LONGNECKER: Looks like five are not -- 12 five complete and five not complete. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's move to Number 16. 14 MR. LONGNECKER: Okay. Okay, 16, stop work 15 on the courtroom bench seating, Courtrooms 1 and 2, modify 16 the scope of work for that seating. It seems that the 17 benches -- the seats that were designed for those two 18 courtrooms were rather uncomfortable to most anyone who sat 19 in them, and they were not acceptable. They were, indeed, 20 low-cost benches, coming to something in the neighborhood of 21 $70 per seat; count up the number of seats that these 22 benches accommodate, which is a low -- very low price 23 compared to something like church pews or seats -- seating 24 that is now in the Court of Law -- existing in the Court of 25 Law here on the first floor. So, that has been stopped. 29 1 This work has not been done or -- or completed. We put it 2 in this change order. It could have been submitted prior to 3 this, but we decided to include everything in this change 4 order in order to get a few things through. What this does, 5 it modifies the seats to raise the back, widen the seat, 6 itself, and create a more comfortable bench to sit on. The 7 $11,857.12 is for both courtrooms. Mike, how many seats 8 will this accommodate? Between 280 and 300 seats? 9 MR. WALKER: Tell you in just a second. 10 MR. LONGNECKER: For both courtrooms. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Keith, you're talking 12 about here also removing one -- the front row to add room? 13 MR. LONGNECKER: Moving one front row. 14 That's part of the Item 3, or -- to move the railing back. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the hardware upon 16 which the back and the seat are mounted -- is that going to 17 save that? 18 MR. LONGNECKER: That stays the same. All 19 we -- that stays the same. We have not changed that. We've 20 not changed the color. They're painted black; they're going 21 to stay black. We have another option, to add additional 22 wood trim to those seats to make them look more like church 23 pews or the benches in Court of Law. But, at this point, 24 we're only submitting what is necessary to make the seats 25 more comfortable. Included in this change is the change to 30 1 move the railing between the counsel tables and the seating 2 area, which requires moving one row of seats. We'll move it 3 back so that the tables are not too close to the jury box. 4 It was thought by the judges that these tables -- the way 5 they would have to be located would be too close to the jury 6 box, maybe allowing the jurors to read something that may be 7 on the counselor's table, the one next to the jury box. So, 8 that has been included here someplace in this railing -- 9 that's Item 8 down towards the bottom. We also will move 10 back the floor outlets for electrical and sound system. 11 That's included here with the -- this whole change is 12 $28,837.74 to make the minimum changes to put the courtroom 13 in order that everyone can be satisfied with; seating, 14 arrangement of furniture, and function of the courtroom, so 15 that it satisfies everyone. This work has not been started. 16 It has been delayed now for some 60 days or more, which 17 needs to be addressed, approved, and -- and the work can 18 continue. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least we were aware of 20 this one. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, this is the one 22 that we talked about in court, wasn't it? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: And this Number 8 involves 25 moving the electrical, because we're moving the attorneys 31 1 tables back; is that correct? 2 MR. LONGNECKER: Yes. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Also involves moving the 4 electrical for the podium. 5 MR. LONGNECKER: Podium. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Which podium was directly in 7 line of sight from half of the jury box to the witness. 8 MR. LONGNECKER: That's true. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Whose -- whose plan was that? 10 MR. LONGNECKER: Mr. Walker's. 11 MR. WALKER: May I address that issue, 12 please? 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I would like to know whether 14 you had considered the need for the jury to observe the 15 witness when being questioned by the attorneys at the podium 16 when you established it. 17 MR. WALKER: Yes, we considered a lot of 18 things in this. Keep in mind that we worked off of an old 19 plan that was approved by a previous Court before I took the 20 job. We were told to finish the drawings. We're talking 21 1996 now, when you do Phase I, Phase II, Phase III. We were 22 handed a set of plans and told, "Finish these plans," which 23 we were handed by the previous architect. When we took 24 those plans and we started reviewing them with the judicial 25 staff and the District Clerk, there were a number of 32 1 problems found. There were a number of issues which were 2 discussed. And, not to obliterate this with too 3 much generality, the -- there was a lot of redesign done in 4 moving what was to be the District Court above us and 5 putting it over there where the Courtroom Number 2 is now, 6 as you see it. The courtrooms were changed somewhat, but 7 the layout was not that different. 8 I could tell at that time that there was a 9 certain amount of uncertainty with the judicial staff 10 where -- exactly what they were getting. I came to 11 Commissioners Court and I asked them to appropriate some 12 money to build a mock-up. I circulated amongst them a 13 judicial trade magazine in which they had done exactly the 14 same thing in Travis County. It was very helpful in helping 15 the lawyers, district court, the judges understand what they 16 were going to get. I offered -- also offered them the 17 option of doing computer modeling so they could at least 18 understand what they might be getting. Both of those were 19 turned down by Commissioners Court as being too expensive, 20 and that the Court -- we were told at the time that the 21 judicial staff should know what they wanted, and go ahead 22 and get it. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you're saying -- 24 MR. WALKER: So we made -- 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- without a computer model 33 1 or without a mock-up, you couldn't tell that somebody 2 sitting here with a witness here couldn't see through the 3 man standing in the middle of the podium? 4 MR. WALKER: There were -- there were a lot 5 of issues there. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the issue -- 7 MR. WALKER: But they signed -- the judicial 8 staff signed -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the issue I'm 10 questioning you about now, is the placement of the podium. 11 MR. WALKER: The placement -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Directly in line of sight of 13 the lower half of the jury box and the witness. I've sat in 14 the jury box, I've had someone sit in the witness chair and 15 someone stand where the podium was, and you're telling me 16 that without a computer model or a -- or a scale model of 17 the courtroom, you couldn't tell that that blockage existed? 18 MR. WALKER: No, sir. I could -- I could 19 certainly see where sight lines were and were not, and I 20 could also tell -- and the -- the staff said that things -- 21 where they were is where they wanted it. They signed off on 22 the plans, and we went into production. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you tell staff that 24 they were not going to be able to see from the jury box to 25 the witness stand? 34 1 MR. WALKER: There are a number of places 2 that you can't exactly see everything. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- I mean, 4 we're talking about a pretty important line of sight here, 5 from the jury box to the witness. And going back to the 6 other comment about going off old architect plans, well, 7 that is true, but this design has no resemblance to what you 8 were given originally. And as I was coordinator from the 9 Court at the time, working with you, we completely changed 10 the layout of that courtroom. We completely changed the 11 whole layout of the entire floor. So if you're going back 12 and saying that this is because you were working off old 13 architect's drawings, it's ridiculous, Mr. Walker. 14 MR. WALKER: Well, I will be glad to sit down 15 with you and show you those plans and show you -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can show you the plans; 17 I know what they look like, but we redid the jury box from 18 one side to the other. We -- 19 MR. WALKER: Several times. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. So don't 21 tell me that the jury box placement is because some old 22 architect put it there. You put the jury box there and you 23 but the podium there. 24 MR. WALKER: Right where it was. Yes, I did. 25 MS. UECKER: Your Honor, the podium is 35 1 mobile. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: What? 3 MS. UECKER: The podium is mobile. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not really, because there's a 5 fixed electrical outlet where that podium has to go. The 6 podium itself might be moved, but the microphone has to be 7 there. 8 MS. UECKER: Well, there's still some leeway, 9 some -- you can either move it back or forth. I mean, I 10 just didn't want you to -- 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: We're talking about the cost 12 here, the electrical -- moving the electrical, replacing the 13 electrical. 14 MS. UECKER: I just didn't want you to be 15 under the impression it was a fixed podium, 'cause it's not. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: The location is fairly fixed. 17 MR. WALKER: To put the podium where we 18 showed it on the plans was not even where the judges decided 19 two months ago that they wanted it. And they -- they now 20 want it back between the two lawyer's tables. That was 21 never conveyed to us, ever. And, as she says, the podium 22 was mobile anyway. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not that mobile. Not when 24 there's a fixed outlet. 25 MR. WALKER: It is, because -- 36 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not when it's a fixed outlet. 2 Maybe if you're going to run a 15-foot cord from your 3 electrical outlet to the microphone, then you can move the 4 podium around, but if you put the podium where the 5 electrical outlet is placed in the floor, it blocks the view 6 of the lower half of the jury box. 7 MR. WALKER: Okay. And the purpose for that 8 podium being anywhere near that location is so that the -- 9 the attorney or whoever it is that's giving the presentation 10 on the screens can be at a point where they can see that. 11 If he were giving a presentation on the screen, there would 12 not be a witness sitting across from him in the jury box, 13 would there? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you were giving -- if you 15 were questioning a witness -- 16 MR. WALKER: Mm-hmm. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the jury is here and he's 18 standing where that electrical outlet is, and the podium -- 19 MR. WALKER: It wouldn't necessarily be in 20 the way, and if it were in the way, he has a lavaliere mic, 21 a mobile mic he can move around. We could not predetermine 22 where every lawyer was going to stand in that courthouse and 23 talk to witnesses. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: The Judge can. 25 MR. WALKER: Well, then, the Judge should 37 1 have approved the plan the way he wanted it, Your Honor. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Walker, are you 3 saying we don't need to do this? If the podium is mobile, 4 and we don't need to -- you think they can move wherever 5 they want, we don't need to do Number 8. 6 MR. WALKER: We could leave that outlet where 7 it is. The other two outlets, where they -- they want more 8 distance from -- between the witnesses and the attorney's 9 tables, I think would have been proven up in a mock-up in a 10 heartbeat. So, that -- that necessitates moving those boxes 11 back. Otherwise, you're going to have a tripping problem 12 with wires, people crossing back and forth. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm tired of you trying 14 to blame this on the mock-up. If you, as the architect, 15 can't tell the layout of the courtroom and advise the staff 16 of a problem, then you shouldn't be doing this kind of work, 17 period. 18 MR. LONGNECKER: Any more -- I'd like to go 19 ahead and finish with the last item. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's go on to Item Number 8, 21 miscellaneous changes. 22 MR. LONGNECKER: And miscellaneous change 23 requests by the owner, not done yet. It's to provide a 24 voltage balance regulator module for storm sump pump to -- 25 at the control panel. There's been some problems there 38 1 with -- it's not automatically coming on, and in the event 2 that there was a heavy storm, this is something that was 3 needed to make sure that that sump pump operates correctly 4 to relieve any water accumulation, water accumulating down 5 at the lower level parking areas, on site. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is this something that needs 7 to be done as part of this contract, or can it be done 8 independently or after the fact? 9 MR. LONGNECKER: It possibly could be done 10 independently, but I believe it would be wise to include it 11 in this contract. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 13 MR. LONGNECKER: Well, that is the total of 14 the change order. And, at this time, if you would like to 15 question the contractor, I'm glad to turn it over to him or 16 anyone else. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one more 18 question of you, Mr. Longnecker. As I look at this Change 19 Order Number 3, there are two contractor's claims for 20 extended time. One is 60 days and one is 23 days, for a 21 total of $41,921. I thought I understood your comments as 22 that do you not believe that those amounts of time are 23 justified. 24 MR. LONGNECKER: That's what's I said, yes. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 83 days claimed. 39 1 What would you think is a reasonable amount of time? 2 MR. LONGNECKER: Well, I would -- I've always 3 had in mind about 63 days. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 63? 5 MR. LONGNECKER: 63, yes. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 7 MR. LONGNECKER: One of the problems, I 8 think, with the contract from the very beginning, and I 9 might as well mention this now, is the -- it's stated in 10 Mr. Walker's letter here that there is no penalty to the 11 contractor if he causes delays in the construction, which 12 we, as the owner -- the way the general conditions of the 13 contracts are written, which is spelled out, which is 14 included here, part of the A.I.A. document for general 15 conditions. We've cleared those pages in the change order 16 as well as the general conditions, and he should have 17 extended time. Now, he is not satisfied even with the 83 18 days; he wants even more than that. As I add it up, we 19 started with 390 days on the contract, beginning 20 January 25th of 1999, and then we added 40 days with the two 21 previous Change Orders 1 and 2, to extend it to 430 days -- 22 430 days. And still, it doesn't seem to be enough time. 23 And I'm still willing for the brackets and the discovered 24 condition at the foundation to be extended approximately 63 25 days, but I think that's up to the Court. Also, I would 40 1 like to mention that, keeping in mind that the way 2 construction costs are today, that we can tolerate some of 3 this and still get a very good job completed, and still be 4 within a reasonable cost frame. I can expound more on that 5 in a written report, which I'll probably do before we're 6 finished with the job. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any more questions of 8 Mr. Longnecker? If not, Mr. Stoddard, do you have anything 9 you want to offer at this time? 10 MR. STODDARD: Yeah, I think we have some 11 documents. 12 MS. RAMIREZ: Hi, I'm Tricia Ramirez, and I 13 am Project Manager on the project. I deal on a day-to-day 14 basis with Frank, and I actually spend probably 50 percent 15 of my time every day talking to him on the phone about 16 issues. We prepared just a little summary. May I? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, you may. 18 MS. RAMIREZ: And this is only partial, and 19 I'm not going to read it verbatim to you, but I will cover 20 some points that were just brought up. Okay. Change 21 Directive Number 8, which is the third item down. 22 Basically, we were stopped on June 14th because, as Mr. 23 Longnecker said, there were tendons that were in bunches, 24 and it was not shown on the original plans. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Excuse me. Are you saying 41 1 that from June 14th to November 5th, you were unable to do 2 any work whatsoever? 3 MS. RAMIREZ: No, sir, that's not what I'm 4 saying. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: You weren't -- 6 MS. RAMIREZ: We were stopped on the 7 brackets. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 9 MS. RAMIREZ: The first -- the first thing, 10 really, probably that I should tell you is that this whole 11 project, the progress of it, is based on the exterior, the 12 masonry. The masonry had to be completed in order for the 13 roof, the brick -- the windows inside the building could not 14 be started if the windows were not placed. It had to be a 15 weather-tight building. We went ahead and did a lot of the 16 things under our own risk without a roof, without all the 17 windows installed. And it all started when the delay in the 18 brackets -- the design had to be redesigned. 19 Basically, what happened was we demo'd the 20 precast panels. We started trying to locate the tendons. 21 The tendons were not where they were anticipated, per the 22 previous as-built drawings. We came to the conclusion that 23 these tendons were in bunches in certain areas. We could 24 not penetrate those tendons, so the engineer had to redesign 25 the whole -- the exterior and the placement of the brackets. 42 1 So, basically, we couldn't move forward with our CMU, we 2 couldn't move forward with our -- our brick facade. We 3 could not do that work because it was being redesigned and 4 we still had to order materials, we had to do a test to see 5 if the new design was going to work. We couldn't proceed 6 until the test was completed and approved by the owner. So, 7 basically, we were stopped on June 14th, when we notified 8 the architects and the engineer that the design wasn't going 9 to work because of the existing conditions. Finally, we got 10 a notice, we got drawings and everything was clear, but by 11 the time we actually started, that's including the 12 procurement time, we did not start installing brackets again 13 until November 5th. At that point, we started and we were 14 back full force. So, basically, we were delayed 153 days we 15 could not move forward because it was being redesigned. So, 16 that's Change Directive Number 8. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on that. It 18 took 153 days to have the architects redesign the brackets? 19 Is that correct, Mr. Walker? 20 MS. RAMIREZ: I have a timeline. If you read 21 down, if the original design would have worked, it would 22 have been fine, but on June 14th, we notified him that this 23 design was not working, okay? Then in July I actually sent 24 a formal letter saying that it was not working. It was 25 called a Request for Information. But, until then, no, we 43 1 got no actual solution. We got several solutions -- we got 2 probably 70 drawings. They worked a lot on trying to figure 3 out something that worked. We even sent a drawing to them, 4 a recommendation. They didn't like our recommendation. 5 But, yes, it took a long time before the engineer could 6 figure out what exactly to do. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you saying that 8 within that 153-day time delay, you were unable to do any 9 work? 10 MS. RAMIREZ: No, we worked on the inside. 11 We -- we shouldn't have been working on the inside, but we 12 went full force on the inside when our area wasn't 13 protected. We even had some damage and we -- at our own 14 cost, we had to replace the damaged drywall or acoustical 15 ceiling. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what would be the 17 net delay? The gross delay would be the 153 days. With the 18 amount of work that you -- that you did inside or in another 19 location, what then would be the net delay? 20 MS. RAMIREZ: The net delay would be the 153 21 days, because you cannot get to this elevator over here on 22 this side. We -- this whole elevator was held up because 23 the masonry was held up. It started on this side and had to 24 go all the way around. So, I mean, what we're waiting on 25 right now are changes from the owners in the courtroom, and 44 1 this elevator, the elevator's not in because we were delayed 2 on this side. We were supposed to start on this side per 3 the contract documents, and we did -- we closed this ramp 4 up, we worked all the way around. But, if we weren't 5 delayed in starting on this side, we would have made it 6 across to this elevator a lot sooner. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, in the meantime, 8 you did other work at another location, for which a day's 9 time would not have to be credited in some other column; is 10 that correct? 11 MS. RAMIREZ: Well, we shouldn't have been 12 working on the inside, but we did. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you did, so 14 therefore the time allocated for that work has been used in 15 another position. That's why I'm asking what would the net 16 delay be. 17 MS. RAMIREZ: No, you can't -- 18 MR. STODDARD: May I please -- go ahead, 19 Trish. 20 MS. RAMIREZ: You can't do it that way. 21 MR. STODDARD: Well, we did some -- some 22 interior work, but the bottom line is we could not get in 23 and complete that interior until such time as we got the 24 masonry. Actually, we did get quite a bit -- like Tricia 25 said, the problem being one of the things, as you well 45 1 know -- I know the Judge does, because he talked to me about 2 it -- the east ramp required some of the masonry being done 3 below grade to start that ramp and do a backfill. So -- and 4 the brackets are part of the masonry. And one of the big 5 keys to this thing moving around to the west ramp, as I know 6 that you know that, in order to do that, we had to complete 7 the east ramp. Part of the problem with completing the east 8 ramp is because we also had to have this issue settled with 9 the masonry. It was settled sometime in November, to where 10 we could get started with the brackets and so on, and sort 11 of poured the ramp in December, towards the end of December, 12 and then there was some other issues with aluminum and 13 glass. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Wait a minute. Those are not 15 our responsibility. 16 MR. STODDARD: What's that? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: The aluminum glass, the fact 18 that your subcontractor came out here and didn't measure 19 right. 20 MS. RAMIREZ: Well, that's not true; that's 21 not all the details. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, the schedule I have 23 shows your completion of the east ramp on April 27th, 1999. 24 You and I had a conversation on November 1st, 1999, at which 25 I questioned the pace of the project. The east ramp was 46 1 completed on February the 5th of 2000. 2 MR. STODDARD: Yes. I'm sorry -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Ten months -- 4 MS. RAMIREZ: I addressed that in this 5 letter. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- behind schedule. 7 MR. STODDARD: Sorry, we had a completion of 8 April of '99? 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: The original schedule I have, 10 which is the only schedule that's really ever been delivered 11 to me and approved, shows east ramp 11 -- Number 1100, 12 finish April 27th, 1999 -- no, I guess that's east ramp 13 start. My apologies. East ramp completion is September of 14 1999. So, you're only five months late on the east ramp. 15 MR. STODDARD: And that's exactly what we're 16 explaining to you. We couldn't do the east ramp because of 17 the masonry issue, which is tied to the brackets. We could 18 not -- it was November before we could actually get that -- 19 that east ramp up and going because of the necessity of 20 below-grade masonry. When that was completed, we did that 21 ramp in a month, had the people come out to do the aluminum 22 and glass, and we took maybe five weeks to do that ramp. I 23 don't think it was even that long. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well -- 25 MR. STODDARD: Right after the conversation 47 1 we had with you, yes, sir. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not during the five -- 3 MR. STODDARD: Sir? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: From November 1st until 5 February 5th, which is substantially more than five weeks. 6 MR. STODDARD: You're speaking of the ramp 7 specifically? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 9 MR. STODDARD: Okay. Not the aluminum. 10 February was after the aluminum was put in. We finished the 11 ramp in December, had the glass and aluminum people 12 scheduled to come out in January and put in the aluminum 13 glass. There was some obstructions here behind the wall 14 that were not shown on the drawings. We measured what was 15 shown on the drawings, those dimensions, had them back, 16 fabricated the aluminum glass, came back out here. When we 17 went to put it in, moved the temporary wall, and we found 18 there was columns in there, which required another drawing. 19 We received the drawing January 20th -- received 20 January 20th, the drawing. By February 5th or 7th, we had 21 your aluminum glass completely changed. Ordered tempered 22 glass. So, we couldn't start the ramp till sometime in 23 November. We would have had the glass in and everything in 24 the first week in January, except it didn't fit because of 25 some items in the wall that were not shown to be there. 48 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: How much time was used by 2 having to find another subcontractor to drill the holes for 3 the pilings? 4 MR. STODDARD: If you'll look at the 5 schedule, I know that keeps coming up. Our demolition 6 contractor was not out of here until -- with all the saw 7 cutting and concrete, I believe in April of whatever year we 8 started. The piers were drilled by June. Time frame of 9 approximately five to six weeks, I think. 10 MS. RAMIREZ: Right. And that issue sounds 11 like it was -- 12 MR. STODDARD: They're difficult piers. The 13 time frame that it took to drill the piers. The procuring 14 another contractor was not the problem. I had met with the 15 engineer, talked to him several times. He was gracious 16 enough to -- to work with me on getting a design change, but 17 that wasn't the problem. We could not have drilled those 18 piers until April anyway. We had to have the concrete 19 removed. Demolition contractor didn't move on till sometime 20 close to the 1st of March or maybe late February, first of 21 March, concrete removed. In April, we started the piers. 22 They were finished in June. 23 MR. LONGNECKER: June 14th you were still 24 repairing the piers. 25 MR. STODDARD: Putting pier caps and 49 1 correcting -- okay, June 14th, but the others were finished. 2 We had to make some corrections to them. 3 MS. RAMIREZ: We contacted the engineer in 4 January, before we even got our notice to proceed, to talk 5 to him about those piers. So, we started talking about the 6 issue of the piers way before we even mobilized on the 7 project, 'cause we knew that they were difficult piers. 8 MR. STODDARD: Right. And you're right, my 9 pier contractor pulled out, cost me $25,000. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: And approximately six weeks. 11 MR. STODDARD: Nothing -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: In your original schedule, it 13 says they were supposed to be done in May. You said they 14 were done in June -- 15 MR. STODDARD: The timing -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- 19th, by this -- 17 MR. STODDARD: But the other issue, too, is 18 that we have delays. There's no question about it, we have 19 problems that are -- just like now, like some problems that 20 are forced upon us. But we don't -- you know, we cannot be 21 charged for that time and then -- in other words, we pay for 22 it. It costs just the same amount of money as the money 23 that I'm -- actually more than what I'm asking you for for 24 the time that you delay me. But if I delay myself, it costs 25 me money, there's no question about it. But I can't ask you 50 1 for money, but if you delay me after that point, you cannot 2 come back and say, well, you cost yourself six months here, 3 so we're not paying you for this six months. It doesn't -- 4 you know, you have to pick up your responsibility just like 5 I pick up mine. That would be saying if we had a one-year 6 job and I started six months late, and then you held me up 7 another six months, that I didn't -- I didn't get the six 8 months delay. That you held me up because I'd already been 9 six months late. Well, I mean, you know, that doesn't work, 10 basically. And that -- the whole impact of that was getting 11 moved around to the west, the masonry. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: You've basically asked for 13 one year's worth of delays. 14 MR. STODDARD: Sir? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Your letter basically asks 16 for one year's worth of delays. 17 MR. STODDARD: What we're telling you is 18 that -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: 330 days. 20 MR. STODDARD: The reality of it, that's what 21 it is. If you take the gross days, yes, sir. But we -- in 22 negotiating with the architects -- and I'm not exactly 23 involved with Keith Longnecker, but we took that 330 days 24 and agreed that we would accept compensation for 83. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: 330 days. If you add onto 51 1 the original completion date -- 2 MR. STODDARD: Sir? 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: 330 days, if you add onto the 4 original completion date, takes you to March of the year 5 2001. 6 MS. RAMIREZ: We don't want to stay here that 7 long, and I know you don't want us. It costs us money to 8 stay here. We want to get out of here. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you -- if we accepted 10 your logic on delays, you've been delayed until next March? 11 MR. STODDARD: Probably have been. 12 MS. RAMIREZ: And when we did this, I just 13 tried to -- 14 MR. STODDARD: I wouldn't doubt it. But it 15 is gross days. We have picked up some work in some areas, 16 there's no question about it. We're basically finished in 17 the courtroom. We have some punch list items we have to do 18 right now, and we could have you in there. And, actually, 19 even per the specifications, what we're required to give 20 you, you could be moved in now. And the only -- 21 MR. LONGNECKER: City will not issue a 22 Certificate of Occupancy now, even if you were all finished. 23 MR. STODDARD: I fully understand that. 24 That's not what the specifications say. That's what we went 25 by. Specifications say if I have you a courtroom and a -- 52 1 that you could take a space and we could move into here, is 2 what the specifications say. 3 MS. RAMIREZ: I'm really just trying to focus 4 on the change directives. I did a quick synopsis of changes 5 that caused us delays. The two that I was focusing on was 6 Change Directive 8, which were the brackets, and Number 13, 7 which is what -- what's delayed this ramp out here. What 8 happened out here was, as Mr. Walker said, we were 9 excavating. The first thing that happened, we found, like, 10 seven utility lines. We did not know if those utility lines 11 were active or dead. We spent at least two days talking to 12 Mike Walker, then an engineer came out to look at them. It 13 took time. It delayed us in this ramp. Then we continued 14 excavating, and the footing -- the footing was not like it 15 was shown on the drawings. Then it had to be redesigned by 16 the engineer. That delayed us again. These are the two 17 things that I was basically focusing on, because they are 18 the ones that are in the change directive. There were 19 several delays that went concurrent with these, included, 20 like the sheet vinyl, that are on this change directive. 21 The benches, we've been held up on 70 -- 70 days we have 22 been stopped on those benches. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: But you're nowhere near done 24 with the elevator, so you have not been delayed one day 25 because of the benches. You're still working. 53 1 MS. RAMIREZ: We're delayed -- we can get 2 them punched out and handed over to you. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: That is not a delay. As long 4 as you're still working, you're not delayed. 5 MS. RAMIREZ: We're complete, according to 6 the contract documents. Those courtrooms -- it says -- our 7 contract documents require that you have one courtroom. One 8 courtroom could be finished right now. So, I mean -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: But you -- you're not delayed 10 in the overall project because you're not even done with the 11 elevator, so how can you be delayed if you haven't been able 12 to complete the benches in the district courtroom? 13 MS. RAMIREZ: Because we can't complete the 14 room. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not independently, but you 16 don't get paid and extended over immediate conditions for 17 each separate part of the contract. You get paid for 18 everything. 19 MS. RAMIREZ: I'm not asking for the benches 20 unless you tell us to do it two months from now, 'cause we 21 plan to be finished in September. And in September, when 22 you say do the benches, then it will be additional cost. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that -- that might be 24 possible, but right now I'm not willing to accept your -- 25 your calculation of delay, when you're taking each separate 54 1 segment of the contract and calculating delay for that. The 2 issue is how much -- how long are you delayed at this 3 location by virtue of anything that happens? You're not 4 delayed 70 days because of the courtroom benches, because 5 you're still working on the elevator. 6 MS. RAMIREZ: No, we're not. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: The argument is that you're 8 delayed some because you haven't been able to complete the 9 elevator, but the benches have nothing to do with the 10 elevator. 11 MR. STODDARD: We agree. 12 MS. RAMIREZ: We agree. 13 MR. STODDARD: Absolutely. You're absolutely 14 right. 15 MS. RAMIREZ: But those rooms could be turned 16 over to you. 17 MR. STODDARD: But what we're telling you is 18 we're trying to go back to the key issues. The reason -- 19 the reason that you don't have the elevator goes all the way 20 back to the east ramp and the relationship to the masonry 21 and hitting -- being able to go over there. That west ramp 22 would be done if we could have put the east ramp in when it 23 was scheduled to be put in, if we could have put it in when 24 it was scheduled. We had early delays. We didn't even 25 really have any major delays on the piers. If you take the 55 1 actual date that we started the job and the piers were 2 drilled, they were drilled and in a more than adequate, 3 timely fashion. We moved on the job, we had delays because 4 of asbestos, which you noted. We didn't ask for any time. 5 That was sometime back in March. Got the piers, drilling 6 started in April. I mean, we got we started drilling piers 7 in April when the demolition contractor was just finishing 8 up; they were finished in June. Keith Longnecker says June 9 something. Okay, June something. This was finished in 10 June -- actually, I think the last week in May, but for sure 11 by June 1. 12 Frank came on the job June 6th, piers were 13 done, but we had to make some correction to the piers. Yes, 14 sir, we did. But the correction to the piers did not stop 15 the concreting work. Some of them needed repaired, some of 16 them could have continued on. Then we had some problems 17 with the beams themselves that connect with the piers, which 18 also was part of that delay, connection. You know, we were 19 fixing piers as well as changing beams. That was in June. 20 Sometime in July, we had -- well, actually went to August, I 21 think, after we got all the beams in place, there was a -- 22 with procurement, I think we got a final drawing July 21st, 23 procurement August 10th, da-dah, da-dah, da-dah. Beams kept 24 going. We're still waiting for a -- to resolve the bracket 25 issue. Still an ongoing issue. Nobody really was just 56 1 standing still on it. The structural engineer came out 2 several times. We laid out several lines around the entire 3 building, several floors. We tried changing different 4 brackets. We drilled places trying to find out; we had 5 people coming out checking them. That -- you know, but 6 it -- 7 MS. RAMIREZ: We had three different 8 companies come out to locate those tendons. We had -- we 9 laid out three different times, we drilled several -- 10 several holes. We went beyond our duty to try and move this 11 situation forward. 12 MR. STODDARD: The engineer gave us a revised 13 drawing October 17th, I think. That sound right? 14 MR. LONGNECKER: Judge? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keith? 16 MR. LONGNECKER: On June 24th, two more piers 17 had to be drilled to replace two that were improperly 18 placed. That's here in my log. 19 MR. STODDARD: Okay. 20 MR. LONGNECKER: So they weren't finished 21 with the piers in May. 22 MR. STODDARD: We were finished -- 23 MR. LONGNECKER: Before they could start -- 24 MR. STODDARD: Okay. 25 MR. LONGNECKER: -- the concrete foundation 57 1 wall, the masonry workings on all of these piers needed to 2 be finished, because those two piers that were drilled are 3 on the east side. Before masonry started. 4 MR. STODDARD: They didn't have to be 5 completed, but it -- nevertheless, even at that issue, when 6 we started pouring the beams -- 7 MR. LONGNECKER: Not to drill piers 8 underneath the form work after you start the very foundation 9 wall. 10 MR. STODDARD: We know the procedure. I'm 11 not -- I'm not debating the point with you. We've got six 12 more jobs in town right now that we're pouring concrete that 13 all the piers aren't finished. You don't have to do all the 14 piers to get going. I'm not arguing we had problems with 15 the piers, I'm arguing the extent of the delay that you're 16 trying to put on the piers. 17 MR. THOMPSON: Keith? 18 (Off-the-record discussion between Mr. Longnecker and Mr. Thompson.) 19 20 MR. STODDARD: Oh, yeah. The key thing that 21 we're doing right now is Frank's basically here dealing with 22 trying to get the elevator and that work in. That's the 23 reason -- that's solely what he's doing, except to -- except 24 for waiting on whatever else we're going to do in the 25 courtrooms. The reason for that is because that should have 58 1 been done concurrent with the finishes in the courtroom. 2 The reason it wasn't is because it took that delay, you 3 know. I mean, we -- because of the risk that we took with 4 the roofing and whatever, we've got your courtroom in a 5 position that it wouldn't be in, because we were unable to 6 finish all the masonry. I mean, it's still not all 7 finished; we're still somewhat at risk 'cause we have some 8 open areas of the roofing. That's the primary thing he's 9 working on. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Stoddard, a question 11 going back to the brackets. 12 MR. STODDARD: Yes, sir? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I'm asking 14 that, when I asked this earlier, three people over here 15 shook their heads differently as to the time -- the time 16 frame to get them fixed. My understanding was June 14th. 17 MR. STODDARD: That was when we first brought 18 it to the attention that -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And according to 20 you, it took until November 5th to get the brackets issue 21 resolved and you had the new brackets, correct? 22 MR. STODDARD: No. Actually, November 5th 23 was when we did a test to check the new design, and then 24 after that we still had, I think, another 7 to 10 days 25 before we started -- actually started brackets. 59 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question really 2 probably goes to either Mr. Walker or the engineer. Why -- 3 MR. STODDARD: I think it is -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why did it take almost 5 five months to figure out how to solve that problem? 6 MR. WALKER: I was kind of waiting for y'all 7 to finish discussing that, because I do have Vordenbaum, the 8 structural engineer, here. It's hard to believe that we all 9 look at the same calendar and chronology, because we all 10 seem to have a little bit different view of this, but I 11 think we've fairly well documented what -- what did go on 12 there. 13 A couple of things that I would want to point 14 out before I give it to Stuart, aside from the bidding 15 procedures, which we have a lot of problems with in terms of 16 when we actually got started because of guys who weren't on 17 board, and we do think that this is a major issue and a 18 major consideration we have taken all along in considering 19 any extensions for time that they've asked for. I would 20 simply point out to you that at first there was a prescribed 21 procedure not to be deviated from without written consent, 22 which was to start right there at that corner with the 23 construction and work your way around. As a matter of fact, 24 I stood before this Court and explained to you what was 25 going to happen, and that they'd work their way around, and 60 1 that was it. 2 Part of the problem with the -- the delays 3 that they find themselves in and where they are now, in my 4 opinion, is because they did not follow that procedure, nor 5 get released from that procedure. So I have a great deal of 6 difficulty in dealing a whole lot of sympathy on the basis 7 of there was a plan and the plan just kept getting changed 8 and changed and changed. The other problem -- and Stuart's 9 probably going to talk some more about -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you go 11 further, why was the plan that you laid out not followed? 12 MR. WALKER: Good question. At one point, I 13 was told that -- that the owner's rep and the superintendent 14 had decided that they would start at this corner over here 15 and go around, and then come back and do this east ramp 16 last. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you concur? 18 MR. WALKER: No, I didn't, and I so stated. 19 Now, the last point I'd like to give you before I give it 20 over to Stuart is -- is detection. Yeah, they started 21 hitting problems -- first, let me say -- correct one thing 22 that was -- that was stated somewhat incorrectly. There 23 were no as-builts. We did not know where any tendons were 24 until -- we couldn't see those cap heads until they pulled 25 the panels off. Once we pulled the panels off, we could see 61 1 where the ends of the cables were, and we had some clue as 2 to what we were -- what was in store. But just because you 3 see the end of the head does not tell you where the cable 4 is. The cable could be in the bottom of that concrete, the 5 top of that concrete, it could go like this. So -- and in 6 their defense, they did not know where it was. So, the 7 thing to do at that point -- and they had already submitted 8 brackets, I believe, at that time, or shortly -- within that 9 time frame, these brackets that had to be redone. So, that 10 was part of the -- your cost change, was getting those 11 brackets modified. We very specifically said -- Stuart said 12 on his shop drawings, "Verify before you fabricate these 13 items." That was not done. 14 So, they went in and they started doing, I 15 guess, three or four different systems of trying to figure 16 out where those cables were, and we took issue with some of 17 those. And -- but, to their credit, they kept trying 18 different things. Our problem with it was the time frame in 19 which they kept trying -- making different attempts instead 20 of getting serious machinery in here that would detect those 21 and figure out where it was. There was a great delay in 22 finding out for sure that they were not going to be able to 23 put in the type of larger anchor bolts which we had 24 specified. So, with that, it was turned over -- and Stuart 25 can tell you more about the time frame, but it was turned 62 1 over to them. "Look, guys, we have a different solution." 2 And the solution they came up with, I'll ask Stuart to talk 3 about. Stuart Vordenbaum. 4 MR. STODDARD: Can I interject something real 5 briefly, just touch on something? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 7 MR. STODDARD: We were told on the documents 8 to start at the southeast corner. Is this not the southeast 9 corner? 10 MR. WALKER: No, you were told to start right 11 here. 12 MR. STODDARD: The specifications say start 13 at the southeast corner. 14 MR. WALKER: I'll get that procedure out and 15 we'll read over it. 16 MR. STODDARD: Okay. Good, I'm glad to go 17 over it with you. 18 MR. WALKER: Okay. 19 MR. STODDARD: Sorry, Stuart. 20 MR. VORDENBAUM: I think there's some things 21 that have been put in chronological order that really -- 22 maybe they weren't that way in my eyes. There was an 23 alternate bracket given to us to look at before there was 24 anything else done. We spent the time analyzing the bracket 25 and sent it back to them and said, "It doesn't even come 63 1 close to taking the load." We very -- from the very 2 beginning of this project, we realized we had a post-tension 3 concrete structure over here, that there was difficulty in 4 attaching to it. We recognized that from the very 5 beginning. And every superintendent that Stoddard had, I 6 went over it with them. "Now, look, fellas, this is a very 7 critical area," and our drawings very clearly stated the 8 contractor shall hire a recognized engineering test lab to 9 locate the tendons. To my knowledge, that has still never 10 been done. 11 There was a couple of attempts at locating 12 them, and in an effort to keep the project going, we 13 redesigned the brackets so that the -- the attachment was a 14 lot shallower. And we also used an epoxy that -- it had to 15 be tested, okay? The brackets were manufactured without our 16 shop approval. They were manufactured incorrectly. They 17 had to be reworked. We gave drawings of how that could be 18 done in the field. We discussed it, Frank and I did, on the 19 job. To my knowledge -- and when we were here working 20 around the brackets, they were still fixing the piers and 21 fixing the beams. 22 Now, part of the problem was -- the reason 23 the shop drawings and the steel hadn't been fabricated is 24 because we took the time to redesign some of the beams to 25 accommodate the piers that were in the wrong place. So, I'm 64 1 a little bit miffed for getting blamed for the brackets and 2 getting blamed for the delay in the beams and the steel in 3 the beams when we -- I feel like went way out of our way to 4 try to accommodate these people and not make them pull 5 the -- another -- drill another pier to replace the one that 6 wasn't in the right place. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surely, Stuart, you 8 have more to say than that. 9 MR. VORDENBAUM: No, sir, I don't. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Keith? 11 MR. LONGNECKER: May I add something about 12 the courtrooms themselves? I reiterated time and time again 13 that those courtrooms, no matter when they're finished, are 14 absolutely useless to the County until such time as the 15 Certificate of Occupancy can be issued by the City, so it 16 makes little difference as to when they're finished if they 17 cannot be used. We need to have egress out of those 18 courtrooms and to the outside of this building down Stairway 19 Number 2 onto the west ramp and out away from the building. 20 That's why the west ramp has to be finished and Stairway 21 Number 2 must be finished. The elevator should also be 22 finished, because it's required for A.D.A. to be used for 23 access to the courtrooms. So, it doesn't make any 24 difference, and I've said this in my reports time and time 25 again, that that is the reason why this west ramp needs to 65 1 be finished before the courtrooms can be put to use. 2 MR. WALKER: In spite of the things that have 3 been said here today, I would like to point out one other 4 thing. That is, there seems to be some sort of insinuation 5 that we did not do our job. We, the consultants. And I am 6 here to -- to strongly argue against that statement. We 7 have bent over backwards. We have gone -- we have worked 8 incredible amounts of time, for which you were not billed. 9 I suppose if you'd take the last paragraph or so of my memo, 10 that could you probably find some grounds for recouping some 11 of your costs, but that's strictly up to you and what you 12 want to do. But to say that, in any shape, form, or 13 fashion, that this architect and his engineers, Vordenbaum, 14 Lux, and Wunderlich, did not do their jobs and did not do it 15 properly, gentlemen, is beyond insulting and it flies in the 16 face of what is occurring here. And if you don't believe 17 me, I suggest you ask the public what they think of the new 18 facility. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're going to 20 think a lot less of it when we run the cost up a little 21 higher. 22 MR. WALKER: Let's talk about that cost, 23 then, Commissioner. May we? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, we're here to talk about 25 the change order, not a debate. 66 1 MR. STODDARD: May I say something? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, Mr. Stoddard. 3 MR. STODDARD: Get the last word in. You 4 know what they say, the last guy that talks is right. First 5 of all, I think Stuart and them did a fine job. I don't 6 doubt that at all. We ran into a situation -- I don't know 7 why everybody keeps trying to bring the piers back into the 8 brackets, but that seems to be the general conversation 9 today. There's not a connection there. No, we have 10 acknowledged we had problems with the piers; we corrected 11 them. They were long corrected before the brackets were 12 corrected. Part of the beam redetailing, some of it was 13 because of the piers, some of it was because of the 14 unforeseen conditions, as in utilities. So, when they were 15 redesigning, some of it was theirs, some of it was ours. 16 That was all history sometime in -- in July. 17 Now, then, we got started back -- except for 18 another added concrete beam. But, anyway, all that aside, 19 the one other thing that I would like for y'all to keep in 20 mind is the simple fact that we have been doing work 21 throughout this project. Right now it looks to me like 22 we're at risk because of some work that we've done. We have 23 done everything we could to try to push this through. We've 24 done work without the necessary changes. It's just been on 25 and on and on. And, if we would have stood hard and 67 1 insisted that all the paperwork be filled out, sent to us, 2 change orders, we'd be another six months behind. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Stoddard, my comment to 4 you, and then I'm going to ask the Court to go ahead and 5 work on the change order -- 6 MR. STODDARD: Okay. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- I think, based on Mr. 8 Longnecker's observations, that the work, when it's finally 9 done, is going to be something that the community will be 10 proud of. It will cost substantially in excess of what had 11 originally been budgeted; however, I am not willing to 12 accept the notion that you have paid the proper attention to 13 this job, because I think some of the delays and the 14 problems that have occurred have simply been because your 15 organization has not given us the attention and the priority 16 that we deserve. That's my personal feeling and represents 17 no more than my feeling, but it also represents the 18 conversations you and I have had and the results or lack of 19 results that came out of those conversations. 20 MR. STODDARD: I would just ask that you look 21 at that schedule and look at it clearly, because I think it 22 will explain it. And I'm certainly going to tell you that 23 we are not totally -- not at fault. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: I didn't ever say that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's try to move 68 1 forward, if we may -- 2 MR. STODDARD: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on this. The 4 architect is recommending 83 days additional time. Keith 5 Longnecker is recommending 63 days, and you're 6 recommending -- or requesting something more than 83, or 7 maybe you've agreed to 83. 8 MR. STODDARD: Yes, sir, we agreed to 83. 9 Original time is much more than that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. You had 11 originally -- 330. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: 336 is what they said. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Can you live with 14 the 63 days? 15 MR. STODDARD: No, I can not. I don't think 16 it's fair, after where we've come down from. If you'll just 17 look at the schedule, you'll see what we've reduced our time 18 frame down already. You know, we've reduced it by 19 67 percent or, you know, two-thirds or more from what -- I'm 20 not talking about just the -- I'm not talking about the 330 21 days. There's other -- just on the two items is the only 22 thing that we've locked in on. We're -- the brackets and 23 the west ramp are the only two items that -- that we locked 24 in on, that had a total of, I think -- I think we had 25 considered the delay over here was actually 62 days, that we 69 1 reduced to 23. And it would be -- part of the reason we did 2 that was because of the negotiations that we had on the 60 3 days. I think the original 60 days, we saw it being 150 4 days. So, we went from 150 days down to 60, and we went 5 from 62 down to 23, and we did that in good faith in a 6 meeting, sort of assuming that what the architect -- and I 7 know that's a dangerous recommendation -- that that would 8 fly. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I've got a question 10 I'd like to ask. I'd like to get an answer from -- from 11 you, Mr. Stoddard, and Mike and Keith both. With the 83 12 days, if -- if we were to go -- or agree to that, from zero 13 to 100 percent, what's your confidence level that we would 14 be complete within that then contracted period? 15 MR. STODDARD: Well, first of all, the -- 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I mean, because -- and 17 I don't ask that facetiously at all. 18 MR. STODDARD: I understand. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm saying based on 20 where we are now, because a lot of the unknown unknowns have 21 been addressed, and some of the known unknowns have been 22 addressed. 23 MR. STODDARD: Sure. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But what's your -- 25 your confidence feeling right now, just as a professional? 70 1 What do you think the chances are that you can then, with 2 that new contract date, be able to be complete? Just 3 confidence level. 4 MR. STODDARD: We have two different issues. 5 We have an issue where the 83 days is not the total days of 6 delay; that was what we negotiated down to be paid for. The 7 actual total days, there's some greater amount than that, so 8 I don't -- it depends on which one you're talking about. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me ask it -- maybe 10 this is a better way to ask it. What program -- what 11 additional program hits, if any, would you foresee? In 12 other words, what -- what are the -- what is your confidence 13 level now that the unknowns have been unearthed, literally 14 and figuratively, and that -- that the schedule that you're 15 working to now, you can pull off? What is the confidence -- 16 I'm just asking for a confidence level. 17 MR. STODDARD: Sure. Sure. 18 MS. RAMIREZ: Frank and I have discussed 19 this, and we feel that this area will be complete in 20 September, the -- the elevator, and that will give you the 21 courtrooms. But when we get into this existing courthouse, 22 we don't know. We don't know about the -- the windows. The 23 windows still need to be addressed and inspected, and that 24 is an unknown, and that has to be discussed with Mike 25 Walker, and each window has to go through -- we have to 71 1 evaluate each one. There's -- there's -- we don't know 2 about this building. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm really talking 4 about the other -- you've answered my question. 5 MS. RAMIREZ: September for that. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You say that with a 7 feeling of professional confidence, that that's doable? 8 MR. STODDARD: I think, as far as hitting, 9 we're down to this elevator. I think the interior is 10 basically done, and -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 12 MR. STODDARD: -- I guess it's conceivable we 13 could run into something on this area here, but -- 14 MS. RAMIREZ: That wouldn't cause you -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The question I'm 16 asking, I'm asking an engineering kind of question. But is 17 it -- 18 (Court reporter interrupted; several people talking at once.) 19 20 MR. STODDARD: We think that we've uncovered 21 any possibilities. We've already done our excavation over 22 here, and we've got our excavation over here. This pretty 23 much has concluded what work will have to be done, so I 24 would be willing to state that there should be very little, 25 if you would, discovery items. 72 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 2 MR. STODDARD: To -- as far as the Annex. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 4 MR. STODDARD: My guess would be, on this 5 building, there's probably going to be several. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can I ask the same 7 question of you, Mike? 8 MR. WALKER: I -- yes, thank you. I asked 9 that same question just earlier this week. I heard 10 September, but I don't know if it's September the 1st or 11 September the 30th. I do think that, given the progress 12 that we see, barring any hitches, that there's no reason why 13 that amount of work on that elevator cannot be done by 14 September the 1st. There is a caveat there, and that is 15 that we do have a situation where we have a two-elevator fix 16 that has to be made, and our provision was that there be one 17 of those elevators operable at all times, and so this is a 18 situation in which they have to access this work. 19 Linda has now decided, contrary to the way we 20 originally had the plans, that she wants to stay in this 21 space over here, which further complicates the contractor's 22 work. So, to give you a simple answer is not very easy, 23 because I don't know how they plan to turn it over to you. 24 But if they do not have a means to get materials up and 25 down -- even though Frank, the superintendent, tells me that 73 1 they're going to bring them up the stairs, I would hate to 2 see them bringing materials for this work up here in your 3 new elevator. But, if they get in there and protect it 4 properly, maybe they can do that. But I do think there's an 5 issue of turnover, because they can't clean up that elevator 6 and give it to you because they're still hauling materials 7 up in it, you know. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 9 MR. WALKER: If they can work that out, the 10 answer to your question is yes, by September 1st, possibly 11 they could. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, do you 13 have another question? 'Cause I have a follow-up to your -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was just going to 15 ask Keith the same kind of thing, sort of a confidence level 16 for finishing the Annex or completing -- 17 MR. LONGNECKER: Just adding 83 days to the 18 contract brings the contract to finish up in -- near late 19 November is what 83 days, the extension, will add, plus it's 20 added to the -- the 40 days that was already given on the 21 390 days of the original contract, plus 40 was given in 22 Change Orders 1 and 2, plus the 83 days will be 513 days 23 total, bringing it up to finish in November. And that, of 24 course, is supposedly going to include this up here. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, that's 74 1 everything. 2 MR. LONGNECKER: That's everything. That's 3 what that extended contract is. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's enough for me. 5 MR. LONGNECKER: As far as -- far as whether 6 they can get it done or not, I will say yes -- reiterate 7 what Mike has just said -- Mike Walker just said. Yes, they 8 could probably get the Annex part of it done, but this over 9 here is still going to require some additional time, and 10 change orders will also be required at that time. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Bill? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a follow-up to 13 what Commissioner Griffin was asking. The 83 days brings up 14 the substantial completion date to July 5th. We're past 15 July 5th. I'm hearing two September dates; I'm hearing the 16 possibility of around the 1st of the month, and I'm hearing 17 someone else saying potentially the end of September. My 18 question is, are we going to be faced with more compensation 19 for more extension of days? Who would like to address that? 20 MR. WALKER: May I clarify something about 21 this? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. 23 MR. WALKER: I mention this in my letter -- 24 my memo. July 5th, as you say, is the date that we take the 25 83 days. After we agreed on the 83 days, I received the 75 1 letter right behind my memo there in which he asks for 169 2 days total, which is an additional 86, which is what I said 3 that I couldn't approve. And that puts it, like -- I think 4 September 29th is the date that it would be if we -- if we 5 approved all of those, and that is -- that's where the 169 6 plays out to the end. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Some of that's already 8 figured, so -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going back to Keith, you 10 said that the -- if we add the 83 days, we go to 513 days, 11 which puts us in November to finish everything? 12 MR. LONGNECKER: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Walker is shaking his 14 head. 15 MR. LONGNECKER: Add it up. You got 390 days 16 on the contract to start with, written in the contract. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and then we add 40 18 and the 80. 19 MR. LONGNECKER: Then you added 40 on the 20 other two change orders. Now you're adding 83 on this one. 21 That's 513 days, isn't it? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I don't see 23 any way they're going to be finished upstairs by November. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up where? 25 MR. LONGNECKER: Up here on this side. 76 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what they're -- 2 that's part of the contract. So, I mean, I'm confused by 3 the dates. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, that's -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That doesn't seem 6 reasonable. But also, I have a -- I don't know. I mean, it 7 doesn't seem -- I'm concerned about the dates not squaring 8 for substantial completion and the amount of days we're 9 adding to the contract, or maybe it doesn't -- is that not a 10 problem, to have dates that don't match up when it comes 11 time to pay down the road? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I was 13 trying to get at, thank you. 14 MR. LONGNECKER: The extension -- excuse me. 15 The extension of the general conditions is not necessarily 16 one that's going to finish, because that -- it's simply what 17 we're willing to -- if you vote for it, is what you're 18 willing to compensate the contractor for. There's other 19 things and other extenuating circumstances that certainly 20 cause it to be delayed beyond that amount of time, and those 21 things are what -- the delays may be caused by the 22 contractor, his subcontractors, lack of manpower and 23 whatever other things, weather and those sort of things. 24 So, whether or not it gets to the pace that the contract is 25 moving along now, if you want to look at it from another 77 1 angle, you can do it that way, but it still adds up to what 2 you're willing to compensate for extra time. 3 MR. WALKER: Excuse me, but my change order, 4 as written, the change order that I've submitted to you, is 5 for the 83 days and does not include the full time extension 6 he's asking for, because I'm not recommending that to you 7 for the additional 86 days. So, I'm saying that the project 8 still should have been complete on July the 5th, because I 9 can't justify the additional 86 days. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it isn't completed on 11 July 5th, so why have a July 5th substantial completion 12 date? 13 MR. WALKER: That is for you to decide and 14 accept. In other words, he is -- he is almost a month 15 past-due to finish the job. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we accept the 17 July 5th substantial completion date, we're long past that. 18 MR. WALKER: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we not, on the 20 face, trying to find out whether there will be another one 21 of these in which we're being asked for more compensation on 22 a per-diem basis? 23 MR. WALKER: I can see no reason for -- a 24 reason at this point, sir, that it would be extended any 25 further. If we get into something up here, yes, and it's 78 1 justifiable, I would have to come to you and recommend 2 whatever, 10, 20, 30 days. Whether it comes up to 86 or 3 beyond, I don't -- 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me summarize this, if I 5 can. Mr. Stoddard has originally requested 186 days of 6 delay. He has agreed to be compensated for 83 days of 7 delay, but he has requested an additional 186 days beyond 8 the current completion date, which is approximately May the 9 14th. But, as part of the negotiations with our team and 10 his team, they've agreed to accept compensation for 83 days, 11 but they're saying that they believe they'll need another 83 12 days beyond the compensated 83 days within which to have the 13 project completed, which is this September time frame that's 14 been bandied about here. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are we ready to take action 19 on the change? 20 MR. STODDARD: What's that? We didn't cause 21 any of the other costs. Just -- that's something to keep in 22 mind. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are we ready to take action 24 on the change order? Anyone have any specifics on any of 25 the directives that they wish to address? 79 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I wish I knew more 2 about it. You know, that's -- I'm an engineer, but my 3 degree is in aerospace engineering, and you don't build 4 airplanes -- spacecraft quite like you do buildings, but 5 there are some similarities here. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Much greater overruns. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, the overruns are 8 a hell of a lot greater. But there was a -- I think there 9 was a little bit of a flawed process here from the first, 10 and that is that there were no -- and not for anybody's 11 blame, but it's just that there were no as-is drawings, 12 which always complicates any engineering task. We could 13 have easily spent some up-front money -- this is a prime 14 example of some up-front money for an engineering analysis 15 to find out where certain things were, if you could do some 16 level-of-effort contracting where you hire some work to be 17 done and try to figure out where it is. That wasn't done. 18 I'm not trying to rehash that, but that's 19 what's led us to this situation that we're in, because there 20 were so many unknown unknowns when we started. There were 21 some known unknowns, but there were even unknown unknowns, 22 and those are the ones that cost -- and that's what we're 23 paying for. I think we've got to get -- to get out of 24 this -- and that's the reason I was asking the confidence 25 questions of the professionals. How confident are you 80 1 that -- not that this is necessary, the last change order 2 request, but how confident are you that this is close, that 3 we're -- that at least we've cut down the unknown unknowns 4 to a point that we can manage them now? 5 And -- and I think we've got to bite the 6 bullet somehow on this. I -- I don't know that -- if there 7 are things that we can leave out, that can be done 8 post-contract that make sense. And some we've discussed 9 today, and I'm not sure that -- which ones ought to be in 10 and which ones ought to be out, because like in most sort of 11 flawed procurements, we've ended up, you know, micro- 12 managing the engineering aspect of it. We, the Court, are 13 now being drawn into the conversation, which is really 14 difficult for us to understand well enough to do right. So, 15 I -- I don't know whether we can leave anything out of there 16 or not. I -- I'd prefer that the judgment maybe -- 17 particularly the two of you that have been around the 18 longest on this thing, what we might do in that regard, but 19 we've got to do something to keep this program moving, 20 obviously. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My overall comments -- I 22 mean, the -- the time framework, I mean, that's -- we knew 23 going in there was going to be problems. There was problems 24 when we renovated the old courthouse. We knew Day 1 there 25 was problems over there when we got to the skin on the 81 1 floor, or whatever that was, when we were first trying to 2 get that out, the demolition of the old jail. So, I mean, 3 that's not a surprise. And I think we knew -- maybe we 4 should have budgeted a little bit more contingency for it. 5 I think the things that annoy me the most out of this are 6 things being done without coming to the Court. And, I don't 7 know -- you know, I mean, the Judge sent out a memo six 8 months ago or whenever, saying, remember, you can't spend 9 money without this Court's approval. And it's done. Some 10 of the things like drains and lights being -- those are 11 things that just have to be done. That's part of 12 construction. 13 When it comes to carpet, buzzers, and things 14 of that nature, I have a lot less sympathy. This is 15 basically because as the Judge -- or not the Judge, an 16 elected official or staff member of the County wanted 17 something done, and it was done, and no one's willing to say 18 that they take responsibility for it, then somewhere someone 19 had to tell the builders or -- I mean, the contractor to do 20 it. I mean, he's not going to go out there, I don't think, 21 and just decide to put carpet in because he wanted carpet in 22 there. Someone had to make that, and that -- you know, and 23 the way this County operates is it's not the way we do 24 business, and it's against the law. You can't do things 25 like that in County government. 82 1 So, if anything comes out of this, I think 2 I'd ask that the Judge send one more letter out -- and I 3 don't know how the -- they probably maybe won't listen to 4 that letter either, but, you know, we cannot budget in this 5 County when elected officials or department heads or anybody 6 else go out and commit County funds. It doesn't work. And, 7 it's left the County and the taxpayers in a real precarious 8 situation that, you know, we almost have to approve it, but 9 we didn't borrow the money for it, we don't have it in the 10 budget to do it, so we're going to have to go in reserve 11 funds to get it, which hurts all taxpayers in the county. 12 And that is not the way we should conduct business. That's 13 all have I to say. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only comment is 15 that what I believe really should happen here is that we 16 turn this over to the County Attorney's office and hold 17 somebody accountable for the costs of this thing. And we're 18 talking about 83 days here, 500 bucks a day. But I know 19 that that's not going to happen. I know -- and I would vote 20 for that in a heartbeat if I thought two more of you would. 21 I know you won't. So, I don't -- we're here again, sitting 22 in a spot where we don't have a choice. We have to vote for 23 it and move along, and let's get going. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the majority rules, but 25 I would say one of the problems that I foresee is the amount 83 1 of time between change orders. I'm going to direct Mr. 2 Longnecker to bring change orders to this Court the second 3 session of every month, if any are necessary. If the 4 contractor or the architect doesn't sign off, make a 5 recommendation and we'll approve it or disapprove it, and 6 they'll live with it or they'll come in and dispute it. 7 'Cause I think a lot of the problem has been -- because I 8 discussed this a lot -- the inability of our Project Manager 9 to get prices. And I would suggest, based on the agreements 10 I'm seeing, that that's a contractor's, perhaps, way of 11 delaying things and coming up with more funds. So, we're 12 going to have change orders presented once a month, if any 13 are necessary. And if any aren't necessary, then that means 14 there weren't any change orders for that month, and I'm not 15 going to entertain offers to bring them back retroactively. 16 If a change order is needed, by god, get out there and get 17 the pricing and get it in, and agree on it or don't agree on 18 it, but don't delay the process, so we don't have this 19 situation where 60, 90, 120 days has passed, work has been 20 done without the Court having an opportunity to pass 21 judgment on whether it needs to be done or whether the 22 pricing is something that we can live with. I think that 23 will go towards alleviating some of the problems that we see 24 here with work being done without an opportunity to bring it 25 to the Court. 84 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move Change Order 2 Number 3 be approved as presented. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I second that. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 5 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that Change 6 Order Number 3 be approved as presented. 7 MR. LONGNECKER: Which version? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Which version, the 83 days or 9 the -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 83 days. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All we've got. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: 83 days. And extending the 13 completion date by an additional 86 -- 83 days, with no 14 compensation for that additional time. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that's your 16 understanding, that's my motion. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If 18 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this 23 time, we're going to take a 10-minute break and reconvene at 24 20 minutes to 4:00. 25 (Recess taken from 3:30 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.) 85 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. It's 20 minutes 2 to 4:00 on Wednesday, August 2nd. We will reconvene this 3 special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 4 Next item for discussion is to consider and discuss approval 5 of the longevity and educational pay increase policy. I 6 know all of you have had an opportunity to review the policy 7 that I've drafted and discussed with Ms. Nemec and Sheriff 8 Hierholzer, among others. Does anyone have any questions or 9 comments regarding the policy? 10 MR. ODOM: How do you implement it? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only comment I have, 12 sir, is that it looks very good to me. And it has -- it 13 seems like that you and the Sheriff maybe have gotten 14 together and brought your thinking together and put it into 15 one -- one document. At this point, I like it a lot. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The only comment I 18 would add to that, Judge -- and I like it very -- a lot, 19 too -- is that I have a question. And that is, the -- the 20 one step after a year is a good deal, but then we would only 21 go one step after the next five years? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Four years. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Four years? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Once you got a one-step 25 increase after you've been employed one year, you get 86 1 another one-step increase after you've been employed a total 2 of five years, and then you'd get a two-step increase when 3 you've been employed a total of ten years. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In that same grade. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: We can tinker with time frame 6 if we want to. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I'm just asking 8 a question, because it seems to me that -- and most of the 9 systems I'm familiar with, usually those kind of -- step 10 increases is what the feds call it; I'm sure you remember 11 that from your fed days -- usually comes a little sooner 12 than that. I mean, a little more often than that, perhaps 13 once every three years or -- or so for the next step, 14 longevity step increase. In other words, you haven't 15 changed classification, you haven't changed jobs, but you've 16 been a good soldier for another three years; that you would 17 get another step increase. If it -- was the four years sort 18 of a budgetary consideration that you ran numbers on? Or 19 was it -- 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it wasn't that 21 sophisticated. It was a feel that if you've been here for a 22 year -- you've been here for a year, you deserve to be 23 patted on the back. If you've been here a total of five 24 years, you're a good employee, learning your job, you're 25 very responsible. If you've been here for ten years, you're 87 1 probably moving into a position within your classification 2 that you're -- you're accepting more responsibility and, you 3 know, you've really been able to contribute significantly to 4 the operation of the department, at which time you get an 5 additional two -- two steps, which means that after 10 6 years, you would have received a total of 10 percent salary 7 increase. Of course, that's exclusive of any cost-of-living 8 increases or any merit raises that may have been given based 9 on your department head's evaluation and available funds. 10 Now, I don't -- I think if you do it too close together, 11 that, to a certain extent, that two-step increase after 10 12 years is a carrot. You know, people -- that's a 13 significant -- fairly significant jump; that's a 5 percent 14 increase in one year, plus your cost-of-living, if there's a 15 cost-of-living. So, it's an incentive for people to stay 16 until they reach that -- that plateau. If you move it down 17 further, then they reach that plateau and there may be a 18 distance for them -- disincentive for them to stay, 19 because -- 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like the next bump 21 at ten. I mean, there's a 10-year substantial bump. I like 22 that. I was just thinking that perhaps the normal step 23 increase at a little more than the 5-year point might be in 24 order. In other words, a 3-year employee -- or a 4-year 25 employee total, rather, a 4-year employee that's doing good 88 1 work, meeting -- fulfilling the requirements of the job, 2 maybe ought to get a step there, but -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: You know -- 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- I ask it as a 5 question, and I'd like the hear the other Commissioners' 6 comments. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, one -- just sitting 8 here thinking, based on what you've said, if we made it 1, 9 4, and 8, eight years happens to be the vesting time for the 10 retirement; that's a fairly significant time for employees. 11 If they're vesting, you know, they have a real incentive to 12 stay. So, if we had it -- had it 1, 4, and 8, as opposed to 13 1, 5, and 10, then they would have an incentive, perhaps, to 14 continue past eight years and to accrue the additional 15 retirement time that they need. But, there's no -- there's 16 no magic in the numbers I've represented, other than it's a 17 rational progression. If we want to shorten the interval in 18 a rational progression, then I'm certainly willing to abide 19 by the will of the Court, as we always do. I think that the 20 amount of the step increase is really appropriate, because 21 we to have to take into consideration the budgetary impact 22 of those milestones. Judge Tench, you had a comment, sir? 23 JUDGE TENCH: I'm a little confused on this 24 step for one year and then another step after five years. 25 And there is -- you say in there you can get a merit 89 1 increase. A merit increase is normally, in the industry, 2 around 5 percent or more. The step between grades -- or 3 between steps at the levels we're -- the clerk level 4 basically is at 5 -- basically 5 percent. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's 2 1/2 percent. 6 Isn't it, Barbara? 7 MR. ODOM: Two and a half. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 2 1/2 percent, 9 basically, 2 1/2 percent jump between steps. 10 JUDGE TENCH: Okay. I don't have a -- a 11 grade -- I mean, a salary schedule, but I thought it was 12 right at 5 percent between steps. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, it's 2 1/2 percent. 14 JUDGE TENCH: Okay. Well, I -- I'm a little 15 confused, then. I agree with the longevity thing, that -- I 16 like your plan. I'm just confused as to how you rate that 17 in there with -- with if a person deserves a merit increase, 18 does something above and beyond the call and so forth. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's just say you have 20 an employee one year; they get a one-step increase. They 21 really work hard, and after they've been there three years, 22 you give them a one- or a two-step increase as a merit 23 increase, based on your budget and their performance. Then, 24 after they've been there five years or four years, whatever 25 we decide on, the longevity kicks in and they get another 90 1 increase. 2 JUDGE TENCH: Eventually, they're going to 3 run out of grade. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, if they stay long 5 enough, if they're good enough, they might, but that's fine. 6 That's a good employee. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You'll hit the top of 8 the grade. You'd like to have some do that; that's not 9 uncommon in a lot of pay systems, even to get to the top 10 grade. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only comment, I think 13 it's a -- you know, as Buster stated, you and I have talked 14 and a few of the other things. One is, I think it's really 15 done well. I like the law enforcement part of it, the 16 longevity for an employee on the one-step, and then just 17 another one-step after five years. I think a 2.5 percent 18 increase after an employee's been here five years is really 19 not that much. I would like to -- 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a 5-percent increase 21 they've -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, they've had the 23 other one after one year. My -- my only thing is, I think 24 Mr. Griffin was -- was talking more in line with what I 25 would like to see as a department head for employees, is 91 1 maybe going every three years instead of every -- you know, 2 first year, yeah, that's a good year, that's a good 3 completion. And then after that, every three years at 4 least, give them another one-step. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you're talking 1, 4, 7, 6 10, and get a one-step increase? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 1, 4, 7, 10, and it 8 keeps going; that at least every three years, they get 9 another step. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Leonard? 11 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I -- you know, that -- 12 that sounds great, too, but merit -- you're tying this on 13 longevity with merit increases. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, I'm not tying -- 15 MR. ODOM: This statement 5 here says, "No 16 employee would be entitled to a merit increase, a longevity 17 increase, and/or an educational increase in the same fiscal 18 year." 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. That's right, 20 for budget purposes. 21 MR. ODOM: Well, what I'm saying is that only 22 that person -- that longevity is -- is equated to a merit 23 increase, and that individual is only going to get that one 24 step where it's 1, 5, and 10, or 1 and 3, 3, 3. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, what -- you know, I 92 1 think you're misreading that, because it's not tied to 2 merit. They're going to get step increases after Year 5, 3 regardless. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No matter what. 5 MR. ODOM: What I read here is that no 6 employee would be entitled to a merit increase -- 7 MS. NEMEC: They can't get a merit and 8 longevity in the same year. 9 MR. ODOM: Same year. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: In the same year. 11 MS. NEMEC: And they can't get three -- 12 increases in three consecutive years. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. And that's -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That means that 15 there's only one that they can get a merit -- they can get a 16 merit increase every other year. That's what it really 17 means. You could get a merit increase every other year. 18 MS. NEMEC: Year 1, they get longevity. Year 19 2, they get educational/career. Year 3, they get a merit. 20 Year 4, they are no longer entitled to a merit increase. 21 MR. ODOM: We're talking about -- 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: What I've got in here, no 23 increases in more than three consecutive years. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Or three -- whatever it said. 93 1 MS. NEMEC: In any -- of any kind in three 2 consecutive years? 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 4 MS. UECKER: So, on the fourth year, they're 5 not eligible for anything, the way this reads. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. That would be right, 7 and that's -- that's really a budget control issue. We do 8 have to budget for this. You know, we're -- we're talking 9 about 2 1/2 percent bumps; we're not talking about just -- 10 just a small -- small amount. 11 MS. UECKER: Only problem -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a budget control issue. 13 And -- you know, and as a department head, I'm not sure that 14 there's anybody in any of your departments so outstanding 15 year after year after year that they're entitled to a merit 16 increase every year. Maybe they are, but -- 17 MR. ODOM: I don't think you can find that -- 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- they probably don't rise 19 to that level every year. 20 MS. UECKER: No, but what we're talking about 21 is the situation where that could occur. 22 MR. ODOM: That could occur. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Could occur. But what I'm -- 24 MS. UECKER: And I think we're blurring the 25 definition of merit by saying, you know, this is the year 94 1 this person is outstanding. I'm sorry, employee, you were 2 outstanding in the wrong year. 3 MR. ODOM: Wrong year. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: But if you do that, that 5 means they've gotten a longevity increase in that year, so 6 they've gotten an increase. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You might give them a 8 two-step increase in that year, if they were just going to 9 get a longevity increase. 10 MS. NEMEC: No, you can't. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It doesn't preclude 12 that, does it? At the end of Year 1 -- for example, you've 13 got a real fast burner comes on board. At the end of Year 14 1, there's nothing, in the way I read this -- maybe I 15 misread it, but if that -- if, at the end of the first year, 16 that fast-burning employee you think is worth a two-step 17 increase, you could do that as a merit increase. 18 MR. ODOM: No. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: You can't get -- you can only 20 get one type of increase in any one year. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But you don't get the 22 step increase in that year -- in any year that you would get 23 a merit increase. 24 MR. ODOM: The increase is automatic, though, 25 Commissioner. It's automatic. 95 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Longevity should be 2 automatic by the years. 3 MR. ODOM: By the year. It shouldn't reflect 4 merit increase. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All we're trying to do is to 6 impose some budget restraints, because I didn't want to see 7 three, four, five, six, eight step increases in a two- or 8 three-year period. 9 MS. UECKER: I think you still have that 10 restraint on a year-per-year basis, as it -- I mean, it's 11 not like we would ask for merit in the middle of the year. 12 We're not allowed to do that, nor would we do that. But -- 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And you'd still have 14 to stay within your budget. 15 MS. UECKER: Certainly. And so I don't 16 understand why that would be -- it's not like you're going 17 to -- you're preparing a budget for, you know, five or ten 18 years in advance. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I kind 20 of agree that a merit increase -- if you're entitled to a 21 merit increase, you should get it, and that's kind of done 22 under -- we kind of set that under the budget guidelines, 23 anyway. If we don't have the money for a merit, no one gets 24 it. 25 MS. UECKER: Exactly. 96 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can see having no 2 longevity and educational increase in the same year, 'cause 3 they're kind of a little bit tied; you can't have both of 4 those at the same time, but a merit increase is kind of 5 decided by the Court each year anyway. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's just the last two years 7 it's been decided by the individual department head, or out 8 of their budget. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We gave them -- the Court 10 each year gave them dollars. They could do what they 11 wanted, either use it for merit increases or use it 12 elsewhere. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's just -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That will work. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: This is a subject that -- 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think what Jonathan 17 suggested would work, if you said no educational and 18 longevity in the same year -- in the same budget year, 19 and -- but let the merit thing float. That would be all 20 right, because then -- because the merit raise is a budget 21 issue and process. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you have 1, 4, 7, 23 10, then the -- in the other off years, you -- if an 24 employee warrants a merit, you can plug in a merit. If 25 education falls into the formula, you can do the same thing. 97 1 And don't overlook the fact that, quite consistently, 2 there's a cost-of-living, so you get -- the cost-of-living's 3 going to be there on top of the longevity, on top of the 4 educational, on top of the other. So, you know, it's not 5 exactly a -- a pauper's way. It's a good way to do what the 6 consultant asked us to consider doing, and that's to break 7 the log jam in the lower quartile and get people perking up 8 by reason of either longevity or by reason of education or a 9 combination of the two, whatever. It's a good system. And 10 1, 4, 7, 10 works better than the other. 11 MR. ODOM: That would get them into the 12 middle of the pay range, and then from the merit increases, 13 we could move people and have some incentive to compete 14 against private enterprise. And Rusty's got the -- one of 15 the biggest problems, not only myself. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Number 5, we want 17 to strike "merit increase" out of that sentence? 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. And then what I'm 19 hearing, you know, subject to the Court's approval, is that 20 in Number 2, instead of 1, 1, and 2, you have 1, 4 -- one 21 step increase upon completion of one year, four years, seven 22 years, and 10 years. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1, 4, 7, 10. I like 24 that. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Why would we stop at 98 1 10 years? Because how many steps do we have in the grade? 2 Remind me again. 3 MS. NEMEC: Well, 12. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up to 10, they're 6 going to get it. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm not saying -- 8 wouldn't the longevity raise -- to keep the force moving 9 along here, wouldn't it just occur every three years? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you have to -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Until they hit the top 12 of the grade? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then we'll add 1, 4, 14 7, 10, 12 -- 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Top of the bracket. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: What's -- how many do we 17 have? 18 MS. NEMEC: Twelve. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: 1, 4, 7 10 takes us to the 20 top, basically. 21 MR. ODOM: If we can get them to the ten, 22 they're probably going to stay. 23 MS. HARDIN: We have, oh, 10 employees, soon 24 to be 12 employees, that will have over 10 years -- between 25 10 and 22 years, so what happens to those guys? Do they 99 1 have any incentive to stay? 2 MR. ODOM: What happens to your 15 and 20's? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So right now they're 4 vested in retirement. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: They've been there so long 6 and so vested in the system that -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're still going to 8 get longevity pay raises. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Fifteen years, they're 10 probably entitled to pay raises. 11 MR. ODOM: The corollary to that, what do you 12 do right now -- if you implemented this right now? It's a 13 darn good plan; I'm not opposed to it, but if you implement 14 it now, how do we -- how do we take care of the people that 15 have the 10 years? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give you the 17 answer. If you go 1, 4, 7, 10, once an employee gets to the 18 10, then you just set it up so that every other year they 19 get the next step and the next, and two more years they get 20 the final. Then at that time 1, 4, 7, 10, skip a year, 11, 21 skip a year, 12. 22 MR. ODOM: What, now? 23 MS. UECKER: Isn't the second -- first 24 paragraph on the second page -- don't I read that as a 25 grandfather clause for those that have already been here for 100 1 that period of time? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's a grandfather 3 clause in the sense that everybody whose salary is not 4 adjusted according to the Nash study gets a one-step 5 increase on October 1st. 6 MR. ODOM: That's right. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: And then at the end of three 8 more years, by what the Court's suggesting, they'll get 9 another step increase. In other words, it would be, 10 unfortunately, as if they had just been employed starting on 11 October 1st, 1999. 12 MS. UECKER: I would like to see those 13 employees that have been there 10 years get their two-step 14 increase, because they've been there -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: You get into some real budget 16 problems then. Some real budget problems. Right now, 17 folks, the employee -- not the elected officials, not the 18 department heads, the employee -- well, just a little bit of 19 elected officials and department heads on the COLA's, but 20 the employee increases that I'm suggesting is in excess of 21 $310,000, which is more than half of the projected excess 22 revenue that we have for the coming year. If we keep 23 ratcheting it up, we're going to have to ratchet back, 24 because there are other things we have to do with the money. 25 We have to complete the Annex. 101 1 MS. UECKER: I understand. We have to start 2 somewhere. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: So I know it's not entirely 4 fair to the existing employees, but it gets them off the 5 dime, it gets them started. And it's a progression that 6 they can look forward to and understand and count upon. 7 MS. NEMEC: I think what Nash was saying was 8 that it's our entry level where we're having the problem, 9 anyway, so this takes care of that. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And most of 11 those 10- or 12-year employees are not at the entry level, 12 right? 13 MR. ODOM: Well, that's right, but are you 14 considering which department you're talking about? I mean, 15 I have some in the next five years that I'm going to lose. 16 I've got five, maybe seven people that are going to retire, 17 still young people. You know, how do I keep them? I don't 18 want to lose them. How do I replace 25 years of experience, 19 20 years of experience? 20 MS. UECKER: You can't. I mean, that's life. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's part of the game. 22 MR. ODOM: Well, I understand the game. You 23 know, y'all pay me the big money to figure it out. 24 (Laughter.) 25 MR. ODOM: You know, part of it is trying to 102 1 have some help here to have some incentive, too. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what we're trying to 3 do. Unfortunately, we can't do it all at once. It is 4 budgetarily, fiscally impossible to do it all at once. So, 5 I'm taking a stab at it. 6 MR. ODOM: Sir? 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: To start and go forward, so 8 everybody -- 9 MS. UECKER: Thank you. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Plus, remember, everybody's 11 got the bottom line on what I'm proposing. The whole 12 package is everybody is going to get at least a 4 1/2 13 percent increase. 14 MR. ODOM: That's right, the way you have it. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the minimal. And 16 that's not too shabby. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let's go back -- 18 MR. ODOM: I don't mean to be -- I'm sorry, 19 Rusty. If you want to -- 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, go ahead. 21 MR. ODOM: You want me to finish? Okay. You 22 may not want to talk after they run me out of here. I'm not 23 opposed. It's very good policy, and I understand fiscal 24 responsibility; I think our department does a very good job 25 of that. But I would ask the Court -- I have been here 103 1 going on 10 years, and I've heard the Court tell us all the 2 big things they've got to do, and they take care of a lot of 3 things outside the people, new personnel, and how we make 4 this county work is retaining that experience. So, I'm 5 asking the Court -- I understand what you're saying, Judge. 6 I'm asking the Court to consider, in the future, that you 7 really look at keeping our personnel and being fair with 8 them, instead of some of these 3- and 6 million-dollar 9 renovations and everything else. I mean -- 10 MS. UECKER: Bite your tongue. 11 MR. ODOM: You know, and maybe -- maybe some 12 of these. It's been coming for 9, 10 years. Maybe it's 13 time we really take a hard look at what we're doing and how 14 we manage things. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly what 16 this is all about, because before this was even introduced 17 to be talking about this, they were all jammed in the lower 18 quartile. You had no -- 19 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- no ability to perk 21 them out with any kind of dispatch. 22 MR. ODOM: I'm not saying that you're -- this 23 process is a step in the right direction. I'm just saying I 24 wish that the Court would consider its people, because I 25 think we have one of the best counties in this state. 104 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We're doing that. 2 That's what we're doing. 3 MS. NEMEC: I think we have a Court that is 4 doing that now. I really believe that. Y'all's efforts in 5 this study and in this here, I think we can really feel at 6 ease that we really have a Court that has their employees in 7 mind first, rather than anything else. I appreciate this 8 longevity increase. I appreciate you trying to get this 9 study going, and I know not everybody's going to be happy 10 with the outcome, but I -- I've heard good and bad, but I 11 know that it's going to make a lot of folks happy. I see 12 where a lot of employees are getting raises to where they 13 should be, and there's probably even more on there that 14 should have been recommended, but aren't, but I know the 15 Court didn't have to do this, and I appreciate it. 16 MR. ODOM: It is appreciated. And -- it is 17 appreciated, it truly is. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could I go back to 19 Paragraph 2? I think, maybe, between Commissioner Williams 20 and myself, we were talking -- 21 MS. NEMEC: Do I get a raise? 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We were talking -- 23 thank you. Anyway, but -- well, I think you and I were 24 talking two different sets of numbers. If there's 12 steps, 25 what I'm saying is -- is that -- that you would receive a 105 1 raise of one step every three years until you hit the top of 2 the grade, okay? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So you'd have 12 times 5 that you would have to -- if you went in at the entry level, 6 you would get a step, you would get an increase at the first 7 year, the fourth year, the seventh year, the 10th year, 13, 8 16, and so on, up until you hit the top of the grade. 12 9 steps. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What I really was 11 saying after 10 was 1, 4, 7, 10, and skip a year and take 12 care of step 11, and skip a year, step -- 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not steps. You're 14 talking steps, I'm talking years. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm talking about 16 years. I'm sorry, skip a year, take care of the next -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There would be a 18 longevity step increase every three years, beginning with 19 the first year. 20 MS. NEMEC: This will -- this step -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1, 4, 7, 10, 12 and 22 14. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, that's -- I'm not 24 sure -- 25 MS. NEMEC: This step and grade schedule is 106 1 done on the computer. It has 12 steps, but we can put 24 on 2 here if we wanted to. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I know. I know, but I 4 think 12 is fine. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think 12's fine. 7 MS. NEMEC: Because once you get to 12, what 8 they're -- not everybody is going to be able to get an 9 increase. You can't bump them up a grade. That's a 10 different position. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's 30-something 12 years of service. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And you would hope -- 14 MS. NEMEC: There's some that are at 8 right 15 now. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: When you hit the top step in 17 your grade, all you're going to get after that are COLA'S, 18 unless you go to a different job. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Unless you get into a 20 different -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: A different job. 22 MS. NEMEC: You cannot stay in the same job 23 and go any higher. You hit Step 12 -- 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which is exactly -- 25 exactly the same as the State. 107 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works better -- or 2 works beautifully with the law enforcement department, 3 because the education component comes into play. And, those 4 folks that go out and get these different certificates then 5 put themselves in different categories. Am I correct, sir? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're correct. And it 7 takes a lot of years to get to those, you know, master's. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the path is 9 there. The opportunity is still there. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The soonest you can get 11 that master's certificate we're talking about in here is 10 12 years if you have a doctorate, or 20 years of service. 13 You'd have to have 10 years service and a doctorate or 20 14 years service, and that's over 1,000 hours of training. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: The amendments to the policy 16 as presented are that Number 2 would provide that Kerr 17 County employees would receive a one-step increase with the 18 equivalent thereof upon completion of one year's 19 satisfactory employment, and every three years thereafter, 20 which will be 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, ad infinitum. Paragraph 21 5 would be amended to delete the merit increase in the first 22 line. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would move that we 24 adopt the policy as written, with amendments. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I second. 108 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 2 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we adopt 3 the longevity and educational pay increase policy as 4 amended. Any further comments or questions? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have on the 6 projected amount that it's going to cost. Is that a 7 one-time, or is it going to be that much of a budget impact? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depends a little bit -- 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- going to roll through, but 11 it won't -- it will be -- whatever it is, $127,000 increase 12 in the budget starting October 1st. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Budget starting October 1st, 15 Year 2001, would just start $127,000 -- I mean, it's going 16 to follow. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just wondering -- I 18 mean -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: But it's not an additional 20 one. It doesn't implement $127,000 every year. It's a 21 one-time deal. 22 MS. NEMEC: It's going to be different. 23 You're going to have some employees that are going to quit; 24 you're going to have some that are retiring, you know. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm going to finally 109 1 have some employees that want to get their education, so it 2 could go up. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some will retire, 4 some will leave. 5 MS. NEMEC: Exactly. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's going to fluctuate 7 in our department. 8 MS. NEMEC: I just will always have to give 9 you those numbers during budget. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 MS. NEMEC: We'll have to figure it out. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We also have a policy 13 with the entry level for that classification. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: We already have that. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You know, we have to 16 really pay attention to that. That's the way we make it 17 work. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment, 19 Judge. I am 100 percent in favor of doing this. I just 20 think that we need to do it inside the budget. When we -- 21 when we adopt and vote on the budget, it needs to be in 22 there. I feel like that what we're doing here is increasing 23 or voting on a budget item, and -- and, in my mind, it's an 24 illegal action because we haven't conducted any kind of 25 public hearing. And it's just -- I would personally be more 110 1 comfortable -- I'm going to vote against it if we vote 2 today, because I'm just uncomfortable with the time frame 3 that we're doing it in. I think if we could roll it into 4 our -- our budget when we approve the budget, then I'd vote 5 for it in a heartbeat. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I disagree with that. 7 It is a policy, it's not a budget. It is effective 8 October 1st, Year 2000. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: If the Court elects not to 11 allocate funds to implement this policy, then the policy 12 will not be implemented. So, I disagree with your 13 assessment as reflective of the County Attorney, for some 14 reason, that we shouldn't be doing this. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I beg your pardon, 16 the County Attorney did not advise me on this particular 17 issue. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the rest of them, 20 you can rest assured that he did. He will be up here to 21 speak about it. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hopefully. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 25 comments? 111 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the motion? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion is to approve the 3 longevity and educational pay increase policy, as amended. 4 Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your 5 right hand. 6 (Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Griffin indicated by raised hand they were in favor 7 of the motion.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed? 9 (Commissioner Baldwin indicated by raised hand that he was opposed to the motion.) 10 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item 12 for consideration is consider and discuss approval of the 13 Nash Compensation Study. I have on here authorizing 14 implementation of same. Again, that's a policy matter; it's 15 not a budget item. We are not in this way adopting a 16 budget. We're not appropriating the funds. We're simply 17 taking action to give direction as to how to begin to 18 allocate the budget for next year, just as if we did -- just 19 as we did when we entered into a three-year lease on patrol 20 cars. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we amend the 22 agenda item to put a period after "study"? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't have a problem with 24 that, if you want to. Let me say, as we lead into this, 25 that -- let me explain what the Nash Compensation Study is. 112 1 It is a comparison between our job titles and comparable job 2 titles throughout the study area. It compared our clerks to 3 the clerks in 20 different jurisdictions. It compared our 4 deputies to the deputies in 20 different jurisdictions. It 5 compared our heavy equipment operators to the heavy 6 equipment operators in 16 different jurisdictions, unless 7 the cities have heavy equipment operators, too. It did not 8 compare the comparable values of internal job 9 classification, and I know that question has come up. If 10 any elected official or department head wants to change the 11 pay classification of their employee, they need to put that 12 on the agenda and bring it to the Court. That is not what 13 this discussion is about today. This discussion is about 14 the relatively -- relative merits of what Mr. Nash has gone 15 out and determined as to how we pay classes of employees. 16 Judge Ragsdale? 17 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I probably don't need to go 18 up there for this. I did notice on -- if this is the 19 complete list, on where it says "pay grades," I noticed that 20 there is not a listing for Justice Court Coordinator. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: What is the job 22 classification of the person who assists you in your duties? 23 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Presently? Or -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Presently. 25 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Twelve. 113 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: They are a clerk. 2 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, they are a court 3 clerk. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Then they are 5 addressed in here as a clerk. 6 JUDGE RAGSDALE: But -- 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Now, if you think they 8 shouldn't be a clerk, they should be something else, you 9 need to bring that to us separately. 10 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, there is a 11 recommendation from him -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's not part of the 13 compensation study. That's part of the job description or 14 classification study. We're only talking about compensation 15 now; what clerks should be paid, what deputies should be 16 paid, what secretaries should be paid, what lieutenants 17 should be paid. And if you're a person who's currently 18 classified as a clerk and should be called something 19 different and paid different, then you need to bring that to 20 Court separately. That's not our discussion today. Our 21 discussion today is, do we accept the fact that we pay our 22 clerks appropriately? Do we accept the fact that Mr. Nash 23 says we should pay our deputies more? Do we accept the fact 24 that Mr. Nash says we should pay our beginning custodians 25 more? 114 1 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I apologize. I think that 2 maybe we're not communicating well, 'cause I don't 3 understand what you're telling me. How can you consider 4 what's not there? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we can't. That's what 6 I was saying. We don't have -- what you have in your hands 7 is not in front of us, and so it's not a part of today's 8 discussion. I know what you have there, Bill, and that's 9 not part of the Nash Compensation Study. It's part of his 10 classification exercise. 11 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Today we're talking 13 about compensation. 14 JUDGE RAGSDALE: So if you accept the study 15 today, that doesn't include what he recommends to -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: As the classification of your 17 clerk. 18 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Then you bring that to us 20 separately. And if the Court agrees with -- with his 21 recommendation and your recommendation that your assistant 22 should be called something other than clerk and paid 23 differently, then that will go into effect. But what we're 24 doing today has no impact upon what you're talking about. 25 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I wish I'd known that two 115 1 and a half hours ago. That was not explained to us. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: It was explained to at least 4 one of your -- your group. 5 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, I appreciate -- excuse 6 me just a second, Commissioner. And I'm not trying to 7 offend you, but when you're dealing with four elected 8 officials and you tell one, you're relying on a gossip trail 9 to keep us all up to snuff as to what the intentions are and 10 what we get. Frankly, I didn't get any of this that I'm 11 aware of. And -- but then, as it falls -- trickles down the 12 gossip trail, I -- I'm informed that this is a meeting to 13 where we can rectify these things so they can be considered 14 at budget. Apparently it's not, so I've wasted three and a 15 half hours of my time. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, Judge, had you called 17 me and asked me, I would have been happy to explain it to 18 you. I -- I addressed a question by one J.P. as to that 19 very issue. I was not of the understanding that I was to go 20 out and make -- have that same discussion with all the 21 others, 'cause they didn't approach me. 22 JUDGE WRIGHT: I'm just wondering about what 23 the agenda says. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: What you have is not -- is a 25 classification issue. It is not a compensation issue. 116 1 JUDGE RAGSDALE: And you're not going to 2 compensate them according to classification. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: We will, but -- but -- 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, can I help? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead, Larry. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we're here to 7 decide today, you know -- let me just give one example. The 8 Nash study says that a clerk -- on our current grade, we 9 have them as a 12, and that they recommend that they be a 10 12. And, so, if we buy that, we buy that. He says that a 11 senior clerk we currently have as a 13. He says a senior 12 clerk should be a 13. We're not here to decide, you know, 13 if you have someone who is a clerk who you feel like, hey, 14 that job really ought to be a senior clerk position. Then 15 that's -- what the Judge is saying is you would have to 16 bring it to the Court. That's a budget issue and it's an 17 approval of staff issue. It's not -- we're not here to 18 decide whether a clerk ought to be a 12 or a 13. We're 19 deciding whether clerks and senior clerks are at the right 20 level according to this study. 21 MS. NEMEC: I think I know what's happened 22 here. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 24 MS. NEMEC: Yesterday -- okay, yesterday we 25 had a meeting. Nash returned all the job descriptions, and 117 1 in those job descriptions he recommended some titles. I 2 sent out a memo, and yesterday was the day that if you did 3 not agree with your job -- with your job title, the employee 4 or the elected official was to come here, and we had an 5 appeals committee, so that process was done yesterday. Now, 6 I think what we need to do now with -- with that outcome is 7 put it on the agenda, along with all the other 8 recommendations that Nash has recommended as far as job 9 titles, so that the Court can approve them, and that's when 10 they come in. Is that correct? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 13 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, this says -- 14 MS. NEMEC: Where -- 15 JUDGE RAGSDALE: -- that on the salary 16 schedule, recommend movement upward. Is that compensation? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't have what you have. 18 I don't know what -- I know what you're reading from, but it 19 is not part of the Nash Compensation Study. 20 MS. NEMEC: That needs to be -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a different document. 22 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, I apologize for 23 wasting your time. I'm not a Ph.D. and I don't understand 24 the subtleties of the language of some of these things. 25 And -- and not being a part of this -- really an intrinsic 118 1 part of this process, I -- I apologize for not 2 understanding, but it sure makes it hard to do business. 3 I'm out of here. Thank you for your time. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone on the Court have 5 any questions or comments about the Nash Compensation Study? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the question I 7 have is a little bit general -- or more general. It's kind 8 of going back to a related -- when we do budget each year, 9 we adopt all these salaries. This -- all the step and grade 10 and salary schedule and all that. Why don't we do all this 11 -- I mean, I have no problem of voting and approving the 12 policy and changing direction and that, but why not wait and 13 do the approval in the budget like we've always done? Or 14 are we going to do it again in the budget? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: What -- we're going to do it 16 again in the budget. What I want to do today is to get a 17 direction from the Court that, yes, we accept the Nash 18 Compensation Study, and you should use those adjusted 19 compensation rates in building the budget. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I agree with -- 21 with that, but -- 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because I don't want to go 23 through the exercise of building a budget based on the Nash 24 Compensation Study, bringing it to the Court, and have the 25 Court say, no, we decided we don't want to do that; we'll go 119 1 back to the old schedule. Because then we've wasted a great 2 deal of time and a great deal of -- of money. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with doing that, 4 but I'm just -- when the motion comes, assuming there's a 5 motion at some point, I don't think it should authorize 6 implementation of it. I think it's authorizing it to be 7 included in next year's budget work. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll just authorize 9 acceptance of it. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: By law -- by law, if I 11 read the stuff correctly that I've got, every time we do a 12 budget, we have to authorize a salary schedule and we have 13 to authorize holidays, and there's some other general stuff, 14 I think it's called -- I don't know that they use the word 15 "stuff," but its a general thing. There's several things we 16 have to do. One of them is approve the salary schedule. I 17 think what the Judge is looking for here is -- is the 18 consensus and our direction from the Commissioners that this 19 is the salary schedule we want him to go build a budget on, 20 because it's different from the one we have for this year, 21 which is -- we're not changing anything. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, watch this. 23 (Commissioner Baldwin nodded.) 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We're not changing 25 anything. We're not changing anything at all for this year. 120 1 What we're saying is that we want to consider a budget built 2 on this new salary schedule. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that we're going 5 to approve that, if we do, as part of the budget process. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we all agree. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why 1.3, I 8 said just put a period the after "study." Consider and 9 discuss approval. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somebody make a motion, 11 and -- one more question? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing -- this may 13 take -- y'all have me on the next agenda item on this Court, 14 but this may take care of that. After the Judge and I 15 visited, and I visited with a couple others -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's don't confuse it, 17 please. Let me go ahead and finish this. Then we'll do an 18 amendment to -- 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think on the starting 20 salary -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Can we hold off on that? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because I think it's 23 affected in this authorization. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but it will just be an 25 amendment to the authorization. I want to get through the 121 1 confusing part as to what we're doing now. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Linda? 4 MS. UECKER: Okay. Correct me if I'm 5 wrong -- I'm sure you will. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We will. 7 MS. UECKER: The documentation that I 8 presented to you yesterday, the memo, I think that that is 9 an issue that needs -- that I would like to bring up now, 10 because it's at what step those positions were put. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: But that's not part of the 12 Nash study. The Nash -- 13 MS. UECKER: Yes, it is. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- study simply sets out a 15 range. All clerks are paid in this range. 16 MS. UECKER: And that's the -- 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: All deputies are paid in this 18 range. 19 MS. UECKER: And that's the problem I have. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: But what I want to do is for 21 the Court to adopt the Nash study, and then if you come in 22 and say -- well, let me ask you this; are you saying that 23 there is a -- a range for across-the-board of a job 24 classification that currently exists that was part of the 25 Nash study that you disagree with? 122 1 MS. UECKER: Yes. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. 3 MS. UECKER: Did you read my memo? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, I read your memo. 5 MS. UECKER: Okay. Then that is what I have 6 a problem with. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you share your 9 memo with us? 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: You got one, Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is it? 12 MS. UECKER: I gave you one yesterday. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 14 MS. UECKER: Okay? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That packet you gave 16 me yesterday? 17 MS. UECKER: Yes. And the problem that I 18 have with it is, number one, I feel real -- I canceled a 19 trip to San Diego because I got this study Friday, which 20 only gave me two days to do any preparing, and I don't think 21 that we had adequate enough time to study it and decide 22 really what was going on with the study. I'm glad the study 23 was being done. The problem that I have with the study, 24 after staying up late and trying to get all this prepared 25 for today, is two positions that I really have a problem 123 1 with. Court coordinators, under the Nash study, are 2 classified as a 19. That's fine, they deserve it. But a 3 chief deputy is only classified as a 17. And if you look at 4 my comparison, it's clear as day that the responsibilities, 5 the liabilities that being a chief deputy can create for an 6 elected official and the County are greater, and should also 7 be classified as a 19. 8 The second one that I have is the same with 9 secretary and a clerk. Beginning clerk is a Step 12, yet a 10 secretary starts at a 14. And, for some reason, there's 11 always been this stigma of we cannot have any 14's in the 12 Clerk's office. I don't know why not. I don't know if 13 there's a law somewhere that says clerks can't be 14's or 14 what, but if you look at comparisons again on the job 15 descriptions that the secretaries and the coordinators have 16 prepared themselves, and I've attached a copy here too, 17 you'll see that those are basic -- basic office procedures. 18 Neither court coordinator or secretary has to 19 be licensed. They don't have to be bonded to take in huge 20 amounts of money. They don't have to be insured for errors 21 and omissions. They don't have -- an error that they make 22 cannot affect financially the County or that elected 23 official. They -- they respond at the direction of their 24 supervisor. Chief deputies and deputies have to respond on 25 their own as court clerks and as signators under -- under my 124 1 seal. I've always had a problem with that. I spoke to some 2 of you individually, and you all go, "Yeah, uh-huh, that's 3 right," but nothing ever seems to be done about it. And 4 that's the problem that I have with it. 5 Also, in justifying my opposition to this, 6 and after reading Nash's study and his descriptions that he 7 returned to us, it was very obvious that he didn't read any 8 of them, because he had my staff collecting taxes. I've 9 never collected a property tax in my life, or neither has 10 anyone in my office. I mean, and that fact alone shows that 11 he didn't read any of them, and I don't think the -- the 12 study was done properly and I don't think that those 13 classifications were done based on the comparison or what 14 they thought was right, only what had already been done in 15 the past. And, that's all I have, and I'm asking that you 16 reconsider where he put those -- that salary range for chief 17 deputy, and that it should also be at a 19, and also 18 that the clerk's entry level should be at least at a 13, if 19 a secretary's a 14. He did make a recommendation, to 20 justify a little bit more, that a supervising deputy or an 21 administrative clerk be raised to a 17. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments? 23 MR. ODOM: Barbara, do you have any? 24 MS. NEMEC: I have some comments. 25 MS. UECKER: That's all I have. And if you 125 1 read my documentation, I spent a lot of time on it. It's 2 not something that came out of my head. It's what's on 3 paper and it's what's a part of what they filled in and what 4 my staff has done, as far as what's been approved as their 5 job descriptions. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara? 7 MS. NEMEC: I'm trying to -- okay. Linda 8 just brought up something that -- that kind of -- I kind of 9 thought about; that he did recommend that administrative 10 assistants be a 17. I know Jannett has some administrative 11 assistants in her office. Linda has some administrative 12 assistants in her office. 13 MS. UECKER: One. 14 MS. NEMEC: And I believe Rusty does too, and 15 I don't know if Paula -- Paula does, too. I think it would 16 be wrong for the administrative assistants to be a 17 and 17 our chief deputies be a 17. So, if we're going to bump the 18 administrative assistants to a 17, we definitely need to 19 bump our chief deputies up to a 19. 20 MS. HARDIN: Administrative assistants 21 haven't been moved; they're the same. 22 MS. NEMEC: They're being recommended to be 23 moved on this salary survey. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Administrative clerks are 25 being bumped. 126 1 MR. ODOM: Did he not say that they made a 2 typo? He thought that was a typo? 3 MS. NEMEC: But then he said it wasn't. Then 4 he said it wasn't at the end, that he did recommend that. 5 MS. UECKER: All I'm saying is if court 6 coordinators are 19, then chief deputies certainly should 7 be, 'cause they act in the absence of the -- of the elected 8 official. In case of an emergency or death, that person 9 would normally be the person to take over. 10 MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry. Looking at this, it 11 is administrative clerks. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Clerks that he's 13 recommended? 14 MS. NEMEC: Yes. And they do have 15 administrative clerks, not administrative assistants. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Glenn, you had a comment, 17 sir? 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: Just a question. First of 19 all, is the -- Page 5 says "Benchmark Results." Is that 20 part of the study? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Wherever it is. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 23 MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. The very top one up 24 there, I talked to Mr. Nash yesterday. That was an error on 25 their part. That current grade position is a 7 in my 127 1 department. That was -- he pulled a wrong number. 2 Currently, custodians are a 7 instead of a 15. That was an 3 error. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good news. 5 MR. HOLEKAMP: That's a big difference. 6 MS. UECKER: And that's not the only error in 7 here. 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: I didn't bring it up for any 9 other reason. I just wanted you -- it is incomplete, I 10 believe, with some positions. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, this sort of 12 goes to my comment yesterday about, you know, maybe we -- we 13 need to accept this, make sure we get all the errors out of 14 it, and see if there are any -- that sort of thing, but I 15 think what we can do -- certainly do today is accept the 16 study and -- and ask that, based on whatever all of us can 17 do together before we get back to this again, is that we -- 18 we implement it at a later -- some later date to support the 19 budget activity, but that we can accept the study now, and 20 with the understanding that there may be some adjustments 21 that we want to make. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, I'd like 23 to agree with that right there. Mr. Williams here has been 24 harping here for a good while; nobody will listen to him. 25 If you read the agenda item, it says, "Consider and discuss 128 1 approval of Nash Compensation Study and authorize 2 implementation of same for Fiscal Year..." If we would 3 listen to Mr. Williams and put a period after study, 4 "Consider and discuss approval of Nash Compensation Study," 5 I'll vote for it. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Fine. It's done. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you so 8 much. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will be -- go 10 ahead. Who made the motion? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: There's been no motion made. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buster, why don't you 13 make a motion? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we 15 approve -- no, accept the Nash Compensation Study. 16 MS. BARBEE: Are you changing the word 17 "approval" to "accept"? 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move to accept the 20 study. 21 MS. BARBEE: It makes a difference. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 24 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we accept 25 the Nash Compensation Study. Any further questions or 129 1 comments? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is the 3 understanding that we're going to listen to the appeals, if 4 necessary, get with Mr. Nash to work out any problems 5 that -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And make any 7 corrections that may -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Make corrections. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: The Court has the ability 11 to -- we can do whatever we want. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can modify it if we 13 want to. That's why I think -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll tell you, the 15 committee we had here yesterday was a very good working 16 committee, did a lot of things, and we worked through them 17 and -- and beat each other up a little bit, and then finally 18 came to a consensus. It was a good group, good way to do 19 it. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 21 comments? 22 MS. NEMEC: I have a question, but not really 23 related to this, but kind of, sort of what Buster was just 24 saying about the committee yesterday. There was one 25 employee who was not able to give their presentation. That 130 1 employee was on vacation when all my memos went out, and so 2 I wasn't able to reach that employee. I was just trying to 3 fit her in, and so when we did her appeal yesterday, it was 4 lunchtime already, so I presented it for her, and it turned 5 out that the committee went with what Nash had recommended. 6 Is there a chance that that employee may get on the agenda 7 to present her own arguments as to why her job title should 8 be different? I -- I just feel like -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Before she -- before she or 10 her supervisor comes to the court, I think she ought to have 11 a chance to give it to the committee, allow her an 12 opportunity to speak to the committee. 13 MS. NEMEC: Okay, I'll get the committee 14 together again and then we'll do that. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved and seconded that we 16 accept the Nash Compensation Study. Any further questions 17 or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff, you had -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is kind of -- well, 23 not -- it's a point kind of right in line with what Linda 24 was talking about. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well -- 131 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But since it's on the 2 agenda, one thing -- and the first thing I'd like to say, 3 I've been an employee now almost 20 years of this county, 4 and this is the first time that I can recall this County 5 really doing a compensation study. And, hopefully I won't 6 have to put my foot in my mouth, but going towards 7 implementing it, I think it will be one of the best things 8 for our department that we've ever had. Doing the 9 educational's going to give the guys the incentive to get 10 their education, and longevity will help us keep them there. 11 The one problem that I have with the study is 12 on the patrol deputy step or grade, where they're supposed 13 to be at. Currently they're at a 17, and in this study 14 they're recommending to be an 18. What that amounts to is 15 currently our patrol deputies come in at -- start at 16 $21,982. In this study, it would change that to $23,092 to 17 start. The -- the problem I have there is, currently -- and 18 this was even news to me when I started doing some 19 checking -- I have at least three officers on what they call 20 the WIC program, assistance to help them get food and that 21 for their kids and their wives. I've got one that is 22 sending all the stuff to apply for the Lonestar card, which 23 by their figures and their eligibility requirements, they 24 will definitely fit in that. And I have one back in the 25 jail that's even on Medicaid. And it's -- I think it's a 132 1 shame, you know, that we're at this -- and I commend this 2 Court for trying to get us to that -- or get us out of that. 3 The problem I have right now is not with what 4 the recommendations for sergeants and up. I think it's a 5 very fair -- it's a very equal deal. It's just the entry 6 level. The $23,095 a year starting pay for a deputy, any 7 deputy I have can go out to the Interstate and go either 8 direction, left or right, one county over and get an 9 increase. Before those counties even enact their raises, 10 okay, or their cost-of-livings. If this goes into effect, 11 even at their current level, they're going to get an 12 increase if they go anywhere. If they want to stay in this 13 county, not have to go through moving or, you know, 14 reselling a house or anything like that, they can change the 15 color of their uniform and go from brown to blue and 16 probably get a 30 percent increase, even with this 17 educational, and that's just entry level. At the entry 18 level Nash is recommending, I still can't keep those 19 officers from going somewhere else because of the entry 20 level. 21 The problem we have, the Kerr County 22 insurance program -- our health insurance program, though it 23 pays for the employee, which is great, but for the spouse or 24 the children, it costs our guys a little over $350 a month. 25 The city insurance -- and I'm not trying to do a comparison; 133 1 I'm just saying where we're looking, theirs is about half of 2 that, so that's an income that that's bringing. We require 3 officers to furnish all the equipment when they first start. 4 If you add that into there, you're talking a gun, the 5 leather gear and everything, that's another $1,000 expense 6 out of their pocket before they even start with us, because 7 they have to furnish that. 8 Some of the other things that I have is -- 9 and I don't -- I think it would be very advantageous to move 10 that up, at least from Nash's recommendation of an 18, to at 11 least up to a 19 as a minimum, which would put them at the 12 $24,265 starting. And then hopefully, the 2 percent 13 cost-of-living on top of that would put them up to, you 14 know, almost $24,700, okay, which is not -- well, I'll use 15 one example, 'cause they're a very small county and I think 16 it's unfortunate. You can go to Kimble County, that doesn't 17 have near the population, near the tax base. Of course, 18 they don't have near the size of the department or the 19 county stuff, but starting salary for a deputy in Kimble 20 County in Junction, which is a department with six or seven 21 deputies at most, is $26,000 when they walk in the door. 22 All right. I have -- I have a problem. How 23 can I keep these guys at the starting entry level? It's 24 not -- the rest of the study, I think it's great. When we 25 first hire a deputy -- and I sat down and really tried to do 134 1 some figuring. When you figure in the cost of the uniforms, 2 the cost of our training, and the cost of the -- when 3 Thunder Ranch gets adopted, the firearms training, the 4 regular training, we spend on the average, per officer, per 5 year, the F.T.O. period -- because you've got two officers; 6 you've got rookies that are going to be riding with another 7 officer, an experienced one, for at least two months, so 8 that's two months of his salary that's actually combined 9 into one officer's, because they're the same. And then the 10 medical and psychological that the County pays for, and a 11 bulletproof vest, because they've got to be measured; it's 12 got to fit. We're looking at a per-year minimum of an 13 officer, to hire new officers, $5,204. 14 I don't think the increase -- you know, if we 15 could increase it more than this $23,095, I can probably 16 save that $5,000, just about, most of it, every year because 17 we're going to be able to retain those officers. We're not 18 going to have them leaving, going somewhere else. Plus, 19 there's a big factor that, in my mind, is just -- if you 20 have an officer that's been here, you know, four or five 21 years, even at the starting or whatever, or a year, he's 22 gotten to know the people, the citizens. He knows the 23 criminal element. It's -- that is -- I don't know how you 24 ever put a dollar value on that to increase that, because 25 knowing who the criminal element is -- you know, if I got an 135 1 officer out here that's been here a number of years, he's 2 solving ten times the crimes because he knows the people, he 3 remembers the motives, the operating-type stuff and that, 4 and it really is of benefit to the County. 5 The other thing that I'm looking at, when I 6 took office in April, I had some priorities that I really 7 wanted to do, and the salary stuff with the officers was a 8 major one. The Court has helped us really straighten out a 9 lot of things over there and get some things going right, 10 and I do thank y'all gratefully, and I know all my officers 11 thank y'all for that. They're finally getting in cars that 12 don't have more than 1,000 miles on them, and they're -- 13 we're getting them somewhere, and we're heading in the right 14 direction. Last year in the Sheriff's Office and Jail 15 budget combined, from '98 to '99, that increase in the -- 16 from the year before in the budget was $496,000, okay? This 17 year, what I'm asking as an increase -- because I really 18 tried to cut anything that we could cut -- my increase in 19 the budget from '99 -- or from 2000/2001, total, with 20 everything I've asked for, except for merit raises, 'cause I 21 took those back out because of this study, is $63,000, okay? 22 Where the budget jumped 490 -- actually, $496,767 in one 23 year, I've asked for this year $63,187. That's including 24 six more cars. It's including the cost of gas, except we 25 couldn't estimate exactly what it would be. And we have cut 136 1 and scraped everything we can, because I really want those 2 guys to get some decent starting salary raises to where we 3 can keep our officers. We've got good officers. I lost one 4 last week. I've got resignations sitting on my desk for two 5 more right now because they have heard -- and it's not 6 official yet, but they have all heard and been told what the 7 City's fixing to do. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, you're killing 9 us. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I'm trying to, 11 Buster. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm all in favor of 13 taking your salaries up to 24. I'll -- 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I really want to get 15 this across; it's very important. I don't think 24 is even 16 enough. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone else have any 18 questions or comments? The proposal the Sheriff has made is 19 to modify the Nash study to start deputies at the 19-1 20 level; in other words, instead of taking them up from a 17 21 to 18, take them from a 17 to a 19. It obviously has a 22 budgetary impact. It'll probably cost right at $20,000 23 additional -- 20,000 additional dollars for the coming year. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I don't have 25 a real -- 137 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was just going to 2 say, I think we can look at that just like we looked at the 3 other -- that's one of the possible tweaks we might want to 4 make. We'll have to see what the budgetary impact of it is. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It falls in the same 6 category as Linda's -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct, it does. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we took a 9 real measured step today, Rusty, to help you retain your 10 officers. This falls into the category of recruiting your 11 officers. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think this is -- at 14 least I speak for myself, and I heard Buster's comment a 15 moment ago. There is certainly sympathy in helping you do 16 that. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I think this Court 18 has done me -- I know me, and I know my officers, a fabulous 19 job on getting us to be able to retain them once we have 20 them, and getting them to even want to get their 21 certificates and their education. It's something I haven't 22 seen in 20 years in the department. And if this is 23 implemented, with -- and everybody's always griped about 24 deputies' salaries and that, and of course we all say 25 they're not enough. I mean, my wife's a school teacher and 138 1 makes more than I do as the Sheriff, but that's not, you 2 know, what I'm looking at at this point. Based on what the 3 revenue and the tax base is for Kerr County, compared to the 4 tax base for the City of Kerrville, which I've honestly 5 tried to look at, if we can get this starting position up 6 higher to -- at least up in that $24,000 area, then I don't 7 mind telling y'all or anybody else that I think we have come 8 a long way. And, as a start, I don't mind telling any 9 deputy I have that you're getting a fair shake with what 10 this County can do right now. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I basically agree. I 12 just think -- I mean, I would like to see what the impact is 13 of what we've already done and make sure that we're not 14 getting in over our heads on another increase. I think -- I 15 really think we need to look at all adjustments at one time, 16 because they do have an impact on each other. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda's spoken, and now 19 you have, on specifics. And I know we need to get on the 20 next agenda or as soon as we can and listen to them and make 21 a decision, or if we want to go through the Appeal Committee 22 and get a recommendation from them, that's fine too. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And there's one other 24 thing I just need some guidance on, because it's not really 25 a job title deal. It's not really a Nash part, but it would 139 1 impact the same thing. I don't know -- I know Commissioner 2 Griffin and the Judge and I have spoken of it, and a couple 3 other ones. In our department, we have six working patrol 4 shifts, okay? When -- and we have corporals and sergeants. 5 We have three corporals, three sergeants. When a sergeant's 6 off, a corporal's on. When a corporal's off, a sergeant's 7 on. Those people do exactly the same thing. I think we 8 need to seriously consider classifying or putting those 9 people -- they're all sergeants, because that's what they 10 are. You know, nobody does any job different than anybody 11 else. The only time they overlap at all is one day a week, 12 and what I do on that day is try and make one of them burn 13 some comp time so that we're not paying them overtime. We 14 have -- like we did one of those time-offs. They are doing 15 that. I don't know whether that needs to come into this 16 budget process when we try and equal that out, but that is 17 something I want considered. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a separate discussion 19 on all of these issues. Barbara? 20 MS. NEMEC: With all due respect, I think 21 this here should have come to the Appeals Committee just 22 like everybody else that didn't agree with their -- with 23 their job title came here. But what that is -- 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This, I think, is a 25 little different, because I think what the Sheriff is asking 140 1 for is to essentially make the corporal -- this is a 2 reclassification thing. It would have to be treated 3 separately, is to reclassify the corporals as sergeants. 4 MS. NEMEC: We did some reclassifying 5 yesterday. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what the whole appeals 7 process is for. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The corporal positions 9 were positions that have always been there. They've been 10 doing that, okay. The officers would not know that that's 11 what they ought to do. They gripe all the time, "Well, I 12 ought to get paid the same thing as a sergeant," but they've 13 always -- that's -- in a paramilitary-type organization, 14 normally you have corporals, sergeants, lieutenants, on up, 15 okay? So, they're not arguing at this point that it was -- 16 really, that they were misclassified. 17 MS. NEMEC: No, but you are. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I, as elected official, 19 am arguing that they're doing the same job. I think they 20 ought to all be sergeants. So, it's not -- 21 MS. NEMEC: That's what we had yesterday. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But that's -- but what 23 that is is employees -- if I'm not mistaken, what y'all had 24 yesterday is employees wishing to challenge their -- 25 MS. NEMEC: No. 141 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- title. 2 MS. NEMEC: No. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Appeal it. Not what the 4 Sheriff -- 5 MS. NEMEC: Not -- there was one employee 6 that came in. The rest were elected officials. 7 MS. UECKER: You should have been there, 8 Rusty. 9 MS. NEMEC: He was there except for the very 10 first one. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll allow the Sheriff to 12 schedule a time with the Appeal Committee, just like the one 13 employee who wasn't able to make a personal appearance. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hell, he's on the 15 committee. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: And -- 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I am, sort of. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: We're going to take up the 19 issue of the starting salary at the same time we take up 20 Linda's request. 21 MS. UECKER: Do I need to prepare a request? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. What I'm going to do 23 is -- is think about it. I'm real tired right now. I'll 24 let you know what I want you to do. The last item on the 25 agenda -- 142 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thanks, Rusty. 3 MR. ODOM: Leonard Odom. You know, I have 4 empathy for the Sheriff here, but I got the comment before, 5 you know, that's part of the job. And I -- you know, I got 6 starting people at $16,000. Starting $16,000. And we're 7 talking about 24. So, you know, we accepted -- we accepted 8 the Nash recommendation based upon trying for fairness. And 9 -- and now we're -- it seems like we're throwing this out. 10 I mean, Rusty has to deal with it just like I do. I can't 11 even keep the people, Judge, that -- the Nash recommendation 12 is less than what the competition out there in the private 13 sector is paying the people for part-time work. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: We didn't compare the private 15 sector. We're not the private sector. 16 MR. ODOM: I understand that, and I'm telling 17 you that, but the -- 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: You're not law enforcement, 19 either. I think there's a distinction between law 20 enforcement starting and other people starting. And if you 21 disagree with that, you disagree with that, but that's my 22 opinion. 23 MR. ODOM: Let's talk the about the market. 24 And there's a private entity that I have to compete against, 25 the private industry, as well as the municipalities. Rusty 143 1 is a little bit -- you know, the law is a little bit 2 different out there, but the same forces are in effect, 3 Judge. The same forces that affect that. Kerrville is no 4 different than Jenschke or anybody else out there on our 5 people. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you want to make a 7 presentation regarding adjusting the starting level for your 8 people different than what the Nash study is, you have the 9 same opportunity. 10 MR. ODOM: I understand that, but we 11 accept -- we're trying to be fair and logical and rational 12 in our budget process and what y'all go through. My 13 goodness, we're talking about thousands of dollars, and this 14 just sort of kicks everybody else out. Sure, I can go in 15 there and -- and try to -- I'll put something together. I 16 have no problem, but that's not what we were asked before. 17 We were asked to take this and to give our comments before, 18 and everybody did. I even gave you a piece of paper where 19 we looked at it, and those recommendations -- and I feel 20 like Nash was pretty well on, because we looked at TexDOT as 21 a comparable. And, if you notice, we were at the top of the 22 list at 4.6. That was okay out there. So, we're not that 23 far off. But -- but, you know, my goodness, $24,000 versus 24 $16,000 for a starting salary in there is just unbelievable. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to change 144 1 horses here just for a second. The Auditor told me 2 yesterday that you were going to make a presentation today, 3 something about you and him and somebody else being in a 4 different category than anything we see here? 5 MR. ODOM: Well, the Auditor asked me 6 yesterday what the interpretation was, and I told him it 7 looked like 4 1/2 percent. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not going to -- 9 MR. ODOM: I don't have anything to really 10 do. I don't even set the salaries. I don't even know what 11 you're going to pay yourselves. I hadn't been -- I don't 12 know what you're going to do. That would be a good 13 question, what the department heads are going to receive, 14 but I don't think that's what this agenda was for. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thanks. The last item 16 on the agenda is consider and discuss the approval of the 17 2 percent COLA. Does anyone want to make any comments or 18 questions on that? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the comment I 20 have is the same as I had on some of the others; that I 21 think, from a budget planning standpoint right now, a 22 2 percent's a good figure to use, but we're spending a bunch 23 of money. I want to see the total impact of what we're 24 doing before we determine what that COLA will be. But, 25 from -- 145 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would move that we 2 use that for the -- for planning, with the proviso that if 3 we do some of the things that we're doing, we may have to 4 adjust that. That's going to be a budget -- that will be a 5 budget item. But I think we should -- I would move that we 6 plan, for budget purposes, a 2 percent COLA. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And then -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 10 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we plan, for 11 budget purposes, a 2 percent cost-of-living increase for all 12 elected officials, department heads, and employees, 13 full-time. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Full-time employees. 15 MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Pardon? 17 MS. NEMEC: I said, I'm sorry that I have to 18 say something. In the past, whenever we've done cost-of- 19 living increases, some of the elected officials give their 20 part-timers a cost-of-living and some of them don't. I see 21 us in for, down the road, a lawsuit on that. I think if 22 it's cost-of-living, everybody's cost-of-living goes up. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: How are you going to adjust 24 the cost-of-living on somebody who gets an hourly rate? 25 MS. NEMEC: 2 percent. I gave my employee 146 1 last year the cost-of-living just on an hourly rate. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hourly rate, 3 2 percent. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, we'll make it 5 across-the-board, everybody. I don't care. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For planning budget 7 purposes. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me the motion 9 again. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The motion is that 11 we -- for budget planning purposes, that we consider a 12 2 percent COLA for all County employees, including elected 13 officials and part-timers, everybody, and that the Judge 14 will factor that into the budget. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 16 Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz. Any further questions 17 or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We are 22 adjourned. 23 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:55 p.m.) 24 - - - - - - - - - - 25 147 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 8th day of August, 8 2000. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25