1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lH
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
1:00 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
Design/Build Team Interviews
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 9

z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
December 17, X002
PAGE
1.1 Consider and discuss presentations by finalists
for design/build team for HCYEC renovation/
expansion project 3
Faulkner Construction/J.M. Lcwe/Quorum 6
Huser Construction/Allen Adler 50
STR Construction/William Epp 103
1.2 Consider and discuss selection of design/build
team for HCYEC renovation/expansion project 128
~ ~~' `% ~"
--- Adjourned 156
3
1
~.1 G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
•--
25
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 1:00 p.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
DODGE HENNEKE: All right. It's 1 o'clock in
the afternoon on Tuesday, December 17th, Year 2002. We'll
call to order this special meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court. First item for consideration today is
to consider and discuss presentations by the finalists for
the design/build team for the Hi11 Country Youth Exhibit
Center renovation/expansion project. Before we ask the
first team to present, Mr. Gondeck, do you have any
introductory remarks you want to make as the consulting
architect?
MR. GONDECK: Yes, sir. Judge,
Commissioners, first of all, what we will be going through
today is three sets of interviews, and to begin with, we'll
ask the presenters to give their presentation, and then we
should have about 30 minutes after that for questions and
answers. The Court would first be able to ask any
questions, with the exception of we will not discuss fees or
costs today. We can talk about cost methodology, but
according to the statute, we cannot ask them, "What is your

4
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
R
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
price?" or "What are your fees?" So, we do not want to go
into that. Just about everything else is fair game. I do
have a few questions after y'all finish that I will ask each
of the groups if they have not already given that
information during the presentation. Okay?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any
questions about the procedure?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Little bit about the
format. Wi11 they make all -- all make the presentations
and then we'll ask questions?
MR. GONDECK: No, sir. Each one -- we have
them scheduled at 1 o'clock, 2:15, and 3:30 for the
different presenters. The first one here will present for
30 minutes, or hopefully not more than 30 minutes. Then
we'll ask them questions. Then the next one, when they come
in, we will ask -- have them present, and then we'll ask
them questions.
	COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN: Okay.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: What	-- Mr. Gondeck,
these rating	sheets that you	've presented -	-
	MR. GONDECK:	Yes, sir?	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: You	-- you want us to
be thinking	about these as w	e go along, or	at the conclusion
of the sessi	on, or how do yo	u -- how do you	see that
happening?			
i~-i;-
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. GONDECK: I would say that if you have
any input that you want to -- as far as how each of you
individually score and how many points you wanted to give
it, as long as you're consistent through the three
presenters, I'm not going to provide any guidelines for
that. I did provide, you know, what the points will be
weighted as far as my recommendations, as far as an
objective score. Even if you choose at the end not to
actually have your scores or your evaluation done on a
strict scoring method, it is not really incumbent upon the
Court to have to score it that way. Our recommendation does
have to be on an objective scoring criteria.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. GONDECK: But yours -- you still have the
autonomy, as elected officials, of voting the way you want
to. But I guess it's there as a guide or as a tool.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, on the -- on the
price side of it, we r_an't talk price, but all of the teams
are presenting the proposals that they feel they can do for
up to three -- within the budgeted amount, $3 million?
MR. GONDECK: Yes, sir. And that is actually
one of the things that's listed there as to the feasibility
of the project as far as time and budget, based on their
design concept.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And are you going
~..-i~ u=
6
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~3
24
25
to give us a recommendation at the end?
MR. GONDECK: Yes, sir. I have a quarter in
my pocket. Three-sided quarter, right?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Best two out of three, huh?
Does anyone else have any questions about the procedures or
the parameters of the interviews? If not, let's get
started. Gentlemen, you're up.
MR. BAER: Thank you, Judge and
Commissioners. We of the Faulkner, Lowe, and Quorum team
thank you for the opportunity to be in front of you today to
present and clarify any questions you may have. We have
prepared this response in the notebook that is being passed
out to you. It has some sheets which try to address
specifically the points brought up in your Phase II of the
Request for Qualifications. First, let me introduce myself
again. I'm Dave Baer from Faulkner Construction. And, of
course, you already know -- I believe everyone in the room
knows Mike Lowe, from Lowe -- J.M. Lowe Construction, and
Bill Blankenship from Quorum Architects.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spell your last name,
please.
MR. BAER: B-a-e-r. Each of us has some
connection to either Kerrville and/or this project
specifically. Of course, J.M. Lowe lives and works here in
Kerrville, as well as doing projects elsewhere in the state.
~, ._
7
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Faulkner has done a number of projects and is currently
doing projects here, one of which is just two doors away
down the street on -- for the Performing Arts Theater. And,
of course, Quorum has been involved in the project early on,
as you all well know. One of the things that we wanted to
point out today is, if you open the -- to the first page our
organizational chart, this -- this isn't a traditional
looking organizational chart, and we did that purposely. In
a design/build format, it's important that we create the
sense of a team leading toward an objective, and each party
has some role to play in that team. You, of course, as the
Commissioners Court, are the owner, but there are several
consultants that you bring to the team as well, plus
ourselves and consultants that we have for special purposes.
But the success or failure of this project is largely
accomplished in the very front of t_he project, the design
phase where we are identifying design solutions to your
needs.
We've attempted to do that based upon the
criteria established in the design criteria, and in a moment
Bill will speak more specifically to that. And we've got
some of those drawings here -- included here, but I just
wanted to point out, as -- I know it's sort of a r_liche, but
it's very important to realize tha- the greatest impact that
all these decisions can make on the project happen early
1.-1' --
8
1
~, 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,--. 13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rather than late. It happens in the very beginning. It
happens in probably the first team meeting, the first
kickoff meeting that we have together, is really where great
decisions are made that impact dramatically the -- the final
solutions and final project.
The first month or so of our efforts are
really where we -- we bring the diverse elements together.
And, by "diverse," I mean the scope of work as we understand
it, and maybe have it clarified. Then we have, you know, a
budget and expectations from the end users and the
Commissioners Court, and how we bring those all into a -- a
r_ircle that is realistic for all of us to attain each of
those expectations. That happens early, so it becomes
critically important that the team be established in the
sense that it functions as -- as a communicating and
decision-making team, so that we can proceed along a
timeline that's critical to your needs.
I'm going to let Bill speak to his inserts
here, and you can turn the page and start to open those up
in a second, but I wanted to just point out that while, you
know, we believe we have -- collectively have a challenging
budget condition here, we have taken the approach that we
would try to put all of the design criteria on these
documents as we best understand them from the -- the handout
package. And we ~~an get into more discussions about those
iz-t; ~~_
9
1
„~ 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lh
17
1 ti
19
20
21
?2
23
24
...
25
specifics as we go along, and, obviously, they would be
further clarified at subsequent meetings. Bill?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Good afternoon,
so that as it's folded out, we'll go to the next sheet and
you r_an see how it kind of works together. The initial
page, though, is the overall site, and like Dave was saying,
we try to emulate what was brought out in the RFP so that we
do cover all the bases that were there with all the design
criteria.
The site that you see, the gray area is all
the paving that would be involved up front. There's
approximately 150,000 square feet of existing paving, and
we'd be providing about 240,000 to 250,000 square feet of
additional paving to that. The area that's shown dashed --
if you don't mind, I maybe need to kind of show y'all a
little bit. The area that's dashed is your existing area
for all the parking. That's right through here, and see how
it goes up around there? So, one of the criteria was to
provide at least 600 spaces. To do that, the additional
area is	that	240,000	square	feet.	We	have	about 530 -	- if I
counted	them	right,	the way	I laid	out	the	parking, we	have
530 existing spaces, and we provided you with another 604
spaces in that gray area that's shown outside the dotted
10
1
2
3
9
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
line area. Also, the exhibit hall was to be put over to the
east side facing north. The existing barn area's
50,000 square foot. Then the interim piece in between with
the central core is shown, the overall look being one that
would unify that front area.
I'll start with the exhibit hall first, and
just say that some of the initial thoughts on that, we had
it more turned towards any possible future addition. With
the criteria that was set on the REP, it asked for a 2-in-12
slope, and also a masonry front. What I did with that is
turn it so that the front elevation looks more like the
elevations that are coming up with the existing arena and
the new barn area. The existing arena criteria was asked
that we provide concrete outside the arena area itself, and
if you look on there, the orange area is the existing arena,
and the dashed area or dotted area is the added concrete.
When you go over to the existing barn -- yes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it easier to ask
questions as we go?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Sure. Any time you want to
ask a question, ask it, because I ~~an clarify things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just to make sure I'm
understanding, looking at the existing arena that so the
area that has the bluish-grayish speckled --
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Right, that's concrete.
._-1,-'z
11
1
3
4
5
6
7
2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is concrete going to be
added in all that area?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Right. That was asked for
in the RFP.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: When you go over to the new
barn area, the front area shown dashed is the concrete area,
and the two back areas are the dirt. In between that, we've
got your central entrance, restrooms that handle that area
up front, and portion of the existing arena, the offices.
And then, while we were doing our walk-through, it was
brought up that -- that you wanted to save the existing wash
rack area. And also, there's some criteria in here that
says you wanted to cover that and add some heating in there,
so I accommodated that, actually a little bit larger than
what it is right now, because I feel like it's probably a
little tight for what they're doing. It's approximately
5~ feet across there. So, on the site, if you look at that,
has anybody got any questions about the total, overall site,
how it looks and operates?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- in between the
existing arena and Barn 1, you have the concession area as
furthest back?
i_-- ---
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes. I'll get into that in
a little bit. It will be -- I've got it blown up down
further.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: I'll clarify that for you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to do
kind of an in-depth discussion on the exhibit hall also?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Okay. So, to give you an
idea about the elevations, take your next sheet. That is
the elevation; you can fold it out. And then take the next
sheet under it and fold it out also. You can just place
them one on top of the other, so you can get a general idea
of how the elevation is in comparison to the two buildings.
That's how they're both going to look. One of the things is
that on the existing building, we're taking a portion of it
off, so the e-height on that building is actually larger
than what it's showing up as it is right now. And then it
continues on, and then you've got the area to the side. The
new barn was asked that we match that height, so we did, and
provided a central area for people to come into both the
existing and the new barn.
And, just to clarify a little bit, the
1 ~ - . ? - U G
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
29
25
existing beige look on the front of the building, we kind of
held that, because we feel like that's probably something
that we can't change right now with the monetary situation.
If you flip the elevation over, the area for Barn 1 --
Commissioner Letz, your question was you can see the
concession stand over on the side. That's in that 50-foot
spare along with toilets. And then there's also a toilet
area up front which covers the front concrete floor, with
the idea that that was probably going to be some kind of
assembly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The washing racks are
all in that covered area?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: And I figured what we'd do
is we'd remodel those, because I don't think they will work
the way they are right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it intended that
the -- that the toilet areas in that -- in that covered area
near the wash racks, they're not -- are they not especially
for the general public? The general public's are on the
other side? Is that --
MR. BLANKENSHIP: No, the general public --
the way I figured this would work is everybody in Barn 1 is
going to have activities that they're going to cross back
i - ~ - n _
14
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1^
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and forth between those two, so the area for the cross-overs
is where the concession and the toilets are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: That being an agricultural
type in the back. And also the situation over there on the
existing arena, then you're going to have actually three
r_oilet areas to cover the existing arena.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: So, it spreads it out so
that you don't have to walk across back by where the arena
might be. And also, you may not have the existing arena in
operation, but you could have Barn 1 in operation. This
allows you to have one in and one out without having to open
them up, and you still have availability of concession and
toilets. Then, if there's someone in there like the Youth
Fair, if they're doing their wash rack area, they can have
access into that area and back out without having to cross
any of the public areas, if that's only operating over there
on that side.
The front concrete area, the way we arranged
the -- the barn, there's two areas on that front that are 60
foot by 100 foot that have clear spans in them the width of
this building. You can say it's, like, a 60-foot -- a
50-foot and a 60-foot span. So, there's two 600- by
100-foot clear spaces up front, and then there's the movable
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
partition that goes down the central course area to divide
that area up. Each one of those, like y'all -- you had
asked in your RFP, there's three separate spaces that are
connected up with overhead doors. And just a little
clarification on how I did the overhead doors; I didn't want
to go back in and show every little door that was there, but
every overhead door is going to have a personnel door beside
it.
The offices that we have in there, you wanted
four offices and some storage and reception area. That's
about 2,200 feet. I didn't take it all the way up to the
2,500, because the wall that's at the end of the offices is
where the wash racks start right now, and I felt like if we
got into there, it would be getting into a bunch of
plumbing, so I didn't want to do that. You have a central
area that leads off to either existing arena or into the
Barn 1; also would be an area that you can get to the
offices and cross over into the offices back to the back.
That's up to you, how you'd want to have that for
accessibility.
Okay. Take the next sheet over and fold that
up. That's the elevation for the exhibit hall. And then
fold the one underneath it. You can kind of see how it sits
on the exhibit hall. Kind of look under it. We've got some
projections that come out for the wings for the storage, and
~z-n-u_
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the offices added on. What I did, I got a masonry front
that goes around to the sides and then up from the -- up to
the front, and then I blocked that off, thinking that it's
going to be too much to carry that all the way up to about a
24-, 25-foot height on that back side, so I stopped it there
where the Hill Country Youth Center -- that would be metal
from there on up.
Turn it over. The criteria had asked for a
north and east entrance, and so I -- I configured this so
that it actually works for all the parking that's out on the
front and north sides, east or west. And this allows for
any future addition to be added onto the back so that the
configuration up front for the elevation sets that peak so
that it matches those other elevations. Oriqinally, I had
one that was turned so the flat piece came out, and I don't
think that's what you wanted to have for the -- the
elevation for the time being. This allows you, in the
future, to add that back area with no change up in the
front, and it's probably your cheapest addition. What
you've got is toilets that service 1,000 people, and a
kitchen that would provide for a catering-type.
Like I say, the entrances on the two sides
allow for a lot of movement of the people in and out coming
from all the way around. The front area would be a sidewalk
area, so it's a gathering area. And then you had mentioned
iz-i,-,_
17
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about a mall. What I did was use -- we got a landscaped
area out in the front. This would also allow the kitchen to
be serviced from the side. We could just put some small
walkway up there so that you wouldn't have to get inside the
building to service the kitchen. The storage area on the
east side could also be serviced from the side on the --
parking on the east side, and then have access into the
exhibit hall. The offices on the west side can be utilized
by the exhibit hall, and in the future, if there's any kind
of added arena or concourse, they can also service those
people, too, for offices for any kind of meetings or
something that somebody in that arena would be having.
That's a quick deal. Have you got any questions about that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does -- how does
the -- how is the kitchen serviced?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: From the area that's up in
the front, the landscaped area there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: We have trees out in front;
they're right back there. You can come over to the side,
have a parking area, and they can just wheel through that
kitchen. We'd probably put some kind of front door, you
know, very -- not -- so you wouldn't see it very well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, deliveries to the
'- - 1 - - -
18
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L5
kitchen would come from the front behind the trees?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yeah. That doesn't
ne~~essarily mean they have to, but that's just an
opportunity to keep it out of your exhibit hall area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR.. BLANKENSHIP: So, if you open all those
up, you can kind of see how all the elevations fit with the
buildings that are underneath there. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The peak on the
exhibit hall, is it a little higher than the peak on the --
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yeah. It was asked that it
be 2-in-12.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: And so that 2-in-12 kicks
it up almost twice what it would be at a 1-in-12. The other
roofs are 1-in-12.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: If y'all are okay with
that, then Mike will speak to a schedule and how we can do
the project.
MR. LOWE: Commissioners, Judge, if you'll
look at the first schedule in your book, preconstruction
activities, this schedule is broken down into three basic
components. When we are awarded the -- the project, if we
are, then we would have a kickoff meeting, assumably the day
1<'-1~-u
19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~3
24
25
after close -- following closely the bond election. At that
time, we would begin to develop the scope of the work, the
definition, the -- we'd begin identifying the components of
the building. You can see by the schedule we think we'd
spend a month doing that. At that point, we would be
probably 35 percent complete with our construction drawings.
At that time, we would -- we would get
together, the Court and ourselves, and review those, and
after your approval, we would go to document development,
construction drawings, developments. We would -- we would
reach a 60 percent interval and stop again for final review
of our drawings, at which time we would begin finalizing our
construction documents. At that point, we could develop a
quaranteed maximum price, apply for a building permit, and
if you approve of our guaranteed maximum price, then we
would be ready to enter into a contract. That's the basic
preconstruction schedule. And you can see that time -- the
timelines for each of those -- of those items has got it
basically on a three-month schedule.
Second sheet is the schedule for our
construction activities. You can see it's about an
eight-month schedule. You can read each of these tasks and
trades on the left and see the timeline. I would say that
the -- the most important component of this schedule is
being able to order our pre-engineered metal building as
-i,-
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
soon as possible. You can see we've got demolition of the
existing livestock barn, exhibit hall, site work,
underground utilities, concrete foundation. But the main
thing is ordering that building and getting it delivered.
We are told that it will take 10 to 12 weeks from the day we
order it to have the building delivered. That is the one
thing that will affect my construction schedule more than
anything else, so we've got 60 days to erect it. And then
Line Item Number 9 is the interior finish, which means all
the finishes on the inside of the building: plumbing,
electrical, drywall, all those type of things. You can see
that our -- our parking lot paving and striping starts
towards the end of the project, which we were thinking 60
days to -- to do the parking lot. And our schedule has a --
a target completion date of January the 8th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike, are you looking at
building both metal buildings at the same time?
MR. LOWE: Yes, sir. We would be -- we'd be
doing the dirt work under the exhibit hall while we were
doing the demolition of the existing livestock -- livestock
barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What could be done to
move the completion date of at least the barn about a month
earlier?
MR. LOWS: Dave is going to talk about that.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
-,
~~
MR. BAER: Let me offer a couple of
suggestions. You've noticed, obviously, that it runs pretty
tight there, and if you assume that everything will go
precisely the way we've put it on this schedule, we
shouldn't do that. There's a couple -- there are a couple
of activities we can do that would improve that
dramatically, some of which takes perhaps -- not a leap of
faith, but it takes a sharing of some risk. If you found a
way to identify another fund outside of the bond funds to
allow us to begin the design work for the first segment of
this activity, which is the Item Number 1 on that schedule,
it keeps your risk very low, but it gives us a one-month
head start on the -- the meetings and derision-making
process that need to happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Assuming that doesn't
happen.
MR. BAER: Okay. Then the next potential
idea that could help us is that, at a point in time when we
are at that 60 percent approval, Line Item 4, we may still
not have the scope and the budget completely matched up, but
we should at that point be sufficiently close that the
footprint of the building will not change, and that could be
the time period where we are released to order the building.
That starts that -- it's always kind of a strange discussion
you have with these pre-engineered building suppliers, where
~:-i;-
22
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the thing that takes so long is the engineering of a
pre-engineered building, but that is the fact. And, so, if
you start that process, that doesn't mean you own a building
yet, but -- and there -- should the unthinkable happen and
bond issue fail, then you could -- could stop that process
at very little cost. But that would be a way of actually
speeding it up by a month. And, actually, getting done
before the holidays would be far preferable than trying to
finish up through the holidays of next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Dave, you have on here City
permits. I'm not sure that the construction requires City
permits, since it's not actually in the city.
MR. BAER: Well, we had a discussion about
that. We put it on the schedule here for discussion
purposes. You had indicated in the -- in the documents that
you wanted to perform everything -- or design it and
construct it in conformance with the City requirements. It
would be, I believe, your option whether you wanted us to
actually obtain a City permit and obtain City inspections as
a result of it. If it's not necessary, obviously, it can be
deleted.
(Commissioner Baldwin entered the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me.
MR. BAER: Certainly.
1_-1 -
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
22
23
~4
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need another book
for Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's okay, I'm used
to being treated this way. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have another book?
If you do, just -- it's hard for someone else -- no, not for
me. I was wondering if anyone in the audience --
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say let them look at
it. It's public record.
MR. BAER: Do you mind telling me who I'm
giving it to?
MR. RAYMOND: I'm from the Times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pass it around if they
want to look at it. Why don't y'a11 -- all four people
identify yourself?
MP.. BAER: The reason I ask is that it's an
open meeting, and I prefer not to give it to our
competition.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No competition.
COMMISSIONEP. LETZ: No competition. Press,
Maintenance, Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center, and
Commissioner-elect.
MR. BAER: Thank you.
DODGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
i~-n-~ _.
24
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
'S
comments on the construction schedule?
rUMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's involved in
the 35 percent owner approval? Can that be moved up some?
MR.. BAER: We11, that's really largely
dependent upon how much time y'all are able to dedicate or
can dedicate to a fairly extensive series of meetings to
resolve all of the scope budget questions, and that -- you
know, we discussed how many -- I mean, that's more than one
day of effort. That is -- you know, that's days of effort
to get to that 35 percent level. It's -- it's kind of
misleading. These things might look like 35 percent, but
this is us looking at it in a vacuum, looking at the design
criteria and interpreting it exactly how we read that --
those items.
What that leads us to, though, and I'll --
I'll move on to the next phase, is the feasibility of -- and
I believe the question was leading us to what's the
feasibility of performing all this for $3 million? And it
is very challenging. We believe that, you know, if our
interpretation is correct, we've got too much scope in it.
And our interpretation may be wrong in some areas, in which
case -- and I'll give you an example. The storage and the
office space in the exhibit hall, if that was meant to come
out of the 13,000 square foot, then that's a significant
change to what we've got on the document here. And, so,
1%-1~-r~
zs
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
15
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's easy money to get back out of -- of the scope.
But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- let me -- so, the
way you drew it, it is -- there's 13,000 square foot of
exhibit hall space, plus the office --
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Plus two, plus two. Plus
2,000 on either side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It should have come out
of the 13, so it should be 9,000.
MR. BAER: Well, see, those are the things
that -- you know, and that's just an easy example, because
there are other things that take a lot more -- and we
probably don't have the right people here to have this
discussion, but things like the -- the volume of exhaust,
the air changers. There actually are some elements of that
that create another problem, and it's a structural problem.
The air changers are so great that you would have to have
fail-safe interlocks so that you relieve the back pressure
to prevent sur_king the walls in. I mean, that's a huge
amount of air. So, I mean -- and that's kind of not an
issue that we need to discuss at any length today, but
that's exactly the kind of thing that should go on at those
meetings.
And I -- I'll make a comment here. We need
to test the assumptions and challenge them, so that -- you
i_ i _
26
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
1~
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2 _`~
know, sometimes y'all make a statement in a document like
this, and we're off in our office and we interpret it a
certain way, but we need to come together and make sure
we've interpreted it exactly how you want it to be used.
And where it drives the price up more than the budget can
stand, we have to raise our hand and say so, and then we
start to challenge finding a different solution to that --
that use or that problem. So, the reconciliation of those
things is what happens in that first month. So, it's a
pretty intensive month of work. Bill, you can jump in.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: It's intensive from the
standpoint that you're going to have to be involved. I
think you understand that, that there's a lot that's going
to happen and go on, because you're looking at several
different codes; A.D.A., a few things going on with the
City, the new I.B.C. that's coming out. And, so, I think
it's going to be a situation that's going to be very intense
for that period of time to set the correct scope and concept
an~~ head out from there. The time is well spent up front,
versus being on the other end where you got more problems,
more things going on, so I think there's a lot of dedicated
time there up front. Doesn't necessarily mean that we might
not come to a good conclusion in two weeks, and so it might
be a situation that could be changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- go ahead.

27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: If the Court were to -- to
direct that you use your best efforts to complete the
renovation oY the existing arena and the new barn by, say,
December 15th, even at the cost of letting the completion of
the exhibit hall slide until, you know, end of January,
mid-February, is that a possibility?
MR. BAER: It is. However, that doesn't
really help the budget constraints, because when you
separate those two activities -- for example, if you have to
buy the two buildings separately, here's obviously no
savings to be had there. There might be a slight penalty to
pay, because you're buying -- you have less -- less volume
or less material that you're buying in one purchase order,
so that could hurt us a little bit on the budget.
' JUDGE HENNEKE: But let's assume we could buy
both buildings, set one building, and perhaps let the
finish-out of the exhibit hall lag until the work was done
on the existing arena and the new barn.
MR. BAER: Well, if --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there time-saving? That's
what I'm trying to get.
MR. BAER: If I understand your question
correctly, that would be what I would consider a sort of
a -- an option to make sure that you had the barn done in
time for -- for January.
-- _ ~ _
28

1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Exactly.
MR. BAER: The livestock show. And you have
a little bit of flexibility over here on the exhibit hall,
so that's -- it would be our preference to finish it all at
once.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Exactly.
MR. BAER: But if that doesn't work, then you
step back and say, okay, what do you really have to have
to open up correctly here? You're going to really -- it
would be a much better opening for Mike's trailer to be
gone, punch list to be done, everything be nice, new, you
know, ready for the public. So, that would be, obviously,
our first choice. But, yes, there's some possibility of
that. And --
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Let me give you -- let me
say one thing about that. We've got several areas -- if you
notice, at the last schedule, we got a G.M.P. approval; I
think we had two weeks in there for that. A lot depends on
what happens, and then we do our approving, like at 3S, 60,
and 100 percent. I left a week in there for the Court to
make some kind of derision. When you take these weeks out
and you take the G.M.P. out, that pulls that schedule back
down. The thing that Dave was reiterating about the 6U
percent set, if at that time we have a G.M.P. ser that meets
the criteria, then ordering those buildings would be an
L? 1- _
29
1
2
.-,
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
` 13
,.-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
7?
z3
24
,.-,
~S
option, and that option right there would save two to three,
I mean, that would be kind of a natural time, and it's a
fairly low -- low risk to actually get that engineering
process started with the pre-engineered building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I forgot what I was going
to ask -- oh, I know what it was. How accurate is, I guess,
the delivery time for the building? What's the chance of
that sliding a month, six weeks? Or is it pretty --
MR. BAER: Well, they had asked the question
of a certain vendor. We obviously need to get pricing from
multiple vendors, and they vary a little bit. But what
happens in that industry is, they all get real busy based
upon what's going in the marketplace, or they slow down
based upon it. And I would say that's -- we ran do it from
any vendor in that amount of time, and have the potential of
improvinq it slightly from certain vendors. What we don't
want to do is pay a premium for improving it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It looks like you're --
it's about a six-month time after the building's delivered
to being finished. I mean, you have a -- basically, early
July until early January would be six months, and that's the
i_ i,-~~z
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l~
19
20
21
2~
23
24
~5
building erection and interior finish segments, so that's --
MR. BAER: Correct.
CUMMISSIGNER LETZ: What happens if the
building doesn't come in until August 1st? Which means that
there's a very high likelihood that it's not going to be
ready January 15th, which is not acceptable? I mean, what
-- what happens if it -- if there's a delay and we tell you,
because of that delay, you'll have to shut down for six
months, 'cause y'a11 can't finish it? I mean, basically, it
has got to be done in January.
MR. LOWE: Yes, sir. We've ordered a number
of these buildings, and have never had one be late. The
vendor that we're talking to is pretty reputable from a -- a
good manufar_turer. We've never had them be late on a
delivery. I feel like we could meet that schedule.
MR. BAER: The only thing I'd suggest is,
before we would step back to that six-month delay concept, I
think we would seriously consider spending a little money to
accelerate to get it done. See, delaying it six months and
coming back to finish it costs money. If we're going to
spend it anyway, let's spend it more positively so that you
get a finished product when you want. And that's just part
of what we'd have to study to collectively make a decision,
you know. And, of course, it also matters whose fault it is
that it's not there. If it's our fault, we have to figure
__-i __
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out how to resolve that issue. If it's a decision-making
issue, where we couldn't collectively get to a decision,
then, you know, perhaps we have -- have an issue to talk
about. But, generally, my attitude is, if we're -- if it's
going to cost money, let's spend it positively, rather than
in a reactive condition by, you know, delaying the project
finish-out.
MR. LOWS: commissioner Letz, one other
thing. We will be very consider -- considerate of our
schedule. If it appears, due to a delay in the metal
building being delivered, or what -- any other cause that
might delay the overall schedule of the project, we'll work
around the clock. I've done it here, and cae'll finish that
building when we tell you we will.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If -- I don't mean to ask
all the questions, but no one else is saying anything, so
I'll ask this one. Say in that Februar~,~ framework -- or
time framework, we have additional funds and we decide we
want to expand the exhibit hall by 6,000 feet, maybe
12,000 feet, whatever. Some amount. How -- what is that
going to do to the schedule?
MR. BAER: It essentially will do very
little, if anything, to the construction schedule. And
that's a -- it's already really thought through pretty well.
50, from the design standpoint, it's a pretty small impact

32
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
L J
29
25
or wrinkle. I really see that as being almost a nonissue.
What would happen -- what would be more troubling is if that
decision or that -- that funding and expansion of the
building came after the original building was delivered.
So, if you got it in February time frame, I see it having,
you know, very little negative impact to the schedule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then how -- so,
basically, it's on the -- ordering the building is really
almost the drop-dead date for us letting you know what we
want out there at this time?
MR.. BAER: That's -- I mean, even beyond
that, it can be done. I have done it before. But, again,
then you have to go through the process of getting the
pricing from the vendor, agreeing on that additional -- and
it's a significant increase in the -- in the scope of his
work. You have to get all that agreed to before it's really
on order. When you sign the -- when I -- or we sign that
vendor's purchase order is when it's really -- that clock
starts to move towards that 10 weeks.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is the exhibit hall designed
so that we build this project and then, let's say in three
years, they want to expand the exhibit hall, can that be
done?
MR. BAER: Well, the way we've oriented that
building, it's real easy to expand. The original concept

33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5
10
11
12
13
19
15
lh
17
1 ~3
19
20
21
22
23
24
ZS
that we did -- well, y'a11 didn't see it; we were just
playing with these concepts, but where we had the framing
turned the other way, it would have been far more difficult
to expand, because you wouldn't have the complete frame --
metal building frame. You'd only basically have half of it,
with the other half coming in the expansion. So, when we
turned the orientation this way, it's kind of an odd-looking
building. Normally, you see the peak of the roof around the
long direction, but in this case it's running the short
direction in anticipation of that expansion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, did
you talk about change orders, or were we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: -- asked not to talk
about that, or what was the story?
JUDGE HENNERE: No, we're --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can talk about change
orders.
MR. GONDECK: Basically, we can talk about
anything except fees and direct costs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't talk about the
most important part.
MR. GONDECK: We can talk about the cost
methodology and how they develop their costs. You can ask
t2iem those questions. So, yes, you can ask them about
i_ i
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lR
19
20
21
22
c3
24
2J
change orders.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ask them about -- I
want to apologize for being late. I was out shopping for
y'all's Christmas gift.
ZLaughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Took that long?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- and I talked to
Commissioner Baldwin about this once before, just -- you
know, just talking about the project. How do you -- what
would the impact be of changing -- or how do -- I guess how
much more does it cost us? Do we pay a premium because of a
change order that comes along, or i.s it a cost-plus that's
negotiated on the road, or just how do you handle change
orders'?
MR. BAER: Well, generally, the typical
contract -- and I believe that your anticipation is to use
an A,I.A. contract, which is a pretty standard and
well-understood contract format. It really comes in Part 1
and Part 2. Change orders really happen in Part 2, whir_h is
the part that is addressing the construction of the work,
and it addresses change orders in there. And we can pick,
you know, whatever Y.ind of markup you feel is -- or we
ultirnately agree is appropriate. But the change orders --
grid you may be leading to this question -- change orders are
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lH
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
typically the nemesis of owners, because they are so
aggravating that they pop up -- they happen at the wrong
times; they're really irritating to deal with. And there is
a misconception that we, as contrar_tors, make tons of money
on change orders, which is absolutely not true. What
happens with change orders is they -- they impact the -- the
normal process of construction, and so the impact is slow
down, stop, wait for decisions and so forth. You have to
work around that issue. That's what causes us more -- more
trouble.
Well, most of those change orders, really, in
the design/build format, fall within our own camp. The
coordination of change orders where the electrical designer
and the mechanical designer didn't quite have things matched
up, you don't have to even hear about that change order. We
just have to go deal with that end, the design/build team.
But when you add a piece of the building, that's a change
order. That's a different scope, and so we would have to go
get pricing, show that pricing to you, get your concurrence
with it, and then be released to order the materials to do
that. And I guess the expansion of the exhibit hall would
be the extreme example that we would anticipate in this. It
would be the biggest potential change order. But if it
happens before we go ro Part 2 of the agreement, and it
becumes included in the G.M.P., then it's really a change in
~_-~ -n.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
L ~
23
~4
25
budget, and the -- the budget increases, the scope
increases, the G.M.P. got bigger to include that scope of
work, and it's not really a change order then. Change
orders would only happen after the G.M.F. would be agreed
upon.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In a design-to-cost
project, the ultimate answer is -- is that owners ought to
resist the temptation to make changes. Resist the hell out
of it, as a matter of fact. 'Cause it -- 'cause it blows
the budget or it blows the schedule.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or both.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or both.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: That's why you do that
35 percent up front, and you really concentrate your efforts
right there. And, from that point, do what Mr. Griffin
Says.
MR. BAER: Well, let me go to the last page
here. Now, we addressed several final points in your -- in
your outline. And 1 mentioned several things earlier about
the Yeasibility. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind
tha*_ this is a challenging budget based upon the scope of
work as we have understood it. And y'all have clarified at
least one thing where we have too much scope in here, but
that's all part of the process of challenging assumptions,
getting ttie real answer that -- that must be then put into
iz ~~ -
37
1
.... 2
3
4
S
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
24
...,
~5
the design and put onto the drawings. The cost methodology
is really an output of the process of design. And we
mentioned earlier that kickoff meeting and/or a working
session -- I'm not sure how y'a11 would intend to do this,
because it's a little unwieldy to do design working sessions
in an open meeting, but I guess that can be done. But it
has to be done in a format where there is interaction
between the two parties. That no longer is a presentation
type of process. There -- there is, you know, questions and
answers and responses and -- and so forth. That's the most
critical part of the design, in my mind.
This whole deal is -- really comes down to
the first couple of months of effort. And if we fail there,
we'll never get it back on track. If we succeed in that
first 35 to bu days, the rest of it becomes a normal process
and easily handled. And, so, we -- you see there where we
described, again, that 35 percent design r_oncept, which is a
bit more than what we've seen here, but it's responsive to
all of your -- the questions and answers that we get. Then
we go to the 60 percent design, which we do a budget update
or an estimate update. The first real estimate would be
back at that 35 percent time frame. It's the first time we
quantify square feet of materials and length of things, how
high they are and how much material it takes to do, you
knuw, what's on the drawings.
1 _ - 1 ' - i
38
1
.... 2
3
9
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
G 1
22
23
24
,.-
25
We update that, then, at the EO percent
design, and those things should start to come together. It
should not necessarily be surprising that there's still a
be declining as we approach the final design. What's
disastrous is if we bring it in too low, and it climbs as we
get the design refined, because then you're surprised too
late to be able to deal with it, and then everyone is upset
with each other at that stage. So, we want that -- that
scope and that budget to come together at G.M.P. time,
exactly where you want it. In an effort to -- or in our
preparation of a G.M.P., those are done on construction
documents, and we solicit subcontractor and vendor input
proposals, and that's the basis of most of the G.M.P. It's
what the market pricing is for the various components.
And I might note that it's our style, and it
certainly is Mike's style, to utilize local participation of
contractors and vendors where possible and where they're
capable of performing, and so that's, obviously, something
that we do in that solicitation process. And then one --
one last thought there is that, to protect against an
overbudget condition at that G.M.P. time, often we can use
what's called additive alternates, so that you carve off a
piece of scope that you really want but don't have to have,
~_ ~-
39
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1G
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and design it without that included, but add it in as an
added alternate, so that if the budget comes in slightly
under the desired G.M.P., you can add those components back
in, in whatever order you prioritize them. So, that's just
a mechanism that we use to try to give some options there.
The last thing is about inclusions and
exclusions with -- with our typical G.M.P. The first
comment is that we're going to be flexible. There are
certain things that should never be in the design/builder's
G.M.P., but generally we can be flexible to your needs. For
example, F.F. & E., or furnishings and fixtures and so
forth, typically are not in that, because you can really
manage it and buy it less expensively than through us. But
the things that are obvious is the direct cost cf the work,
trie design fee, the demolition of the old barn, and the
disposal of it. We exclude the -- the environmental
engineering, which I believe is already underway, and we
exclude the abatement. That's not to say the abatement
couldn't be put bark under it. We do occasionally do
abatement, or you could do that directly outside of our
work. We also have excluded the geotechnical engineering,
which ought to be going on, really, right now, and hopefully
it is. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the geotechnical?
MR. GONUEI;K: Soils analysis.
i. -i %-n.
90
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
~l
22
23
24
25
MR. BAER: Soils analysis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BAER: And that will generally dictate,
then, how the designer designs the paving sections, the
concrete slabs, and the foundations for the building itself.
And I might make a note there, that we -- we would like to
have some participation in that selection. If -- if you get
an ultra-conservative geotech -- geotechnical engineer, it
drives costs into the -- the building or the structure that
we almost can never get back out. And so you want --
MR. GONDECK: I just -- excuse me, 'cause
we're running -- probably running out of time. I think some
of these things are very important. As far as the
geotechnical, why do y'all want to exclude that, when you
have the responsibility for the complete design?
MR. BAER: Well, the presumption is that it
would be already going on, but if that's not true, then I
guess we can reconsider it. But --
MR. GONDECK: That -- that presumption is not
an accurate one.
MR. BAER: Okay.
MR. GONDECK: And, really, truthfully,
because all of the other architectural and engineering work
is being done by the design/build team, and the structural
engineer is going to be, you know, depending on that, as far
-- - ~- ~~
41
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
1/
18
19
20
21
22
7~
2q
as that goes, my recommendation to the Court is that that
would be part of the design/build seam, as far as the
geotechnical.
MR. BAER: Okay. Refer back to my first
statement. we're flexible. If that was a bad assumption,
we'll reconsider that. Generally, I think the abatement or
the environmental --
MR. GONDECK: And environmental, that -- we
have part of the environmental. We've done some looking
also into the -- that at the bullet traps or whatever. The
cost for the abatement and clean-up prior to the demolition
is going to be fairly inconsequential, when you really look
at the dollars on it. So, it's --
MR.. BAER: Well, I'm Sure that that's true.
And, really, the lead is probably a mineable product; people
mine that to reclaim the lead. But the -- if there's
asbestos in there, really, with the lead --
MR. GONDErK: It's riot been found, so the
asbestos is not an issue.
MR. BAER: But you have to have that report
in order for us to demo the barn.
MR. GONDECK: We have it.
MR. BAER: That's a requirement.
MR. GONDECK: We do have that.
MR. BAER: Okay.
1.:-1~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One question I had is --
and who is the -- who are we contracting with? With
Faulkner, or with Lowe?
MR. BAER: The concept is that you would --
you would contract, as design/builder, with Faulkner, and
then we would contract with Lowe and Quorum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Faulkner is who we
deal with?
MR. BAER: Well, yes. But I want you to
think of us as a team.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean,
if -- you know, if -- hopefully, i` push comes to shove, we
want to know who's accountable. Who's the --
MR. BAER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- top accountable
person.
(Mr. Baer raised his hand.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, it's Faulkner.
MR. BAER: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Wayne, anything else?
MR. GONDECK: Yes, sir. There is a little --
and I know we got started a little bit late on y'all, but
there is a -- it's sort of a difficult question to ask, for
me to phrase right. On your -- your concept of

43
1
,.-. 2
3
9
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
design/build, you have presented it as, really, a design bid
or costing and then build, rather than as a design/build
package. It's my understanding that the statutes are -- do
contemplate this as an alternative delivery method, as
hiring a team based on qualifications, establish the scope
price. Has there been any thought as far as any contract
actually -- or lookinq at the 35 percent phase or the design
development phase, or as Part 1 of the contract, to come
back with that definitive proposal that has the documents at
a certain level to establish the guaranteed maximum cost,
and then to go forward from that point?
MR. BAER: we can and have done that, but I
budget is so tight that we will have -- we won't be able to
make that work if we have to include contingencies to cover
the gap between 35 percent documents and actual construction
documents. And there's no room in there for much
believe the -- the best value -- again, we ran do it that
way. I just don't predict it has the intended result in
this case. The best value, I believe, for the County is to
work with us to develop and refine that scope of work using
our estimating knowledge and collection of information from
various vendors and subcontractors so that you can make
iz-i~-~?
1
1
2
3
9
5
6
8
Q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
„,
23
29
25
44
choices about the products and materials and scope of work,
even, so that we ultimately get to something that has the
scope you want at a price you can afford.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the contracting
standpoint, once we -- sometime this week, hopefully; maybe
today -- pick the people that we're going to try to
negotiate with, that will not -- that negotiation will
basically be on hold, or the contract wouldn't be signed
anyway until May, when you get the guaranteed maximum price,
as I understand.
MR. BAER: If you use the A.I.A. contract, it
has Part 1 and Part ~, and both are signed. Part 1 is
generally the value of the design. It's made up of nearly
all design dollars, and a few estimating and, you know,
miscellaneous dollars. Part 2 is only a very little bit of
construction administration from the architer_t, and all of
the -- all of the hard costs of construction dollars. So,
Part 1 is the small piece and Part 2 is the big piece. It's
the real construction. But you actually execute both
agreements. But if we never get to a G.M.P. that's
suitable, or something just happens, then what your exposure
is is only the value of Part 1, which is the -- the design
effort.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if we never can --
well, I guess this goes back -- and the reason that it's a
i_ n-u_
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
45
bit of concern to me is that you've mentioned several times
the budgetary challenge. While it may be challenging, it is
still, in your opinion, possible to get this project done
within that budget? I mean, I don't want to -- for us to,
you know, select a team, work with them for three months,
and never be able to get to that -- I mean, 'cause
$3 million is the money. That's it. I mean, there's --
that's how much the bond issue is going to be for, so if
that's not realistic, in your opinion, it doesn't make sense
to negotiate for three months and spend money, you know, if
it's not a pretty good likelihood cae're going to get -- be
able to come to --
MR.. BAER: Let me suggest the inverse of
that. And if we lose this job because we're honest at this
stage, then so be it. I -- we'll just have lost the job.
You will be in a far -- you know, far worse position if you
work with somebody who says it can be done for $3 million
today, and ultimately it costs $4 million when you're trying
to go to G.M.P. If -- it we're predicting more accurately,
you know, what the cost of this scope of work is, we'll end
up working together to get to the goal. But if someone says
it today to get a job, then that -- that's not the way we
want to get a job. Let me just say it that way. It's not
our -- and if that -- if our belie` today that this set of
drawings -- which, let me footnote again, we've got more
,_-, _„_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
lS
46
scope in here than --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BAER: -- than we intended or should
have. But even after we get all that out, we sort it out in
that first step of an estimate, that's really when we start
to get a better feel for how close or how far apart the
scope and the budget may be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question to Wayne. This
is an important point to me. Is it possible, under the
statute, for us to -- you know, whoever we end up picking
for our first choice, second choice, third choice, that we
get to a point of negotiations, and then we realize we're
just not going to get there and -- and stop before you get
to the actually guaranteed maximum price --
MR. GONDECK: Yes, sir, the statute does
contemplate that. You know, you rank each of the qualified
teams, and then you begin the negotiations with the first
team. If you cannot successfully negotiate with the first
team, then you go to the second team. You do have to end
formally the negotiations with the first team, though. But
it does provide that you can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, before -- well, do
you sign -- do you have to sign Part 1?
MR. GONDECK: Well, there -- the contractor
agreement has not been presented within the -- the
i _ i ~~
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~' 3
24
2~
47
qualifications statement. In other words, it is very
open-ended and a totally negotiable point. In looking at
the A.I.A. agreement, you do not have to use that form. You
can modify that form. You can tie it to be more stringent,
so your latitude is very broad in this. What we would, you
know, recommend is that you try to tie down as many of the
knowns and determine at least a maximum formula or something
as far as those issues, speaking of the changes, all those
issues prior to -- you know, or at that first phase of that
negotiations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate the honesty.
I just want to make sure -- I don't want us to get in a
situation where we're wasting each other's time trying to
negotiate where we never can come to an agreement.
MR. BAER: I understand completely.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions?
Mr. Gondeck, do you still have any to go?
MP.. GONDECK: No, sir. Actually, the
questions were asked right here. This is a tough bunch.
MR.. BAER: Judge and Commissioners, thank you
for your time. I can assure you that if we are selected as
your design/build team, you won't find a harder working team
to go through this process with you. And we'd love to do
this job.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Dave, Mike, Bill.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
Appreciate you coming over this afternoon.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: I'm going to leave you guys
a larger -- two larger drawings. I didn't want to bring
them out for -- to just tell you the deal here.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Same as these?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yeah, but they're just
bigger.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it too late to ask
Bill a question?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were to --
Dave, please listen. If we were to learn after the bond
election successfully passes that additional funding will
become available for the expansion of -- of the Exhibit
Center, you're notified early on, that doesn't change a
great deal; you can just go ahead and do that. So, I guess
my question would be, these two wings that you've got on
there of 2,000 square feet each, if we're locked into
13,000 square feet, they have to come off, but if we learn
that we're going to get additional funding, they can be
considered as part of the additional square footage?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: Right, and just extend it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
1~-1--

1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
49
MP.. BLANKENSHIP: Shouldn't be a problem.
MR. BAER: Actually, those two are pretty
simple, because there's not a lot -- there's no plumbing in
it or anything.
MR.. BLANKENSHIP: No, just space.
MR. BAER: They can kind of move around.
MR. BLANKENSHIP: It's air.
MR. BAER: It's air, and those two are. All
your money is in this front section.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. GONDECK: There was one additional
question, and Commissioner Letz actually brought it to mind
the other day, and I forgot to ask this. Because of the
type of financing and the bond election coming up, if y'all
do happen to be ranked as number one, would you be willing
to allow the Court to utilize those conceptual drawings for
the promotion of the bond election?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: You bet, or anything else
they need.
MR. GONDECK: Any other agreement at that
time?
MR. BLANKENSHIP: And anything else I can do
to help out, no problem. I'd come down here and talk or
whatever.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you. All right.
1 - ~ - ~ -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
23
24
25
50
Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. BAER: Thank you very much.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's take a quick
five, back at a quarter after.
(Recess taken from 2:10 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's reconvene so
that we'll stay reasonably on schedule. Steve, you're going
to introduce your team here?
MR. HUSER: Yes, sir. I am Steve Huser,
president of the Huser Construction Company. With me is
Scott Rain, who is our senior project manager in charge of
our estimating department, and also with us is Allen Adler,
who is our project architect. I wanted to start off with
just telling you how much we appre~~iate the opportunity to
be here. Appreciate your consideration of our firm. What I
want -- the way we're going to kind of structure this is let
A11en tell you a little bit about the conceptual design that
you see. Scott's going to tell you a little bit about how
we go about obtaining bids and pricing and that sort of
thing. I'll talk a little bit about schedules, and then
give you guys an opportunity to ask any questions. If you
-- you see something in the midst of this that you're
wondering about, holler, and we'll answer it as we go
i -1--0
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2~
through. So --
MR. ADLER: All right. Well, first of all, I
want to mention a few things; that Huser and I have been
working together here in Kerrville for Sid Peterson
Hospital, and we've done a lot of projects together. We've
done several of them over there, and we're working on one in
Llano Health Care System, and we're used to each other and
we complement each other and provide each other a lot of
needed information, which helps things go smoothly. And
I -- for my part, I mean, I have a mother-in-law that's
lived here Tor 25 years, and I've been coming here for 90
myself, so Kerrville is a very familiar place for me, and
it's a home and a place I always look forward to coming to.
Working here in Kerrville is something that I -- I really
enjoy doing and look forward to.
With regard to this project, we went with
Wayne and his group and the pre-proposal aspects of this,
and listened to the program and got all the literature. And
I went back, 'cause I'm -- as I mentioned, I'm here. And I
went back and -- and did a very thorough walk-through,
talked to some of people over there, and I did -- I didn't
vary, you know, from the program. I mean, I was very -- I'm
an architect, and an architect presented me the program, so
I'm listening, all right? And I'm listening to see what's
yoiuy on.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
I/
18
ly
20
21
~~
~3
~4
25
52
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's your first mistake.
MR. ADLER: Huh? And the -- and the concept,
and it was a very specific concept; you know, enough
details. So, the aspects of this are -- are very
site-related, in my opinion. The site of this project, it
was specifically stated that the exhibition hall should be
on the east side, and that -- that part is what you see
here, of course, and this is the arena. And I drew the
arena in so it would help me know where it is. That's the
arena building. The demolition of the existing structure,
of course, will be gone, the livestock barn. But the -- the
main thing that there's a lot of facility in this plan, and
the main thing we were concerned with is budget. I mean,
it's -- I know -- I mean, I've done Little League fields, a
lot of things for the youth where I live, and I know that
budget is number one, so we tried to keep it simple. Keep
it simple -- keep it Hill Country, keep it simple.
And, so, needless to say, the shapes are
simple. That's a big building, so they need to be. But
they're also -- they're simple and they're -- they're
structurally simple. They're -- they're like this -- this
arena building, but they give us an opportunity to do some
design. They give us an opportunity to tie things together,
and so what we tried to do is as many of the two-for-ones
and free things we could do. One of those things is
t.-_ -__
1
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
53
landscaping, parking. We're going to do that anyway, right?
So -- and here we have a great big, huge, expansive
building -- where's my picture? Right there. The arena
building right now is a very big, huge metal building with
big old doors, and nothing softening, not a tree in sight.
And so what we felt was a very -- very good thing to do
would be to tie this entry that would -- was identified to
join the arena building, the livestock building, with the
entry to the -- the exhibit hall, and the entry to the whole
complex, and center it on those two doors. You know, when
you walk -- when you drive in, you see the -- the signage
and then you go left or go right, but you -- you're
immediately indoctrinated into the facility. You have your
two choices. And we've successfully broken the facade of
all of these, of -- I'll show you a picture of it. So, what
you see here happening relates to that.
Another major part is, obviously, there's a
lot of truck and trailer traffic. Well, this Dart riaht
here, we can't -- we can't tighten that up. We've got to
honor that. We've got to honor the traffic coming out of
here. So, we have created an avenue for that to happen,
that doesn't interfere. Now, it could come to here if you
want it to, but this way we have some positive separation of
those types of utilitarian traffic versus the -- you know,
the people in cars and all that sort of thing. Now, what
i?-~~-u
1
.._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
2 J
54
we're connecting these two entrances with is a landscape
mall, and that -- that really gives you some opportunities.
And, of course, I -- you know, budget being an issue to me,
the parking -- we can reuse the surfacing. I mean, I think
that's one of the things we want to do as much as we can.
Now, I've got here 890 square feet -- I mean 890 parking
places. You got all that on what I handed out to you. We
could put another hundred here, another hundred here,
another hundred here, so you can have as many as you want.
But -- but there's a point where you don't want to keep
paying for parking; you got to have some buildings, too. So
-- so, the -- so, one of the things we've done is we've
tried to surround the buildings, of course, and make the
parking as convenient as possible. We may want to have some
trailer parking too, but it we do that, I'd say we lengthen
these parts here, here, and here, and make that a very easy
transition to a lot deeper parking lot.
Now, that gives you an overview of sort of
what we're trying to accomplish here. When you go to a --
an enlarged drawing of the livestock barn, you'll find --
I've tried to tie in with the site elements for you so you
can see -- you can see what's going on. But, again, the
entry system here allows you to enter the arena building or
the livestock building. Then, right at the top, we've got
reception and the offices and everything else, per the
!_ ~-u~
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
]7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
program, which is three or four offices, a conference room,
et cetera, all of that, and your six workstations. I got a
unisex toilet and a mechanical room. Then we have a
concession stand, which I tried to -- concession and toilets
I tried to center as much as possible, so that you can get
to it from the arena building, you can get to it from the
livestock side, either one. And you can access it through
here and through here, so you can separate these three.
Now, here are the three areas. Basically,
that's one area, that's two areas, and that's three areas,
and we have -- we have them connected with movable
partitions. And this particular partition I'm showing, I've
used on other occasions, and it's very nice. I've -- I show
it -- it's economic. I show a 30-foot opening. It could be
8U; it can be what you want it to be, but I've shown it at
30. So, you can close it and you can open it and have
plenty of -- plenty of room to make this all one big room,
all three, or close this, have this one big room, close
that, make that L-shaped. You've got a lot of variety, I
mean, by -- by doing this sort of approach. Now, when --
when we did the structure, again, we kept the columns at 25.
These are at 25, and we have a -- a center support here,
where we -- where that solid wall is, where we can put some
columns. So, we're going to free span, and even though
the -- the program called for 100-by-HO, we can do that

56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L ~
23
29
25
everywhere. I mean, so, you got a lot of free span area so
that you got plenty of room to be unencumbered.
As to the arena building and the renovation
that is going in there, well, those are renovation items
there listed, one, two, three. Concrete, I couldn't agree
more. I walked around in there and had my shoes sucked off
my feet. And, I mean, that's the last time I'm ever walking
in there in loafers, I'm telling you that. And architects
have a problem with that, because we're supposed to meet
with you guys like this, and then we go out on the site in
our shoes and -- right? I mean, or we get all beat up. So,
I had been to the hospital, so I got the loafer treatment.
So -- so, but the dust in there is an issue, and the mud's
an issue, so you need to -- I think the concrete's a big
one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- back to that
previous one. So, it's a free span in --
MR. ADLER: Basically, this is your ridge.
Up and over, up and over.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you have --
basically, there's three big rooms?
MR. ADLER: Yes, there's -- this is one, this
is two, and this is three.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And each one of those is
free span, I understand, the top --
-t~-~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
MR. ADLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one of the
three would have the concrete floor?
MR. ADLER: This one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ADLER: That's the one in the front that
was per program. Again, that was -- that was identified as
one that needed to have concrete. And, again, a lot of this
is budget-driven, to me. I mean, it is to you, too. And it
comes down to sitting down and talking about each one of
these items and saying, you know, when the budget -- you
know, when the final analysis hits, maybe we want 350 places
and concrete here. Maybe you trade one or two other -- I
mean, you have priorities, if we can't get it all stuck in
the bag right. So -- so, there's a lot of options, a lot of
ways to do this, some of which was identified in the
program.
Now, moving along to the Exhibition Hall.
The Exhibition Hall, you saw on the site plan I've cocked
it. Well, I cocked it for a reason. One is because we --
we can see it when we come in that front entrance gate, just
like here; I can go this way or this way. When I'm looking
there, I want to see the entrance. When I'm looking there,
I want to see the entrance. I don't want to tuck it -- push
i_ -' "`
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
it back and make it -- make it unobtrusive. I want to see
it, want it to be part of this whole scheme. We have main
exhibit and banquet area in the front. We have an entrance
on the north and an entrance on the east side. Storeroom,
accessible from the -- from the rear and to the exhibit
hall. I have a catering kitchen that shares the same kind
of loading dock effect. I have toilets here that are --
that's another thing. The toilets you were very explicit
about, but -- in this particular building, but the other one
could have an infinite number of people, so we -- we have to
sit and discuss that sort of thing, too. Then the office
area right here, and we have three offices, a conference
room, and waiting and all of the things specified, and then
mechanical room back here in the center, so we can do a
fairly economic distribution.
Now, the next -- the next drawing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you move
over -- before you move on --
MR. ADLER: OY,ay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- this -- this
exhibit hall, as you've depicted it, is how many square
feet?
MR. ADLER: 13,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Including the
offices and all that stuff?
~_-i~-~,
59
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
MR. ADLER: Yes, sir, the whole thing square.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what will that
seat, that main area, at a sit-down dinner?
MR. ADLER: Wow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Approximately.
MR. GONDECK: Allen, how large is it?
MR. ADLER: It's 119-by-68.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can come back to
that. Go ahead. We'll come back to that.
MR. ADLER: A lot. But I -- it's about
two-thirds -- I'd say about 8,000 square feet, Wayne.
114-by-68.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Wayne will
work on that. Go ahead. It's your presentation.
MR. ADLER: Getting back to the site plan --
MR. HUSER: Depends how close you pack them
together, what kind of table configuration you have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
MR. GONDECK: You can put between 400 and 500
people in there.
MR. ADLER: How many?
MR. GONDECK: Between 400 and 500 in a
banquet setting.
MR. ADLER: Okay. Now, this is -- this is,
again, the concept of what we perceive we can do for this
~_ ~~
ho
1
..., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
type of -- this type of approach. Again, here -- here is
the existing arena building right here, and we put the --
the entrance focal point dead on that ridge, so we can go
either way. What we envision is tc keep the buildings
simple, cost-effective, and apply the entry solution, and
use Hill Country materials; stone, steel, and timbers in
this particular case. We have -- we have a lot of metal.
We have -- so, what I'm -- what I'm saying is, let's put
some steel trusses out here on the entrance, hold it up with
a stone wall, and have it sitting on heavy timbers out --
out at the entrance. And if you look at this entrance
detail, this will probably tell you more about it than
anything, but we have stone columns and we can put signage
on the side of the -- of the wall. And when you come under
that, have the star of Texas right there when you come in
straight through, hit the star, and then you can go either
way. And the mall will connect us, and -- and so will
the vehicular traffic.
Now, as you come over here to the livestock
barn, we have a steel truss sitting on the same detail,
heavy timbers and stone columns. And I put in a porch,
because that's not enough. I mean, people -- with this
number of people, there's going to be some congregating, and
so I thought a really inexpensive and efficient way to give
us sort of a -- the southwest look was to add -- add a
i~-i~- _
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
porch. And I've got some of those old-timey steel columns
with display tops supporting the beam. So, we have a porch
here for people to congregate as they enter the building.
Not across the whole thing, but part of the way. And this
gives me an element that, in the long run -- I've got stone
on a 9-foot wainscot underneath here, but if we can't afford
the stone, we really haven't lost the look, because we still
have the entry solution. So, that's maybe a -- you know, a
trade. That's -- you know, I know stone is an option, and
we all want it to be all stone, but, of course, it gets
really expensive using that rock.
So, then, over here on the Exhibition Hall,
again, the steel truss at the top with the timbers and the
stone columns. In other words, the same elements. I got a
porch on both sides to introduce some windows in the exhibit
hall. I went back and forth on that. I -- you know, that's
one I want to discuss. I mean, exhibit halls, you don't
want windows. On the other hand, maybe a little light on
the north side wouldn't be a bad idea. So, we introduced
them here, but -- and then we left the same entrance
solution over here. So, what we tried to do, again, was be
very budget-conscious and dollar-conscious and give
ourselves all of the avenues necessary to -- to bring this
within your budget and the dollars. And I got -- I got 17
minutes yet, so -- I think I'm supposed to have 30. So,
i~ i, -
62
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I'll leave it there. Again, jump in with questions on
design. Mr. Williams? I mean, whoever. I mean, just
whatever comes to mind, holler and let Steve sort of answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, can we go back to
the drawing of the floor plan -- or of the exhibit hall?
MR. ADLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That one -- either one.
That one.
MR. ADLER: The exhibit hall?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. ADLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we were to decide the
size of that building needed to be expanded by 8,000,
10,000, 13,000 square feet, how would you do it?
MR. ADLER: Oh, let me go back. You'd want
to throw that area into the exhibition hall?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it would be in the
exhibit hall. It could either be done, you know, right
away; we may decide in February or we may decide in three
years.
MR. ADLER: Well, I imagine that this -- that
this is a square. I mean -- okay, in a few years? Well,
then I would say that we would come this way. I mean,
there, which we got it as a utilitarian loading dock. This
way is an entrance and that way is an entrance. We'd come
i~ i~-oz
63
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
this way if you're going to do it later, because this is a
-- a free end. I mean, it's ready to go. Now, we can also
-- you know, if that's part of the program up front and we
know that, and we know we're going to maybe expand it, we
might turn and put those toilets -- although the toilets are
probably pretty well-located. We may put those where the
office is, and -- and so we can be -- have a more central
location for those with the addition.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you don't see any
problem in -- in designing the building to be expandable?
MR. ADLER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Expandable right away or
expandable down the road?
MR. ADLER: No, no problem. You got plenty
of land over here yet.
MR. HUSER: What we've done before is put
expandable in-wall conditions in those buildings, to where
you basically tie onto it and peel the tent off the outside
and go on. I mean, it's effectively -- it's a very simple
addition. It's really not disruptive. What -- what you
would want to do, though, is if that was part of the design
condition, there are some things like, you know, water,
sewer, electrical, those kind of things -- for instance, if
you were going to add 10,000 feet, obviously, that affects
the air-conditioning load. Well, when you -- if you knew

64
1
~... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L[
23
24
25
that going in, you would want to put an electrical service
that was big enough to handle the future load of those
air-conditioners. So, what he's saying is, if that is a
possibility, if -- let's just say you have a -- you know, a
400-amp panel, you might want to go ahead and get an 800,
because you know, rather than having to have a shut-down,
you'd have enough capacity to do that. So, you would plan
those sort of things into your -- into your expansion, if
that's what you wanted to do.
It might -- it might -- you know, it might
affect the final location of this building. If you knew you
were going to come this way, you might design the parking
just a little bit differently, just to where you would --
you could make it easy. It's a whole lot easier to think
through that up front and figure out, well, if we do expand,
we're going to go this way, and you -- you rough-in some
conduits, you rough-in some -- perhaps some structural or
rebar in the slab. You design your building with an
expandable in-wall column so that everything just extends.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Steve, following up
on Commissioner Letz' question, if we were -- if we were to
find ourselves in a position to expand this -- this
facility, that expansion, in my mind, has to come in the
main exhibit and banquet hall area, so that it almost
doubles, and maybe -- maybe some breakout rooms or some
i_-i,-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2I
24
25
65
things of that nature. Now, your answer tells me, then,
that everything that's there -- catering kitchen, restrooms,
and so forth -- are going to have to go if we expand that.
MR. ADLER: I think they go -- depends on how
much of an addition. And that's -- again, it wasn't part of
my program. But -- but as to how to expand this -- this
particular square right now, today, at this instance, we'd
come this way. If I knew that up front, I would probably --
and Steve was saying we may relocate this a little bit, drop
it down, rearrange this parking around it, and -- and make
that Exhibition Hall bigger. And I would -- I would go for
centralizing electrical, mechanical, and toilets, so that --
so that some of those facilities you just mentioned are more
in the center of the new, bigger building. But it's no big
deal to do it. It's just a -- just a -- okay. I mean --
MR. GONDECK: Conceptually, Allen, you would
be rotating, I guess, 90 degrees what you have right now,
while still maintaining the exterior --
MR. ADLER: Right.
MR. GONDECK: -- so you can continue on your
exhibit hall. I know it's really a reconfiguration, but you
feel that you could rework that to where you still maintain
that same concept?
MR. ADLER: Oh, yeah. I would think the
concept is solid. You know, I think it's just a -- how big

1
.-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.,_ 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
.-.
25
66
is the building?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not quite sure I
rectangular-shaped building?
MR. HUSER: It kind of depends, Bill. It's
sort of like if you said, well, we would like the
opportunity to add 5,000 feet to a 13,000-foot building, it
might make some sense that that's a square. Okay? If you
said, well, it's a 13,000-foot area; we want to be able to
add 15,000 feet. Based upon that new design parameter, we
might turn that guy a little bit and make a rectangle out of
him because of what you said. Or i.f you said, I want to
make -- I want the ability to add 15,000 feet next year, and
if this really goes, then I want the ability to add 15,000
more feet five years from now, that -- that's a little bit
of a different parameter. And what. that might facilitate is
turning that building and then adding -- or setting it up to
have additional expansions. And if you knew that, if that's
what you were thinking, you might reconfigure -- what
Allen's saying is you put the bathrooms in an area where
they would be more convenient to the expansion, okay? So
that if you just added additional dining room, you might --
and, again, it goes back to what you want. Do you want to
~_-_- ~,
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1G
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
have a room that seats 1,000 people? Or do you want to be
able to have two banquets at the same time? Or do you want
to be able to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We11, if you can seat
1,000, you can obviously do two banquets at the same time,
probably in the same space. So, just for the sake of this
discussion, yes, seat 1,000. Would it be a rectangular
building? Because you're, in effect, doubling the -- the
main exhibit hall area.
MR. HUSER: Riqht. And that may be what you
do.
MR. ADLER: It probably becomes a rectangle.
Probably does, yes.
MR. HUSER: Well, just because you're so
limited on the site, obviously, if you come way out here,
you're going to -- you're going to lose some of this.
MR. ADLER: And that certainly makes the
parking -- if you turn it a little bit, it changes it a
little.
MR. HUSER: But that's really not a big deal.
You just need to know that when you're planning for it so
that that's what you want to do.
MR. ADLER: Yeah, the elements.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It can be done
without tearing up the whole place.
i~ i~~ u_
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. ADLEP,: The elements, yeah. The elements
are standard. I mean, office, toilets, mechanical, storage.
I mean, they're easy, flexible spaces to move around.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right.
MR. HUSER: Our -- our game plan, kind of, if
you were to select us, is that, you know, we go through
initially some more input from you guys; things like, you
know, do we want to be able to expand it? Do we want these
capabilities? As we go through the development of the
plans, we're producing cost estimates, we're producing
budgets, we're trying to tell you what -- you know, hey, if
you change this or do this, you can get it, you know, for
more or less money. That's part of the team approach. We
did this over at the hospital. We were challenged with a
limited amount of space and limited amount of dollars. How
do we work out a design that accomplishes these things for
this much money? And --
MR. ADLER: So we have --
MR. HUSER: The rehab unit is what we did.
And, you know, that's -- it's a real easy deal. Allen's the
kind of guy that, unlike a lot of architects, is really able
to look at budgets. I mean -- and I'm not picking on
architects, but he's one of those guys, when you come in and
you say, "Look, I need to build 50,000 square feet and I
need to build it inexpensively," that you don't come out

69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with a set of plans that's a Taj Mahal that you can't
afford.
MR. ADLER: That's because I used to be a
contractor. I used to put my pallet on the table with a
number.
MR. HUSER: If you had come in and said,
"Design us the best looking facility that there is, because
money's no option," well, it wouldn't look like this, okay?
We could -- we could -- obviously, we could make it look a
little nicer, but were trying to get the absolute maximum
value for our dollars.
MR. RAIN: Let's talk a little bit about how
we arrived at our guaranteed maximum price or budget
pricing, as well as the scheduling. Those are two of the
parameters that we need to talk about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This sheet?
MR. RAIN: Yes, this is the schedule. There
are color codings there that you can see where the architect
advertises for civil engineer, general contractor, and then
the owner participates. The project is pretty much
programmed. Obviously, there's some considerations of
additional thoughts that need to be input, but the program
is the key component to the front end of this. Beyond that,
it's driven by the metal buildings. Both of these
structures we're proposing are pre-engineered metal
~_ ~~-u-
~o
1
,~. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^4
" L
25
buildings, the most efficient and probably cost-effective
method that we could go with. We have several suppliers
that we have dealt with. One in particular that we have
very familiar with that. We take a very aggressive
approach; even buy the metal building ourselves and hire
someone else to erect them. We can buy them as a package;
guy furnishes it, installs it, whatever is the most
cost-effective and works within the budget.
You know, this project, we're wanting to get
the most we can for the limited budget we have. The -- we
go through the programming once, we get a good feel for
where we're at on the program, what our parameters are.
We'll develop a construction budget or preliminary budget
that says, okay, here's where we are. But if we really want
to add that future 8,000 square feet, we need to consider
these pieces, and that may be an option that we need to
price separately and bring to you and say, "You want more
parking or you want more building?" A lot of those
programming pieces or those considerations are going to be
decisions y'all have to make. We'll support you with
bringing you the questions, and that's where we're -- that's
where our value will be. Have you considered this"? Have
1'-1'-02
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1 J
15
17
18
19
20
21
?~
~3
29
25
~l
you looked at that? Those components to the overall budget
development. It's really a team deal. What do you want for
your money? Big consideration. Here are some options; you
pick. We']1 help you, but ultimately you're paying the
bill, so ultimately it's your decision.
Once we get the programming worked out and
the budget, we'll -- we'll cut Allen loose. He'll meet with
you or whomever, and we'll do the schematic design and the
design development. At that same time, we'll -- we'll get
the civil work going. We'll have a pretty good idea from
the programming the schematic design so that we can allow
the site guy to go out and start moving dirt. Once we get
tk-ie metal building guy in and start talking about how the --
how the actual floor plan works out and the components of
tl,e construction, we'll cut the -- the concrete guy loose.
The metal building typically takes six to
eight weeks for shop drawings -- approved shop drawings, and
then another six to eight weeks to actually fabricate and
deliver. So, the real meat to the construction schedule is
through that metal building. Ideally, if we can have the
site work done and the concrete in place when that metal
building shows up, we just keep busy -- we just get busy,
'cause mince the metal building goes up, then --
MR.. ALLEN: The MEP and interior work, all
that, ttie rest of the site work can proceed.

1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
MR. RAIN: And that's kind of the way we have
it. The schedule that we presented starts in February.
It's a proposed schedule. I'm not sure what the -- what the
actual bond issue date is. Early February is what we
understood. We think we can get this building put in place
by the first part of December, based on, you know, a fairly
aggressive schedule, but based on a lot of suppor*_ from the
Commissioners Court, you know, and -- and Wayne, and how the
components come together and the design elements, and the
program -- you know, if there's some things to consider, I
don't know if time's a consideration for you, you know. If
it is, great. If it's not, we'll -- we'll be glad to help
you work through all those options.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a
consideration, particularly on the barn and the arena.
MR. RAIN: Good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That fits the Stock
Show's needs.
MR. RAIN: Well, the advantage is that most
of the design elements will be going on in the spring, and
we won't actually start messing with anything till we have a
firm set of drawings and -- and contract price. So, that's
scheduled for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the key element
is that iI you start, you know, if the bond issue is
~~-_~-o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1 J
lE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
successful and we move the project forward, Stock Show for
this -- for '03 will have been conducted.
MR. RAIN: Right. Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then you have
until -- you're showing completion of December 1. That's
pretty much a firm date, because they have to begin getting
ready for their --
MR. RAIN: The next year's stock show.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, anything later
than that becomes problematic.
MF.. RAIN: Well, and, you know, there's some
elements there, depending on what the final program is.
Ttiat exhibit hall is kind of separate, so our priority can
certainly be on the livestock barn and arena area. And we
cau work those pieces as a priority whi]e we're, you know,
finishing up the exhibit hall if -- if, for some reason, we
chaiiye design or dollars or whatever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we lose any cost
effectiveness by doing it that way? The emphasis shifting
to the agricultural --
Mx. RAIN: Mr. Williams, we wouldn't work
them separately. We'd just put a more intensive focus on
the piece that needed to get done. There is a lot of
efficiencies in having the concrete poured at the same time,
having metal buildings done. I mean, every trade that you
12-1~-0~
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
can imagine would like to do as much as they can at one
time, and that's the way we do it. It would be all of a
sudden we need to get this thing done, and that's where our
focus goes. There's a lot more design elements to the
exhibit hall than there is to the livestock barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you were to try to
look at the schedule and figure out a way to have a
completion date early to mid-November, where would you have
to make adjustments, and what would -- how would that impact
the Court?
MR. RAIN: Oh, I think --
MR. ADLER: I think the program --
MR. RAIN: I think it is program design;
certainly, this piece is, How much do ycu want for the
dollars you have, and where are you willing to sacrifice?
And, so, the initial discussion is, we want it all for this
much. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the answer.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. ADLER: We got the program and we got the
budget, but we don't have a cost estimate now, so we got to
make sure thar_ everything's --
MR. riUSER: Well, and the way to expedite
that, quite honestly, is to get everybody, all of the -- all
thz suppliers in the same room; the designer, the -- you
1
,,.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
I7
18
10
20
21
22
23
29
25
~s
know, the engineers, the contractor, the users, the
Commissioners Court. You get enough of those people
to do'? What can we afford? And you -- you get that instead
of, you know, "Well, I need to get with Maintenance," or, "I
need to go out and get with the Ag people," and it takes a
week or two weeks to get those information questions
answered. You put everybody in the same room, and you --
and you stay there till you figure out exactly what you're
going r_o do, okay? I think the -- the most popular term for
that is a share-it, which basically, to me, is a big, long
meeting where you do everything in a hurry instead of
waiting on people's timetables to answer your questions.
Okay?	Because that's how	you chop off	that	time.
	The other -	- the other	kind	of overused term
in the construction business, quite frankly, is a, quote,
fast track. And, essentially, all that really means is that
could go in and you could begin the demolition work, you
would begin the site work. You could begin -- if you could
finish the programming and you knew exactly the footprint of
the building, you could turn the structural steel people
loose to, you know, go ahead and design the -- the

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
lg
20
21
22
23
24
?~
~6
pre-engineered metal building structures.
MR. ADLER: Those aren't costing -- those are
just design -- those are things we just do first.
MR. HUSER: But you just push it --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's some element
of risk when do you that, because you may --
MR. HUSER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Depending on how much
you want to fast track it, you do buy some element of risk.
So, it's how much do you want to chew off.
MR. ADLER: But you got some real big pieces;
demolition, site work. I mean, those things -- demolition,
particularly, and whether we have asbestos or not, of
course. And those allow us to design while we're doing
sumething that really is a big picture piece.
MR. HUSER: The other thing we would do,
whetYier you took a more traditional, more conservative
approach and finished all of the plans and developed a
guara~iteed maximum price, and then authorized the
construction -- that's the slower, put also much more
conservative, safer approach. We work with a lot of
different subcontractors; some from San Antonio, some from
Austin, a lot of them from Kerrville and Fredericksburg.
Some of the guys around here will be a little less
sophisti~aLed than some of the big ones out of San Antonio.
1~-li-n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
We've sort of learned how to support those guys if they need
help with submittals or they need help with forklifts or
equipment or those sort of things. You know, we try to use
as many of those lor_al guys as we can. And we -- and we
have a good -- you know, a good list of a lot of subs.
The process we typically go through is we
advertise for bids through the plan services, the newspaper,
through what we call RFP's, or request for proposals, where
we send people an invitation to bid, and then we pull all
those things together. We spend a little bit qualifying
them, and then we sit down with, you know, a representative
of the owner and we say, well, here's a bid on the masonry,
here's a bid on the concrete, and we go through all of those
things, combine that with the recommendation, and here's who
we thii,k we ought to use, here's who we shouldn't use. It's
a good process. We typically like to have, you know, the
owner and owner's representative -- you know, maintenance
people are important, because somebody's got to call the A/C
guy to come and service it and that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I've got a
question fuL you, Steve.
MR. HUSER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or any of you, on your
cost model.
MR. HUSER: Uh-huh.
1'-1~_^_
78
1
G
3
4
6
7
8
5
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSSONER GF.IFFIN: Is every element
that's shown on the schedule covered in the cost model? And
I realize that this is something you would tweak when you
reply to the content of work and all that sort of thing,
but, in essence, everything -- anything on here that's shown
as a required item would be included in the cost model?
MR. HUSER: Yes. Yes.
MR. ADLER: The full project.
MR. HOSER: The estimate sheet has much more
detail.
COMM1SS1ONER GRIFFIPS: Right.
MR. H~SER: That's just sort of -- that would
essentially be a recap sheet where, if we had six concrete
bids, for instance, we would show who we preferred to use,
and then we wuuld give you another spreadsheet that showed
the other five.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. This is good.
MR. H[)SER: I guess, in conclusion, I was
just going to tell you that we thank you very much for the
opportunity to be here. We've had the privilege, over the
last nine years, to do a lot of projects for the County.
We've built your Ag Extension Office out there and built the
road in front of the jail and a few other things. And one
of the things I think that we bring as an advantage of our
team is that this is a project that fits our size. This is
1z-1~-°=
79
I
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
?3
24
25
a pretty -- pretty typical size project for us. We are
large enough that you get the benefit of -- of the
organizations, but not so large that you're not dealing with
the principals. Allen is our -- he's our point man, cur
contact with the architects. He's the guy we're going to be
talking to. I continue to be involved in all of the
projects. The work that we do, you know, in the Hill
Country is what gets us our next job, and it's our
reputation, so we're not spread from one side of the state
to the other, or a~=toss the country, or -- we work around
here, ar~d we -- we consider this an exciting project, and it
would be something we would be very pleased and proud to be
associated with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a couple
questions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a comment before
that. Steve, I want to remind you that you're also a
taxpayer in this county.
(Laughter.)
MR. HUSER: Yeah. As a matter of fact, I
just did that the other day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. So that's
out of the way fur the year. Remember how much fun that
was?
(Discussion off the record.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 J
16
17
18
10
20
~l
22
23
24
25
80
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Steve --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Steve, while you're
on tax --
MR. HUSER: I will say county taxes were a
whole lot less painful than the school taxes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the -- I know budget
is a concern on this project, 'cause it is a right budget,
but based on the parameters that were given -- I mean, it's
pretty much that is what the project covers. It's a matter
of how you put those pieces together.
MR. HUSEF.: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you see any problem in
having -- or meeting the $3 million guaranteed maximum
price?
MR. HUSER: I think your $3 million number is
a tight number. Normally, what happens in these deals is
nobody ever puts out their top number. They always put out
the number that they'd like to have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You do if it's a bond
issue.
MR. HUSER: Well, again, part of -- part of
how you resolve that is in some of the programming steps,
okay? And I don't care whether you're building a doghouse
in your back yard or you're building a $3 million facility.
They're trade-offs, okay'? There will be some things that
i_-i~-nz
81
1
,,,., 2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you decide, well, I'd rather have -- the last two spaces are
going to be trailer parking, and they can be chip seal,
where -- because they're going to tear up asphalt anyway.
Or you decide that, you know, you change the elevation a
little bit of the front entrance or -- I think you've got an
achievable budget, but I think it's a very tight budget. I
don't think it's the kind of thing where you look out there
and you say, well, you know, $3 million sounds like a lot of
money, so let's just add this and add this and add this,
what I call scope creep. You know, you can't see -- that
sounds like so much money, but when you see how much square
feet you're attacking, you have a very cost -- you know, in
today's market, you have a very low cost per-square-foot
budget, so you have to be careful. You can't -- you can't
embellish all of the buildings with rock or -- you know, you
have to watch that.
MR. ADLER: Exactly. What we tried to do is
to be very careful.
MR. HOSER: Yeah. I mean, so, in any project
you do, just like where you're doing landscaping or you're
building buildings, you know, sometimes exactly what you
would wish for is not exactly how it comes to pass. And
sometimes they're little trade-offs that -- that you say,
well, I can give up a little bit of parking lot if I can
have this piece over here. Or maybe part of the answer is
~~-i~-o
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
that you -- you do the parking lot out of chip seal, because
you know that -- or you hope that in two years, you're going
to rip all that up and put a building there, so you don't
spend the money for asphalt in that area. So, you just -- I
think it's an achievable budget, but I think it's a budget
that you have to work pretty hard to get to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another question that
probably goes more to A11en than to you. If you are the
chosen design team, do you have any problem with releasing
the drawings that are going to be used in the bond issue,
basically releasing them so we can use them publicly in the
bond issue?
MR. ADLER: No. That would presume that we
were selected.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're the -- you
know.
MR. ADLER: Sure. No, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There would be a -- if
you need a letter of intent or something like that, that
you're the preferred contracting team, or we're going to,
you know, negotiate in good faith --
MR. ADLER: I'd love to help, yeah.
MR. HUSER: Wouldn't that be something where
you might have a town meeting cr you'd have something where
you would ask us to talk about it or come in and explain it

83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the people? I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be any number
of ways, Steve.
MR. HUSER: I guess our interest is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Publicity could be
presented in the media. It could be any number of ways.
MR. HUSER: And we're here to help you,
whatever you need.
MR. ADLER: If we got through the Phase 1
part of it, the design/build contract, you go through
preliminary pricing, which also helps establish the budget,
and you go through preliminary design, at which point you
could go for a rendering. And we could do -- you know, take
another step. Instead of a concept, we have a -- this is
what we're going to build kind of thing. And that --
MR. GONDECK: I'll address it this way. I
know very well that the Court is not intending to expend too
much professional services until the bond election.
MR. ADLER: Okay.
MR. GONDECK: At least I know that from
personal experience.
MR. ADLER: That being the case, y'all have
my permission, yeah.
MR. GONDECK: So, we would -- I think that
the issue is that, even though there's not a -- a formal
~~ -n
1
I

1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
84
contract in place, and even though the project going forward
is on a contingent basis, based on the successful passage of
the bond election, do you have any problem with releasing
the drawings to the Commissioners Court? Or actually
providing maybe more than one copy of those so that those
can be either placed here in the courthouse, used for public
meetings?
MR. ADLER: Yeah. I mean, that would be a
very sensible thing to do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. GONDECK: Y'all have presented this
fairly -- are y'all through, or do you have additional
questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead.
MR. GONDECK: Y'all have presented this as a
very traditional approach; however, there is some
contemplation under the statute that would provide for, I
guess you might say, more risk on the contractor's part, or
the design/build team, and more openness on the County's
side, that would establish the guaranteed maximum price at
an earlier date, based on basically a design development set
of documents. And then, from there, those need tightening
and everything, but once the program and the outline sper_s
and everything was really defined, the quality of all the
materials and everything is totally defined, that you
85

1
3
9
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
20
provide a guaranteed maximum price within the owner's
budget. If that was all approved, that y'all would go
forward and beat each other over the heads rather than have
to beat Commissioners Court over the head as to what has to
give and take everyplace. Have y'all done that type of --
of project? And, secondly, would you be open to the option
of negotiating that type of contract?
MR. HUSER: Yeah. I think what we'd have to
do is, we would offer a design development on a project like
this; we could certainly do that. We just -- you know,
there's things like whether I add another 10,000 square feet
or not. You got to kind of get those -- you got to get
those in the --
MR. GONDECK: I understand that. I'nat woula
all have to be established.
MR. HUSER: Right, but -- absolutely. It's a
simple-type structure where it's basically wide-open spaces,
and you -- you've set a very outlined set of specifications
and parameters that would state, well, it's going to have
this much air-conditioning, it's going to be this big. It's
tied down, so we would be comfortable with that. We did
that, believe it or not, on a hospital renovation at Sid
Pete, where we -- you know, the hospital looked in and said,
you know, if we do this rehab space, it's going to make "X"
number of dollars of revenue. We can only do it if we -- we
i~-i~-oz
86
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can't spend more than this much doing it. Can you make that
happen? And it was a little bit more traditional in that we
said yes, we can, based upon a preliminary -- essentially a
floor plan-type, moving walls around. We had plaster walls,
outdated plumbing, asbestos to deal with, some of which we
couldn't see until we tore into the walls.
MR. ADLER: A lot of columns that weren't
there.
MR. HUSER: We didn't have, you know, a lot
of the historical information. And the hospital was up
against a deadline. Their deal was we had to have beds --
we have to be open, we have to be trained, and we have to
have a patient in this bed or we don't qualify for
reimbursement. So, what we did is we said, you know, this
is what we think it's going to cost. It's not going to cost
more than this amount. And we -- you know, we all went to
work. The caveat to making that a good project is that you
have to be flexible. You have to -- you have to define
the -- in our particular case at the hospital, there were
some issues where we had some columns that, like Allen says,
weren't there, and so we had to move a wall around. Because
the column's holding up the hospital; you can't take it out,
you know. So, that's part of the team approach that makes
it work. The advantage, quite honestly, to an owner, you
get your building a lot sooner and you don't have to -- you
iz-n o~
87
~`
1
1

r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, it moves quickly that way.
MR. GONDECK: I think the concern will be --
and I know that this probably won't really start surfacing
as much until after, you know, February, or at the beginning
of February, but once negotiations start on the actual
contract, that the concern may be that, okay, we've got the
team on board and -- and, you know, we're going to go
forward. We've agreed to a certain price for Phase I, which
is the main proposal end of the scope and the final design.
But the actual guaranteed maximum cost may not come until
May.
MR. ADLER: At the end of Phase I.
MR. GONDECK: They've committed themselves to
something, you know, that is going to be, you know, six
months down the road. And, you know, either it has to be
established very concisely how that guaranteed maximum price
is going to be arrived at -- you know, if it's going to be
arrived at, you know, at the -- whatever is out there in the
market and the bids plus something, that may not be a viable
way for the Commissioners Court to look at that, because
they have to stay within that budget. But if it's arrived
at that, okay, we can establish a guaranteed maximum cost;
we agree with what's in there up front and within the short
period of time, I think that's probably where the -- you
know, I'm not going to speak for the Court, but I don't
' ~-n`-

I

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
think that they want to be left exposed. I think they want
that exposure to go back on the other side of the fence; the
contractor and the architect to put their heads together as
to how they're going to --
MR. ADLER: If you select us and commit to
us, pending the passage of the bond issue, then it is likely
that we will spend time in January working on that budget on
our own recognizance. However, part of that would have to
be, first and foremost, a meeting with you guys to sharpen
the scope so we can get ahead of the train. I mean, I think
that's a commitment we're -- I knew that everybody's willing
to make.
MR. HUSER: Which we're willing to do.	
MR. RAIN: And, quite honestly, in our	
original schedule, we had a construction cost budget	
established. We actually had that as a guaranteed max.	We
changed it, because we have not sat down and understood	the
program or the design, and so we are hesitant to make a	
commitment that early without having the opportunity for	
further design conversations.	
MR. HUSER: Well, and things like --	
MR. GONDECK: So, just -- not to cut you	off,
Steve, but I want to make sure that we get this stated.	
MR. HUSER: That's all right.	
MR. GONDECK: So, in essence, y'all will	be
i_-1~ ua
89
I
1
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2~
2`_
open to --
MR. HOSER: Yes.
MR. GONDECK: -- that option, or at least
discussing the negotiations?
MR. HUSER: Absolutely. We would be willing
to do that. I think our -- our piece to that would be that
we would want to make sure that, on a preliminary basis,
that our customer understood what they were buying. Okay?
MR. GONDECK: Absolutely.
MR. H[JSER: What I would not want to have is
to get a building finished and the guys say, "I thought I
was going to have a loading dock here." You know, "Back
three years ago, they told me I was going to have a loading
dock," you know? So, what you would want to do is to do the
programming work with whoever is involved, so that if we're
supposed to furnish -- we're supposed to price, furnish, and
build a loading dock, that it's clear in y'all's mind and in
our mind that's what we're supposed to do. We wouldn't want
to get into a situation where somebody said, "Well, gosh, I
thought we were getting another 10,000 square feet, and how
come it..." So, there's a process to refine all of that. I
think that keeps everybody on the right page, keeps
everybody happy, which is what we're about doing.
MR. RAIN: It's a lot of work, I mean, as a
team, to get to that point early in the deal. 't'here has to
._ ~~-
90
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
be a huge consensus of the group; you know, the actual
meeting of the minds, so that everybody does really
understand what they're getting.
MR. HUSER: Sure.
MR. RAIN: The price that we're committing
to.
MR. HUSER: And not to the extent that, you
know, "Well, I want a plug here and a plug over here," but
it's more to the extent of the rooms are the right size and
the dock's on the right end of the building, and I like the
way it's going to look and I like this porch or -- you know,
we're talking concepts again, big concepts. But, yeah.
MR. GONDECK: If I may, I just want to make
sure that the Court understands what I'm presenting here,
and why I'm presenting it. I'm not -- I don't want to cut
into your time that you have the opportunity, but basically,
in all construction projects or public work, as it is, the
main presentations of the architect to the Commissioners
Court, for example, is in the -- the programming, the
schematic design, and the design development. And even
though the -- there is a formality of submitting that final
set of construction documents to the -- the Commissioners
Court, in a conventional design, bid, and build type
project, that the details that are presented in there are --
are not seriously reviewed. You are utilizing the design
i.-i~-u
91
1
,,... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
~-.
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
professional basically to certify to you that we meet your
You would be getting, in the type of program
that we're talking about, that same element from any of the
design/build teams if you negotiate that way. That based on
that design development package, that does have outlined
specifications; it does delineate, you know, what spaces are
conditions. It does have all the basic materials. You do
have that all in there. We have a plan that is worked with.
Any deviations of that, you know, as they're -- they're
pricing it out, there would have to be a well-defined
rationale on how and what could be deviated, and that would
be agreed upon. But, beyond that, it's up to the -- the
design/build team to actually put together the -- the final
elements as far as, you know, whether or not it's going to
be, you know, straight-type columns or tapered-type columns
on the building. And each of them have their different
reasons or rationales as to why to use one or the other, and
have a cost implication, but those issues stay on that side
of the fence. They stay with the design/build team.
And the Commissioners Court is then looking
at that program, the design development package, the
contrar_t of what is included, which would be very
well-delineated, and then the final product. And, yes, we
iz n-o'
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L
92
are paying on -- each month on the progress of the work;
and, yes, we do still receive the final documents, but it's
a little bit different basis that really takes -- and it's
really what the design/build delivery method is intended to
be, rather than -- and it works well in this type of
project, because there are relatively few elements to this
project. It's big, but there's relatively few elements.
But, I just wanted to take the time to go over that as to
what the real concept of design/build was in this context.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, so, what you're
saying is we should sign up for what we want, and then do
our best to keep from meddling in the project, which is
exactly --
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- which is exactly
what I would say.
MR. GONDECK: In essence -- in essence, I
think that is a tremendous outcome in the project, but what
it does is -- that is one reason why the legislation also
provided for having the independent consulting architect to
make sure that someone is looking over everybody else's
shoulders, looking out for the benefit of the County.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And let me add that I
couldn't agree more with the rationale for the legislation
and your approach.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone else have any
questions of this gentleman? I've got a couple. On your
new barn, you show one central location for restrooms.
MR. ADLER: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It may be central, but it's
not particularly convenient, given the expansion of that
structure.
MR. ADLER: Well, it was to service both the
arena building and the livestock building, so it's at dead
center there. Plumbing's on the outside wall for -- for
possible future expansion, possible expansion as we define
the project. Also, in the wash-off area we have plumbing.
When you wash out of the arena building, you're over here.
It's a long haul if you're over here; it's a little longer
haul if you're here. It's pretty convenient. If you're in
the office, you have a unisex toilet, but you can still get
to it. I can't think of a -- a location in a building of
this size that could be any more convenient. We can split
them; we can do that, and we can locate one here. I think
we want one here anyway for the arena building, and we still
want this for this part. We could add, you know, in the
final analysis, another location, just like I did here,
'cause I got to thinking the same thing. Here's a unisex
toilet, and this is in the office area. Well, that's --
that's a common sense kind of thing. So -- so, I put that
i_-i~-~_
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
]2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there. We might be able to do something else like that in
the other areas that might be a little far from that center
point.
JUDGE HENNEK.E: Okay. The second question
has to do with change orders. Assuming we don't have any,
it's not a problem, but if we have them, how do y'all handle
those administratively?
MR. ADLER: A change order, to me, is -- I
like to look at it, particularly in a design/build approach,
as a change in scope. In other words, you have the -- you
say, "I want to add a whole 'nother toilet to this project.
I want the same size; I want it in that corner." There's no
I control whatever we have over that. It's just, "I want
something else." That is a change order, to me. That is
trie majority of the ones that I deal with. We work very
well together to minimize them, and the way we do that is we
have a give and take. I don't -- I don't just nail their
feet to the floor and say, "By god, you're going to do it
this way." On the other hand, they say, "Okay, if you help
me here, if you do it this way, we can probably do it." So,
we modify things and we make them happen. If -- if there's
a real dollar crunch -- I mean, that's part of the reason I
think we -- and, Steve, you can --
MR. HUSER: Is that answering your question?
Or are you talking about if you were to add a section or add
1?-l~ ~_
95
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
]2
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
a phase to the building later?
MR. GONDECK: I --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead, Wayne.
MR. GONDECK: I think one question I want to
ask, or what we need to ask is if there is something that is
omitted in the original design that needs to be there for
some public requirements, building codes or something else.
How is that handled in a design/build situation?
MR. ADLER: Well, our -- I think our carriers
and everything will say that it is the -- the classic way to
say that is what it would have cost originally is all you'd
ever pay. If it -- you have to pay a premium twice because
we missed it --
MR. GONDECK: Let me see if I can ask it
another way. If we thought it was in there based on your
documents, and you thought it was in there based on your
documents --
MR. ADLER: We both thought it was in there?
MK. G~~NDECK: Right.
MR. HUSER: Then we would pay.
MR. GONDECK: So, in a design/build issue, is
it not more the -- what is typically the change orders that
go back and forth between what the architect says it is and
what the builder says it is, are those pretty well
eliminated?
i_-i~-o~
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2`
MR. RAIN: Absolutely. That's the advantage
of working closely with --
MR. GONDECK: That's what -- I was trying to
lead the witness.
MR. ADLER: No, that's true. That's a
different answer, yeah.
MR. HUSER: I thought you meant what if you
added a significant phase, 10,000 square feet additional
space.
MR. ADLER: That's the benetit oI
designlbuild, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask a question
about that.
MR. HUSEP.: You would go through another
wall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Assuming, after we've
gotten a guaranteed maximum price, if, somewhere in that
time frame, the good fairy drops a big bundle of money on
the Commissioners Court desk and says, "Let's expand the
exhibit hall," hypothetically, would the square foot cost to
do that be equal to what's in the guaranteed maximum price,
greater than, or lesser than? If you think you know?
MR. HUSER: Okay. I think timing has a lot
to do with that. If you are at the issuance of a guaranteed
maximum price, then it's probably the same or less. If
i' i~-u~
97
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
<1
22
L3
24
2°
we're two weeks away from handing you the keys, and the
fairy drops in and you say, "Time out, we want you to build
this other deal," okay, then our general conditions, such as
the supervision and the phones and the trailers and the
port-a-pottys and all of those things would extend past the
completion date, obviously, because you just started. In
that scenario, it might be more per square foot, okay? If
-- but if it was in such a way that I could buy all of the
steel for the -- the G-max and for the addition at the same
I time, you're going to be at or less. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. That's --
MR. HUSER: If you got to start all over with
concrete people and pad people, then -- and you're adding a
10,000 square foot addition to a 50,000 square foot project,
those are the kind of change orders that hurt. Because, you
know, they're almost really not -- change order's really not
a good term for that. It's a separate project. It becomes
a remodeling project at that point. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just kind of depends
on the time frame?
MR. HUSER: It's the time frame, absolutely.
MR. RAIN: Well, it depends on what you're
adding. Are you adding square footage in the exhibit area,
which is just lights and open space? Or are you adding more
bathrooms? You know, the type of space certainly dictates,
1'-17-„_
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I mean, the cost. Sort of adding open space is going to be
less than adding another 1,000 square foot of bathrooms.
MR. HUSER: Bathrooms or kitchens or
something that has a lot of intensive --
MR. RAIN: There's a lot of variables. But
our philosophy since I've been with Huser Construction, and
I believe this is true with Steve, is we don't get rich on
change orders. They're -- they're a necessary part of the
process. Nobody likes them. The owner doesn't like them.
Contractors don't like them, 'cause it slows work down. You
know, our job is to get this thing built for you as quickly
as and efficiently as we can. And if somebody in the middle
of it calls a time-out; says, "I want to do this," well,
then everything just stops. And you -- well, okay. What
are we going to do? How -- where are we going to do it?
What are we going to add? Typically, what we do on change
orders, we'll give you all the backup you want. We give you
the subcontractor's proposal; you get to see all the costs
right up front. So, it's not like something we're trying to
hide and make up for something we left out. And, you know,
it's a part that nobody likes, guys, but we have to do it.
MR. GONDECK: We're getting short on time, so
we need to move --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: While we have that -- the
arena and the new barn there, can you show real quickly
--- '-'-
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
t5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
L~
29
2~
where the -- what areas are going to be concrete versus
dirt?
MR. ADLER: You said that you wanted this --
this part in the front to be concrete. And, of course, this
is right here and that is right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the arena?
Isn't there --
MR. ADLER: Well, in the program, as -- as
these -- that's -- I don't know exactly where that starts
and stops. Because there is a point where you want to
unload horses and cows and stuff like that, and you don't
want concrete.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That basically
answers that. My next question goes with that. There's
going to be lots of dirt areas.
MR. ADLER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And another thing that
I've learned from six years on the Court is that A.D.A.
becomes an issue anytime you build anything. What happens
on a -- well, who's responsible for making sure that that
building is in full compliance with H.D.A., and who eats the
cost -- who eats the cost if there's something left out and
we have to add iL later?
MR. HUSER: Typically, the way we do that is
we'll have some sort of an A.D.A. consultant review the
i~-i~-n?
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
plans, and then have them come back and review the
construction. Osually, you know, the laws change 14 times
in those eight months between when we --
MR. ADLER: We have -- I have a senior
architect who could probably quote the code verbatim to you,
and he will go through it. We then have to submit to
T.D.L.R. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
reviews the A.D.A. drawings that we have. In fact, we have
to do them in 35 days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our problem -- our
experience has been that they change their mind between
approval and signing off when the building's complete.
MR.. GONDECK: There is one of the contract
providers that has done similar buildings to this that the
Court may want to ask them if they want to use when we get
to that point, or whoever it is.
MR. RAIN: Well, there is some --
MR. GONDECK: There is specific -- it is like
in doing jails, you know, it's nice to have somebody that
understands accessibility within a detention area. I do
have another specific question on the exclusion. What do
you perceive as far as what would be excluded, that y'all
would not do, when there's a guaranteed maximum price?
MR. HOSER: I think that would be something
we would work out. We can do everything. We can go all the
i~-,_~ u?
101


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way down to the landscaping and, you know, whatever. When
we built the -- the Ag Extension Office out there, the
County chose for -- you know, imagine this; the County was
trying to save money, but Road and Bridge did the parking,
you know. They had prisoners do some of the landscaping.
We built the Animal Shelter, you remember; we had prisoners
come out and do some of the -- the painting and the clean-up
and stuff. So, I guess -- I guess our comment is, it's part
of the programming and thinking through it. We'll take it
from beginning to end and hand you the keys if that's what
you want. If you come back and say, you know, we want you
to, you know, not do this part of the parking lot because
we're going to have Road and Bridge come do that, or we want
you to, you know, leave the landscaping off of this area
because we've got, you know, 25,000 man hours of community
service and we need something for them to do, we'll --
we'll -- you know, that's up to -- that's in your court,
okay?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Different engineering pieces,
though, the geotechnical engineering the environmental
engineering, do you consider that to be part of your G.M.P.,
or is that --
MR. ADLER: I don't think so. I don't think
that's part of the scope, is it?
MR. GONDECK: As far as the geo -- the soils
'- ~~-n~
102


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
analysis, we would perceive that as being part of that
project, to keep all the actual design elements, again --
MR. ADLER: Geotech's on our side. How about
the survey?
MR. GONDECK: The survey, I think, is, by
law, by the County. And the independent testing laboratory,
by law, is by the County.
MR. ADLER: That would be, to me, one of the
first things we need, is a very good, detailed survey,
'cause I haven't seen one yet. I mean, that is -- and that
is something that's -- you know, if you select us, we would
need to start walking through a preliminary G.M.P. on our
recognizance.
MR.
actually been more
than what has been
MR.
little difficult.
pictures here than
JUD
wrap up.
GONDECK: It's my understanding there has
work done on the property and the survey
found or made available.
ADLER: I had a perimeter that was a
Utilities -- I got more utilities on my
I do --
~E HENNEKE: Anything else? We need to
MR. HUSER: We'll work with you however,
whatever's the best for you guys, okay?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. ADLER: Look forward to it.

103

1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Steve, Allen,
Scott. Thank you for your time.
MR. HUSER: Appreciate it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, boys. Let's take as
little as possible, but not more than 10, so we can get the
next guys in.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Recess taken from 3:25 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll now reconvene this
special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Our
next presenters are STR Construr_tion out of Austin.
Gentlemen? The stage is yours.
MR. KENNEDY: All right, thank you. Good
afternoon. My name's Rick Kennedy with STR. I'm the owner
and president. This gentleman handing these brochures out
to you is Jim Brown, who is the manager of our San Antonio
office. I brought with us Bill Epp of William Epp and
Associates, Architects, the design side of our package here.
What I -- the handout that Jim's just given you addresses
the seven items that you listed on the Request for
Qualifications. Basically, what I'm going to do as a way of
presentation is go through these -- these seven items, which
consist of your requirement to see a proposed site plan, a
proposed front elevation, a brief outline of the type of
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
construction, our estimate -- estimate of your feasibility
of the project, a description of our costing methodology,
the cost that the guaranteed maximum price includes, and
then a proposed project schedule. In addition, there's an
eighth item listed there that shows projects -- or
similar-type projects that we've constructed in the past.
Items 1 and 2 actually fall within the expertise of Bill
here, as our designer, so I'm going to let him stand up here
and show you what we've got in mind -- or he's got in mind
at this point.
MR. EPP: Good afternoon. My name's Bill
Epp. I'm an architect out of San Antonio, been in practice
since about 1978. And STR came before me and asked me to
participate in this, and gave me the proposal, and we've
gone through it and -- and made the simple proposal here
that we have on the boards. Or do you want to work from
these small site plans, or does it matter?
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you use a board, some of
the other people might be able to see what we're talking
about.
MR. EPP: Okay, that's fine. This is -- the
first board is basically the second page of your little
booklet, which is an overall -- it's not an overall site
plan. It's a -- a scaled-up version of that, where we show
the arena building, which is the existing arena building
i~ i,-n.
105
1
._. 2
3
9
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
.... 2 4
25
right here. And our proposal at this time is to work to the
east side of that building, leaving intact the existing area
that we -- exhibit hall that you have in place, so you can
use that during the period of time that we're renovating and
constructing the new exhibit hall and livestock barn.
There's two possibilities -- reasons for doing this.
Basically, one is for the time period you'd have the
existing facilities available to you, and second of all,
that I think with all the utilities inside -- I don't know
how old they are at this time, how long they've been in the
ground. I think it's going to be better to bring in new
utilities to the site, or to the buildings, anyway.
At this time, we're developing three separate
buildings. One is the existing arena building that is to be
renovated. The second building is the livestock barn,
which, shown here, is 200-by-250. And the exhibit hall, as
shown, is 100-by-130 feet. We're showing a separation
between the exhibit hall and the livestock barn of a 20- to
25-foot road, per se. And that's basically to serve as a
drop-off point for animals. It could be a gated alleyway
where we could bring in different loads of trailers and
such, gate off certain areas and unload animals as required
during any possible activities. Then we could close the
gates and transport the animals back and forth within that
gated area without having any exposure to the general
i_ n-~,~
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
2~
23
24
G S
public. The exhibit hall we'd also separate from the
livestock barn, and this, of course, would allow for --
mainly for odors and noise. And, right now, that
13,000-square-foot building, the 2,500 square foot required
office space is in the very front of it.
And if you go to this board, basically, which
is the next sheet, it will probably show you a little more
of the overall concept. The -- all the teams are basically
working with the fact that we're going to be using
pre-engineered buildings, which is probably the most
economical way of doing it. I think all of us are aware
we've got to bring the facilities up to A.D.A. standards.
And then I'm pretty sure that all of us are going to put a
new facade on the existing building and try to bring it over
and to try and dress up the overall facilities. My main
concept I'd like to bring in at this time is that we bring
in a little park concept in between all the buildings,
basically, which is the yellow grassed area right there, to
allow for maybe fountains or some kind of exhibit or a
statue, something to where it can open that exhibit hall
into a break-out space for meetings and -- and different
type of organizations.
I've taken the break-out into that small
picnic area; we would put picnic benches out there,
sculptures, anything to do with the city that they'd like to
l~-l~-ll~
107

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
put out there, but it's to bring a little relief to the
large amount of asphalt and very large buildings that we
have in the area. Right now, that -- that little park area
or picnic area I showed you right now is about 135 foot
square; it's not a huge area, but enough to bring a little
greenery into the overall concept of the buildings, and
that's basically our concept. We do have the very basic
preliminary elevations down below that, which shows a -- a
new facade on the existing arena building, and then we'd
follow that same facade over into the new buildings. Does
anybody have any questions as far as concept? Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were to
determine at some date, sooner or later, that we wanted to
expand the exhibit hall to perhaps double what you're
showing on that, how would you do that in your plan?
MR. EPP: I would hopefully not take up the
parking area, but take it further to the east, if at all
possible. But one concept is to come in though that park
area, enlarge it that way. I -- again, I think to have that
nice little park area would be nice during different --
different activities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the space
between the exhibit hall and livestock barn?
MR. EPP: This area here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Yeah, the
__-i,---
108

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
open space between the two facilities.
MR. EPP: 15 to 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15 to 20 feet?
MR. EPP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no
combination of air moving between those buildings?
MR. EPP: No, sir. No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So --
MR. EPP: That's one of the main reasons for
separating it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. EPP: No, sir, that would be one of the
main reasons.
COMMISSIONEP. WILLIAMS: We know what that's
all about.
MR. EPP: Yes, sir. I've done a lot of
veterinary clinics in my day; had problems with that before,
so I've solved most of those problems. One of the things we
were talking about as far as ventilation in the arena
area -- that's an existing facility; unfortunately, I did
not visit during the original stage of the project -- is
when we do our ventilation, we're going to probably
recommend that we do a forced air into the building in a
strategic area. It'll be a ducted system, and then we will
extricate it out the top of the building. That's what those
109
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
new little domes up here would be for, sort of like a
chimney effect. But we're going to -- on the arena
building, we're going to specifically bring the ventilated
air to the specific areas, wherever they may be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What kind of support
structure do you have in the livestock barn? I mean, is it
clear open span, or --
MR. EPP: Right now, yeah, that's our goal,
would be open span, if at all possible. Basically, what
I've done before in smaller facilities, not in this large,
is we'll make a certain amount of rails and gates in one
direction, so you can bring in a tractor, clean the entire
thing, but make it moveable gates you can make different
size pens in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have anything
that shows what the interior breakdown of floor -- the floor
plan would be for --
MR. EPP: No, sir, I didn't get that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the barn? For the
new barn?
MR. EPP: No, sir, I did not get that detail.
You mean as far as the pens and different areas?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, how the space
would be utilized, what part would be concrete floor, what
part would be dirt floor and so forth.
i_ ~,- i~
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EPP: No, sir, I didn't do that. Didn't
get that detailed into it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- the drawing,
the parking areas, how many parking spots were there?
MR. EPP: I just showed the initial parking
out in front of the building. I didn't get involved in --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You didn't go into detail
that much?
MR. EPP: No, didn't develop into the entire
site. I didn't have any exact dimensions on your little --
I don't know if that's to stay or not. That wasn't on the
initial package that I was given. It can go?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can go.
MR. EPP: There was also no comments on the
riding arena that you have. Is that staying?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. EPP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least for the time
being.
MR.. EPP: For the time being. Is the seating
going to stay, too? 'Cause its pretty rickety and looked
like it was --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, for the time being.
MR. EPP: For the time being, okay. You do
have to --
i_-i,- .
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unless somebody donates
some funds.
MR. EPP: You do have to concern yourself
with A.D.A. on that to a certain degree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the -- I guess on
the -- actually, I'll wait till the other part of the
presentation.
MR. EPP: He can stand next to me, that's
okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He may very well answer
the question I have.
MR. EPP: We're both Aggies, it's okay.
MR. KENNEDY: Well, the next portion here,
with regard to the feasibility and my interpretation of
feasibility there, you were looking for our evaluation of
what the -- what the Request for Proposals outlined from
both a constructability standpoint and a budget standpoint.
Based on what we've seen here and what we've discussed with
Bill and these investigations, I feel that it's certainly
feasible to provide the facility for that amount of money.
There is -- there's an unknown out there that concerns me a
little bit. You made mention in the -- in the Request for
Qualifications of the fact that there will be an asbestos
survey to be performed. I don't know that anybody -- at
least I know from our side here, nobody is aware of what
i~-"_o_
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
extent the asbestos might be in the facility. When you
abate asbestos, obviously, there are a number of other
things architecturally, and sometimes even perhaps
structurally, that have to happen to enable that abatement
contractor to get in there and abate the asbestos.
MR. GONDECK: Rick?
MR. KENNEDY: Yes?
MR. GONDECK: I believe one of those cryptic
addendums that went out at some point had one little phrase
there that said that the survey had been completed. No
asbestos.
MR. KENNEDY: Oh, I missed that. Well, good.
That takes that aspect out of it.
MR. GONDECK: Somebody else got that fax, I
guess.
MR. KENNEDY: But that was our main concern
as to what might be involved in renovation.
MR. GONDECK: There will be some lead
abatement from the little shooting range there. From
talking with the environmental engineers, that is not very
evasive, and it's not very costly or entails --
MR. KENNEDY: Well, with that -- with that
issue out of the way, then, I feel like that the project,
based on our -- our evaluation, lends itself to a
pre-engineered structure. That's Tor two main -- major
1^-~,-nom
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
reasons. One, the -- the economics of that system, and then
secondly, because of the clear span requirements where
you can't -- you don't want any interior supports. We've
got a long history with a major building manufacturer; I've
been a -- a rep for Ceco Building Systems for in excess of
17 years. What that provides you is, we're extremely
economical. We have good prices from Ceco. We get good
service from Ceco, and they're -- they're an excellent
building manufacturer. They'll participate with us and with
our architects in the design phase of this to see that the
facility, one, meets all structural requirements and codes,
and also meets your requirements as the user and owner.
There's nothing in this -- in this type of
construction that we haven't done, and haven't done for a
number of years. The -- we typically do about 50 percent of
our own concrete work. We do all the work that we -- that's
done with carpenters, with the laborers. We do that
ourselves. Now, the specialty items; mechanical,
electrical, plumbing, we'll sub out. We work statewide, so
we've got an extensive data bank of subs and suppliers that
follow us that will -- that will help with economics of this
-- this project.
You asked for a -- I guess a brief
description of our costing methods. In a situation like
this, during the design development portion of the work,
i:.-~ ~ u.
114

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we'd be working closely with Bill to evaluate different
systems that -- that are being contemplated in the design
from a cost standpoint. At certain phases during his design
process, we will -- we will prepare an entire budget of the
entire facility, so what I'm saying is, we'll evaluate
systems as it goes along, and at some point -- let's say
90 percent completion of his drawing process -- we'll do a
complete budget. We'll do that again one more time prior to
the documents being complete. The purpose of that is so
that, if necessary, we can tweak the design so it does stay
within budget. We'll r_ontinually advise you or your
representative of what those things are, what those prices
are.
If there's some decisions that -- that you
want to make or need to make in that regard, you'll be able
to do that. You'll know the exact cost by line item of
everything we're proposing. You can be furnished with that,
and on a computer format that will say, HVAC system, "X"
dollars. You'll know what that is in the breakdown. We --
we've got a -- our estimating system is based on our
historical information of what it's cost us to build
projects. There are some items that we'll depend heavily on
our -- on outside contractors for, that being HVAC
contractors -- we'll have an HVAC contractor in here
advising us on the cost of whatever HVAC system we are going

115
	1
r.	2
	3
	4
	5
	6
	

1	7
	8
~	9
	10
	11
	12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--
25
to propose to you. Same thing with electrical. For
example, if a building had an extensive amount of
technology, we'd have a techno contractor in here. Finally,
we'll -- when the -- when the design is complete and we put
the project out for bids, we'll solicit those bids through
our databank. We'll soli~~it them by e-mail and by fax.
We'll advertise the project in three statewide trade
publications, and we'll advertise it in the local area
newspapers, so I feel like that -- that we will make an
extremely competitive price available for you.
The next item, you wanted to know the cost
that would be in our guaranteed price. The costs that would
be in that guaranteed maximum price is everything that it
costs to design and build the facility. The only thing that
comes to mind that would not be in there would be the
obvious things, like furnishings and equipment that an owner
or tenant would typically provide themselves. But, as far
as the actual cost of the building, the design cost of that
building, the insurance premiums, the bond premiums, the
general conditions, the management costs, that would be
included in our guaranteed maximum price. And last would be
the schedule, and I think Jim has prepared a schedule that's
attached there. It's -- again, it's a preliminary schedule,
and includes our design time, and he can briefly go over
that with you.
i -_~--~
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 8
g
I
' 1Q
11
12
.... 13
14
15
16
I 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BROWN: We use the schedule -- a building
schedule as a tool to keep our projects on budget and on
time. I've come up with this very basic, very preliminary,
but basically, we get -- after the contract is negotiated
and all, we get into about three months of going back and
forth on what type of design we're going to get into, and
then before the preliminary design is totally done, we can
actually advance this project some by going ahead and
starting on some of the site work and some of that work
before we get the final design in. The only drawback to
that is we have to watch our costs. And, of course, you
know, site work is probably the one thing that, in this
particular project, is probably minimal compared to -- to
some of the other costs.
Also, as we -- as Bill pointed out, the
renovation of the existing arena and the demolition of the
existing exhibit hall we're putting at the end, latter part
of the project, to -- to only -- only be out of service for
a maximum of probably four months at the maximum, and try to
work it in to where the -- you know, it doesn't impact what
y'a11 do on -- on the facility at that time. And we're --
we're very capable of taking on a project and making sure
that the public is safe while we're there working, 'cause we
do a lot of work on public projects, and we know how to work
around people. So -- but that's the way we put this
~_-.~ _
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
together. It's approximately a 13-month schedule after the
contract's negotiated, however long it takes them to
negotiate the contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one of the
points of concern to me, is that it extends considerably
into '04. And some of our utilization criteria is such that
we'd like to see it done by December of '03 at the very
latest. How would that work out in your scheme of things?
MR. BROWN: Well, the way to do that in our
scheme of things, first of all, is to get the contract
negotiated as quickly as possible, and then we can come back
with some preliminary -- if we can get the design, we can
get things started with the site work and some work like
that. That is what will take the time, is the design. If
we can get the design quickly, then we can push this thing
and come off of that schedule somewhat.
MR. KENNEDY: Another way to achieve that
would be if you could take your existing facility out of
operation. We've assumed that you can't do that. And --
and they've put that to the end of the project, once we had
the balance of the -- of the facility up and running.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The critical part --
the critical part or point has to do with the staging of the
Hi11 Country Junior District Livestock Show and -- and the
show's use -- utilization of existing facilities and/or new
118
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
facilities. If the show -- the '03 show will be in January,
so by the end of January or February, then you're free to go
to work. But we also want to be certain that the show has
facilities for its next one in '04. Now, what I'm seeing in
your timeline here gives me pause for concern.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, the way I read
your schedule, you're leaving the existing barn until after
the next year's show.
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Demolition of the
existing barn doesn't start until next February.
MR. BROWN: If we started the renovation in
January, I mean, that could be pushed off till the end, one
or the other.
MR. KENNEDY: The work that would be
disruptive in -- in the existing facility actually shows to
start the last quarter, let's say, of December, but that
could be shifted. The actual demolition's not until
February 1.
MR. BROWN: So that could actually be shifted
down, and there's possibilities of being finished with the
other part before that, you know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But they're then
suggesting that the renovations of the existing facility
wouldn't take place until after the '04 show.
i~_,~ u,
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. KENNEDY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So they would be
using the same tired arena that they're using now for both
'03 and '04.
MR. KENNEDY: Unless there's a way to back
up -- as Jim said, shorten the negotiation, actually start
fast-tracking the project earlier, and we show site work
beginning around the end of May. We'd need to push that
back at least two months; we need to pick up 60 days there
on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At what point in your
timeline and design and so forth would you actually order
the metal building? What would --
MR. KENNEDY: Well, we're talking about --
we're talking about being able to order the pre-engineered
building here on this -- this timeline around May, mid-May.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. KENNEDY: But the renovation work, in my
opinion, needs -- the scope of that work needs to be firmly
established. I can hit very close right now by telling you
what the cost is on the balance of the facility, but that's
an unknown to me. So, in order fer me to feel comfortable
with a final price of G.M.P., I need to know what -- how
extensive that renovation work is, and Bill has got to do a
i_-„-
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
good bit of work, in my opinion, to arrive at -- at a scope
that we can give a reasonable -- or a price with a
reasonable expectation that it's accurate. And if we were
just talking about the new work, then this could be a much
more aggressive schedule, but with that -- the aspects of
that work hanging out there and the total costs that might
be involved there, I'm hesitant to commit to this other cost
prior to having that nailed down, and that's one reason
you're -- you're seeing on our schedule nearly 90 days of
preliminary -- or of design work prior to us being able to
j start.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a question about
supervision. We had an out-of -- non-local contractor
renovate the courthouse annex, and I think we had seven
different supervisors. And I'm -- you know, I'm pleased
that you all are going to do another major project here in
Kerr County starting Thursday.
MR. KENNEDY: Thursday.
JUDGE HENNEKE: For those who don't know,
these gentlemen won the contract to expand the Detention
Facility. Will you assign a separate supervisor or project
manager to this project who will be totally devoted to this
project?
MR. KENNEDY: We'll have a separate, on-site
superintendent full-time, on-site, separate from that
~_ ~~~-a~
121
1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
.-.
25
facility that you're referring to. Now, Jim is the project
manager on that facility. He's -- he handles that project
or the project management duties out of our San Antonio
office. He will also be the project manager on this project
that we're discussing today. But, as far as on-site, it
will be a separate person. It wouldn't be -- obviously, if
we finish that job, we might move this man over here, but
the timing is such that that's not going to happen, so we'll
have another individual who will be the superintendent. Our
superintendents are considered key people to us. I don't
hire them for a job and lay them off at the end of that job.
They -- superintendents have all been with me a long time.
If I get in a situation where I start a project and we don't
have a man available, well, then we'll hire one, but the
intent is to keep him on long-term. I've got
superintendents that travel, and 7've got some that don't,
and this would be a superintendent that would travel and
come to this site. And I have never -- and I won't say
never, but in the last 10 years, I've only had one project
that my superintendent started that didn't finish it, and he
had to quit for medical purposes. So, typically, they're
long-term, permanent employees of ours.
J~DVE HENNEKE: That's good. Any other
questions? Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did I understand,
1~ i~ o~~
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
Mr. Epp, that you have not physically examined the --
MR. EPP: No. I've seen the site and I
walked the site. I've not been in the arena building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tell us about change
orders and how those are handled.
MR. KENNEDY: Well, what's typical in this
type of project, a change order is going to be where you, as
owner, request something different than what's on the plans
that you approved. You're going to come to us and say -- I
don't know a good example -- "I want to move this wall
40 feet." You want a different configuration here because
of something that's happened during the construction phase
that you've changed your mind about. Bill will prepare a
document based on a scope, a drawing based on his
understanding of what you want, and we'll price it. It will
be just like our proposals that we've done here. You or
your representative will have available all the backup and
cost that goes into that pricing, and if we need to sit down
and negotiate it, we will. It'll be give and take.
We'11 -- we'll prove up our cost to you, and it will have
a -- a normal, fair mark-up on it that we -- we will
pre-establish with you in the negotiating phase of the
contract.
This process is different from, say, a
typical hard-bid public project, in that we are actually --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 J
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
29
~~
~~
123
not only are we your contractor, but we're also your
designer, your design team. So, it's not going to be some
deal that we come down in the project acid say, "We didn't
understand that this is what your architect meant here,"
because we are your architect, in effect. But Bill is part
of our team and our proposal, so I think that the -- one of
the great benefits of this approach is that you're not going
to be concerned with that. But, again, if, halfway through
it, you say, "Well, I want to turn this building
180 degrees" or something, well, then, yes, we're going to
come to you and present those costs to you and expect to be
fairly compensated for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would the -- the costs we
gave of $3 million, you're confident that you can build --
acid with what the requirements are, that facility can be
built for --
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that or less?
MR. KENNEDY: I feel like that's the case. I
think you've -- you've done some things in that RFQ that
we'd -- we'd recommended also with that budget, and that is
to hold the masonry out as an alternate, as a proposed
alternate. I think you've got approximately two-thirds of
that slab ~n there as -- proposed as an added nonstructural
floor slab in there. I think that's a good idea. I think
124
1
L
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
J
16
17
18
19
?0
21
22
23
29
25
that -- I don't think there's a lot of fluff in that price.
I think it's a competitive number and can be met. Again, I
have a little bit of concern about how much renovation we
have to do in there, but it's certainly an achievable
budget, yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else -- Wayne, do you
have some questions?
MR. GONDECK: On the guaranteed maximum
price, how far along in the design would y'all say that
number could be established and, you might say, Part 2 to
the contract could be consummated?
MR. KENNEDY: I think that -- I'd like to say
that we would -- and I hate to throw out a percentage, but
I'd say 80 percent complete with design drawings is when I
would feel comfortable. We could enter into a G.M.P.
earlier than that, with the understanding of everyone that
we have a contingency number in there to cover some
differences in the way we see it and what it ultimately
evolves into. In the event that -- at the end of the day,
when we reach the final price, that contingency money would
reveLt back to the owner. But to minimize that type of
number just floating out there, I'd say at least 80 percent.
I'd want to know if the scope is -- is nailed down on the
renovation, and then that the balance will work 80 percent.
MR. GUNDECK: So, if we went forward or
i i ~ .,
125
l
-,
3
9
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1J
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
?5
negotiated with y'a11 -- the Court negotiated with y'all
that we're going to establish a G.P.M., say, a design
development, y'all would foresee that you would have a
contingency in there, but at the -- and a contingency and a
guaranteed maximum price. And then, as the design is
finalized, that y'a11 would give a final price on that,
which I guess would be auditable?
MR.. KENNEDY: Sure.
MR. GONDECK: That could come back and say,
okay, this is our final cost. If it's less than the
guaranteed maximum price, that y'all would say those
contingent moneys would revert back to the owner?
MR.. KENNEDY: Yes, sir.
MR. GONDECK: With that difference?
MR.. KENNEDY: Correct, exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you were the
design/build Leam that we selected, would you -- would we
have your permission to utilize these drawings for the
promotion of the bond issue?
MR. KENNEDY: Certainly.
MR. EPP: I'd like to improve them a little
bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
MR. EPP: I'd like to improve them a little
bit more for yuu.
1~ 1%-~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1`~
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We would welcome
that.
MR. EPP: No problem. In full color, without
yellow grass.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does your G.M.P. include
geotechnical engineering, environmental engineering costs?
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, it would.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone else have any
questions or concerns? Wayne?
MR. GONDECK: I think we've covered most of
lt.
MR. EPP: Can I ask a question? Is there any
anticipated unknowns associated with the arena that would
have an effect on this? I mean, I'm sure there's no
drawings or as-bun is available.
MR. GONDECK: There's no drawings. There's a
lot of interesting aspects to it. What the R.FQ anticipated,
and I anticipated, was that the architect and engineer of
record would go through the facility and determine exactly
what would be entailed to bring it up to building codes;
electrical codes, specifically.
MR. EPP: That's one of the lines, is to
determine are the as-built drawings in place.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Gentlemen, we
thank you for your time.
is i ~ r~.
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
10
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. KENNEDY: Thank y'all. Appreciate it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Appreciate it. Look forward
to seeing you Thursday morning. Rick, are you going to be
there?
MR. KENNEDY: Bright and early, yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: In Juvenile Board in Kerr
County, you get used to getting up early. At least we put
it back till 7:30 instead of 7 o'clock.
MR. KENNEDY: That works good for us. We've
qot a 3 o'clock bid that day, so it's time to get here and
yet the ground broke and get back.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm glad it worked out well
for you.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank y'all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone want to take
another break, or shall we launch into discussions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Press.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Press?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Press on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just for the record, then,
let's go into posted Item Number 2, which is consider and
discuss the selection of design/build team for HCYEC
renovation/expansion project. Wayne, do you have any
i~ i, o
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5
10
11
12
13
14
IJ
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 J
preliminaries you want to put out on the table before we
discuss it among ourselves, or would you rather wait till
the end?
MR. GONDECK: Judge, if you'll give me a
couple minutes, I`d like to tally a couple things, make a
couple more notes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. GONDECK: If y'all -- I'm listening to
your discussions, but if y'all have any comments first, I do
want to present some things before you get too far into it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's -- let's go ahead
and take just a stretch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Five,
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, take five. Take a
stretch five.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take five.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There you go. We finally got
to that, Buster. Let's take five.
(Recess taken from 4:08 p.m, to 4:15 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. We'll reconvene
this special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court.
Mr. Gondeck, do you want to let us know what you've
determined, or your thoughts on the pror_ess and candidates?
MR. GONDECK: Judge, I would have to say
is i~ uz
129
1
~., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
first that I think we saw some diversity in presentations
I
design concept. In looking at that and -- and trying to
come up with, you know, objective scoring on my end, I was a
little bit surprised when I tallied up where we were at,
because I was very detrimental -- or not detrimental, but
very negative on STR's amount of documentation, as far as
architecturally and the design end or conceptual design.
However, I was -- did sort of boost that back up again
because of their alternative concept, and sort of how that
worked into the schedule. I do think that they looked at
it -- have looked at it a lot more from the construction
end, and from what I'm looking at, at their team, they seem
to be more of a construction-driven team or a
contractor-driven team. That`s not an objective criteria,
but I'm just going over sort of a broad overview right now.
In looking at the Faulkner/Lowe/Quorum group,
I think that the -- that they are well-rounded,
well-qualified, and addressed all the issues, sort of on an
above-average, you might say, sca]e. I didn't see anything
from that that jumped out at me as to an overwhelming
brilliant idea or anything, or any unknown information that
i_--
130
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
In
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we really gathered from them today. On Huser and Adler, I
was impressed with the design concept, and the idea that
they had already looked back and forth, that maybe -- if --
you know, if we have a number, a $3 mil]ion cap, then maybe
some things can come in and go out. They looked very
closely at what they thought this budget was going to be,
and had already gone forth with even the conceptual design
on, you know, limiting or having to give up some things, and
Leady to come to the Court and say that, you know, we think
that you can get this, but you may have to give up X, Y, and
Z over here. You may have to give up some paving to get
some of the things that you really want in your building.
Architecturally, I do think that they looked at it, that
they wanted to upgrade the appearance of the facility,
really make it a nice public facility with not -- with
adding some functional things to it. Not just a bunch of
jillyfrata -- that's a true architectural term.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the word?
MR. GONllECK: Jillyfratz.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jillyfratz?
MR. GUNDECK: I know it's been --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We use that in here.
Jillyfratz.
MR. GONDECK: I know it's been around the
industry for a long time. 50, in my rankings, I guess
is-i~-n_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
numerically -- and it was surprising to me that Faulkner,
you might say, fell to the third position. STR was in the
middle, and Huser was at the top. My recommendation would
be -- is that I would -- from the discussions today, would
I think,
secondly, that STR seemed to be very knowledgeable in the
process. And I really got the impression from the
Faulkner/Lowe/Quorum end that they were still looking at it
a little bit more traditionally, and not as much as an
interactive team that comes forward and, "Here's the
proposal," and they will take care of all the -- you might
say minutiae and elements that go on within the project.
So, that would be our recommendation as to the ranking, and
I'm open to whatever discussions that y'all have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what would be useful
prepared to take a vote if we can. I'm not -- I'm going to
go first, 'cause I get to go first sometimes. And I'm
surprised with Wayne's comments; it's almost like he and I
heard different presentations, but he comes from a different
perspective than I do. I think STR has a -- is a good
contractor, but I was very adversely affected by their
design, because it didn't -- I mean, the qualifications
iz i~ o.
132
1
„_„ 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-. 14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..~
25
specifically said the exhibit hall had to be east, and they
chose to keep it located centrally. And the way they've
meets the perceptual requirement of what the Court was
trying to do, which was to separate the event center from
the more agricultural facilities. And I think that was a
real important step that the Court took when we -- when we
finally	did	that.	And	-- and I	think that the	STR	design
doesn't	lend	itself	at	all well	to expansion of	the	exhibit
hall, because your option is to take away the park, which is
their principal design feature, or to extend it out so that
the footprint of the building becomes awkward.
On -- on the Hisser/Adler presentation, I'm
not sure it's as -- it's as functional as the presentation
from Faulkner and Lowe and Blankenship -- Quorum. I don't
know -- I'm not enough of an agriculture person to know
whether the barn being basically horizontal instead of
vertical compared to the arena is a drawback or not. You
separate your animals further from the arena, and you also
have	a situation	where, if	you're	bringing	animals into
those	portions of	the arena	that	are closer	-- portions of
the barn that are closer to the arena, you basically have to
come through the rest of the arena. Centrally located
restrooms, you can always break that up, but that's a long

133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way for people to go, and I'm not sure that that functions
as well. Having the exhibit hall turned the way it was,
again, I think it's -- it's an interesting design concept,
and it may be more visually presenting, but I'm not sure,
again, it's as functional, particularly when you look at the
notion of -- of expanding.
I was struck by the amount of time they
had -- or resources or interest they devoted to landscaping,
which I think is important, but this Court's trying to build
a very functional facility, and the landscaping comes in at
the end, if at all. I think that the Faulkner/Lowe/
Blankenship design was truer to what the Court had in mind
from a -- from a perceptual point of view, in the public's
eye. And I think the Huser one -- and the Faulkner bids
were very close. I was just struck by the fact that I think
that the Faulkner/Lowe concept was perhaps truer to what the
Court had in mind. Buster, do you got anything you want to
weigh in on this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. My thoughts
are -- I probably would be a little closer to the thoughts
that Wayne had. There's -- I have a little difference in
there, but I'm not going to go into details. I thought
number three -- great details, but I thought number three
were more in the construction mode and lacked a great deal
in the drawing end of it. The other two -- so I totally

134

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eliminated them, anyway. The other two teams were both
absolutely excellent, I thought, and it would be difficult
to choose between the two. And I -- the reason I'm saying
this is, when I vote no on any of them, I want everyone to
understand -- and for this record, 'cause this -- this could
come back and try to bite me. It will not, but someone will
attempt it. That I think both of chose first two teams were
men of integrity and very, very professional, but my vote
against them is not anything personal with them. It's
simply that I'm following my path of resistance to the whole
project. That's all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of the three
proposals, I like the last one the least, so that puts me
between the proposals number one and number two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, we're agreeing so
far, Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So far we're on the
same page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're doing good here.
Want me to leave?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's going to fall
apart in a minute. I think the -- I think the utilization
scheme, as presented by team number one, I like a little bit
better than I do team number two. And while I -- while I
was impressed by the aesthetics as presented the by Huser
1? 1, ~,
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
team, I am concerned by the -- the plan for the exhibit
hall. The canting of it, that's fine, but if we ever get to
a point of expansion, I'm concerned about that. The way
it's designed, I think if we went ahead and built that
13,000 based on the way it's designed, we would run into
some major problems at some time down the line, and that
gives me pause for concern. So, I -- and I'm not sure
about -- about the layout of the livestock barn tying into
the existing indoor arena. I just don't know the details of
the stock show's utilization to know whether that's good or
bad, and I would have to ask Bob or Ernie Kaiser and a few
others about that, whether or not that really fit your --
unless you want to answer me now?
MR. DITTMAR: Well, quite frankly, I didn't
really get a good look at team number two's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One's horizontal
and -- one's vertical and one's horizontal.
MR. DITTMAR: I guess I would have to say,
basically, we're looking at building a shell anyway, and --
unless I misunderstood what they were proposing as far as
temporary partitions. But we're looking at building a
shell, which is what we have anyway. And you can utilize
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess I'm more
concerned on how you move your animals and how you -- how
~~ z~-~~_
136
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you place your animals, and how you get them from place to
place and all that good stuff. Knowing you folks know the
intricate details of that, you --
MR. DITTMAR: We have two separate buildings
now, and I'm -- I don't see that changing, right?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess bottom
line, if I had to rank them, I'd rank them in the order of
presentation; one, two, three.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with -- my
problem with STR -- we'll go with them first -- I would rank
them third. And the problem I have with them is that the
architect -- I just don't think he didn't give the --
prepare the drawings. He hadn't spent time at the facility,
and I don't think he's ever done this type of facility. I
mean, I just got the impression that just his experience
level was not there. And they made up a lot of ground with
the -- with STR being the contractor; they obviously know
what they do. And the best thing there -- and, you know,
maybe this should move them up to either one or two in my
mind -- is that they were the most confident that they can
do it for this price, and they're a big contractor and they
know price. Which was -- you know, that was the only -- you
-- ~~ u~
137
1
^... 2
3
9
5
6
7
i
8
r
I 9
' 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
know, it was a lot of comfort there. But the design is an
important part of it, and I thought they were looking there.
When it comes to the other two, I think
they're pretty close, in my mind. I think that they're --
some of the -- the differences and some of the -- what I've
heard of the shortcomings in the Huser plan was really a
lack of knowledge. I mean, he didn't -- the other team,
because of Blankenship being involved with it, knew so much
more information about what the Court has looked at, what
they wanted, you know, than the other two teams did. So,
you really gave them a little bit of an advantage there.
The other teams, you could tell by their -- the first time
we mentioned expansion, that was the first time they'd ever
heard those words, whereas Blankenship clearly knew that was
a criteria, because he was the one that came to us
originally and said we need a 27,000 square foot building.
So, the fact that they didn't -- you know, the Huser
drawings doesn't allow for great expansion, or the exhibit
hall part didn't allow for that very well, well, that's
because they didn't know that was supposed to, so I don't
count that as against them at all.
I personally -- I like the exterior layout a
lot more with Huser. I think that it is the only plan that
kind of -- well, compering between it and the Faulkner plan,
it broke up the front. It put that porch across there and
_-i%-u
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did some things that really, you know, improved the looks of
the building at very little cost. The landscaping, I think
you need a plan for that. I think I -- they wouldn't do it;
I think we'd have community service or prisoners or
something do it, but I think it's good to plan for it, and I
think he did spend a fair amount of time on traffic flow and
patterns like that. I think that with -- you know, and I
think, you know, they're certainly very qualified and
capable of doing it.
With Faulkner and Lowe, they can do it as
well. I think they were -- in my mind, it was the hardest
to get them to agree that they could do it for this price.
They really -- I asked that question three or four times,
and they hedged more than the others did. Huser hedged the
second most, and then, you know, STR said, yeah, we can do
it for that. So I'm a little bit concerned about the cost
part of it, and how far -- and, you know, we go. So, I
would -- I would probably -- I'm not real strong, you know,
against Faulkner or Lowe versus the other one, versus Huser,
but I would put Huser first, Faulkner second, and STR third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I won't talk about
STR, 'cause most of the comments I would make about that
team have already been made, and I agree with what other
members of the Court have said. It, to me, boils down to
i_-„-~;z
139
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the first two. And in any contract, even in the private
sector, there are three primary things to consider: cost,
performance, and schedule. Here's a case where, with the
design-to-build concept, we gave -- we sort of take cost out
of the competition, because we have a design-to-cost target
that everybody's -- everybody is going to have to play to.
We have to negotiate and they're going to have to agree to
it, no matter who we pick.
Some of the concerns I've heard about -- I
would also agree with Jonathan that, because Huser didn't
know, we couldn't -- I won't hold that against them that
they didn't realize that there was a -- a potential
expansion involved here. And also, Wayne, correct me if I'm
wrong, but in the design/build approach that we have
committed to, we can negotiate any changes like that. If we
want the building squared up instead of cocked at an angle,
we can do that. If we want two bathrooms instead of three,
we put that all -- that all goes into the design criteria
that we establish up front with them when we get into
detail. And they still are going to have to agree to bring
it in at cost, or they say no, we can't do that, and we do
trade-offs. So, if we don't want any landscaping, for
example, we can say we don't want any landscaping; we want
that out of the equation. We'll address that separately or
whatever.
1_-n-oz
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
25
So, when we look at performance and schedule,
then either of those first two teams can perform. I think
they've both got good track records; they could do that.
And I -- their schedules are where you could almost lay one
over the top of the other. They were very, very close. I
know we're all concerned about being able to do the -- the
youth exhibition -- or the livestock show for the following
year. That's important. But I'll tell you what, gents.
You can't get nine women to make a baby in one month.
There's no way to do that. And I would be very careful and
I would admonish the next Court to be careful about trying
to squeeze it, because that's where you can really create
not only contractual problems, but you'll blow the schedule
and the budget. So, if it -- those two teams are hitting on
about the same schedule, that tells me something. That's
about what it's going to be, and you got to keep it on
track. You got to keep changes to a minimum or to zero so
that they can perform to that schedule and have it ready in
early December. And I think that's sort of the bottom line
of that.
When we look, then, at sort of costs being
out of the picture within the competition, then we look at
the management team. They've both got great management
teams. I think I would give the Huser team a little higher
mark on understanding design-to-build. They didn't come up

141
1
^~ G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with exclusions, which sort of bothered me in the Faulkner
proposal, that list of exclusions that he had. Some that
they said, yeah, we can take that out. They didn't say we'd
take them all out, you know, so -- so my -- my thought would
be to go along with the number two team, for all those
reasons.
COMMISSTONER BALDWIN: We have a problem
here, Houston.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless -- I'm going to ask
Bob if he wants to make any comments, cause they're really
the major partner in the community that we have.
MR. DITTMAR: I appreciate that. I was
sitting here thinking I'm glad I don't have to make you
guys' decision. Because, to me, basically what you're
asking these guys at this time is to design a -- a shell,
and then sometime later on, figure out where the light plugs
are going to be. And so I -- you know, I thought they were
all very good proposals, and I agree in a lot of ways what 1
heard from all of you. I think what Jon said, particularly
about the third team being the most sure that they could do
it for price, I think, was important. Whereas the first
team was a little -- they hedged, to me, more on that. And
I'm not a construction person, I'm just a human being
sitting here listening to what they had to say. I guess
my -- my -- a lot of my concern is making sure this is done

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
142
in time, and that's a very good -- I don't know how to tell
y'all to address that. Y'all have any specific questions
for me that y'a11 might -- Bill's question about how to do
that, I -- like I said, in my mind, from what I'm hearing,
is we're asking them to build a shell and we're going to
talk about how we're going to form that later. Is that
incorrect?
MR. GONDECK: That is not really correct.
MR. DITTMAR: Okay.
MR. GONDECK: At this time, we're looking at
it conceptually, but they are going to provide a full design
of the facility, and probably a fu_1 design of the facility
before construction begins.
MR. DITTMAR: Right. And -- but your
decision today is not based on what their total design is,
right?
MR. GONDECK: No, our -- our decision -- I
don't have a decision in this; it's y'all's decision. The
decision that is to be made today is really selecting the
most qualified presenter team. If I may, can I expound a
little bit more on my comments? I know that you think
they're just opposite, but they're -- there's some means to
my madness.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure I want to let
you do that. Go ahead.
~~-_~-u_
143
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. GONDECK: In looking at this -- and I
know we've done this in a very short period of time.
What -- the decision that needs to be made today is really a
ranking of these three teams; first, second, third, to
select who you want to negotiate with first, who you want to
negotiate with second, who you want to negotiate with third.
If, in the situation that you come up with an "uh-oh" on the
first one, you can't get to that point to where you can
negotiate out all the terms, you terminate that negotiation.
You have to look at that in two areas, I think. You need to
look at it that, one, it may not ever get to that, but if it
does, those actual negotiations will begin sometime in
February if we have a successful bond election, and will go
on for some period of time. If they are difficult
negotiations, we know that this can get extended out fairly
long.
The -- if you go to a second group, you're
going to need to go to a group that you know that will give
you a number and will stick to it and will give you your
product that you want to have. I know from looking at the
previous packages that S'1'R has more experience in
design/build. In other words, "I've given you a guaranteed
maximum cost," and saying that that is what they will stick
to. That's why they were not as hesitant to say yes, we can
do that, because they are -- they know what they -- you
iz ~~-u
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
144
know, what that number will be based on some very outlying
information. So, it -- as much as I am very disappointed in
someone cominq up here when it's clearly listed to have
floor plans and elevations and site plans, and to not have
that information --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wayne, can I
interrupt you just a second? While you're on the latter
one, all that's true in terms of design/build; probably
applies tremendously in new. But he hedged his bet
considerably about the renovation of the arena. He did that
because the architect obviously hadn't been in there to take
a look at it, so he really did hedge. He said I don't know
what I'm going to find there. But, to me, that weighed
really heavily. That's all I want to say.
MR. GONDECK: Again, you know, it's your
decision. You are the ones that are making the decision.
I'm just bringing up thoughts and issues that I would hope
the Court would consider. Either one of these -- I mean,
any one of these groups, I think, can serve the County very
well. We can work very well with any of the groups in
representing the County as your agent on that, so I don't
see any problem with that. It's not going to hurt my
feelings whichever way you go on this. But that was some of
my thought process also in looking at that ranking. As far
as the presentations strictly today, I think that
~_ ;~-o~
1
^. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
1/
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
Faulkner/Lowe/Quorum gave a more professional presentation,
a more complete presentation, and based on that, would
summarily look to be ranked higher than STR. So, now I've
made a complete circle of discussion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Circle away.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Somebody -- do we want
to make a motion on the order?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We want to do that
eventually, but I don't know that we're ready to do that
yet. I'll entertain a motion at any time, but, you know,
the point was made that -- that Faulkner/Lowe/Quorum team
may have had an advantage because Bill Blankenship was their
architect, but that's an advantage for us too, because he's
worked with us for three years and he knows what we want.
You know, the other groups, if they were paying attention to
what's going on in local community affairs, would have known
very well that the expansion of the exhibit center was a
very hotly debated and greatly desired topic, and would have
perhaps taken that into consideration in their design. I
was looking at the Huser design, and I see loading docks in
there. And I'm going, What do you need loading docks for?
You know, we're talking about a livestock barn. What do you
need a loading area for? Are you talking about a -- a chute
to put a lot of cattle in the back of an 18-wheeler, or what
are you talking about? And if they have loading docks at

196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1S
19
~0
21
22
23
24
~.
^<`
the exhibit center, I'm going, we don't have anybody rolling
in and out of loading docks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's good
planning. I mean, I think that all those buildings -- one,
if it's for livestock, I tell you, the people that come pick
up the hogs in their 18-wheeler would sure love to have a
loading dock for the high chute.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's -- you know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- you know,
I think a loading dock thing -- I mean, that building -- the
plans need to include -- need to be f1e>;ible, whether you're
going to use it for shock show or whether you're going to
have forklifts unloading 1S-wheelers for an exhibit of some
sort. That, to me, is good. And, you know, about Bill
Blankenship, I mean, you know, I don't -- Bi11 has done a
good job, but Bill has also had a bias throughout when we
used him a lot, and that bias -- we got more done when we
got Bill to stay in Fort Worth for a while, because he has a
bias towards horses, bottom line, and his design had a lot
of that early on. So, you know, I don't -- you know, I
Lhink Bill would do what we told him to do, but, you know, I
don't -- I just -- my only comment on him having an
advantage was that he had knowledge about the exhibit hall
that the others didn't have. I guess they could have read
the papers recently; I don't know if i read that, if I'd
---- - -
147
t
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
2~
understand what was going on if I didn't -- wasn't in the
middle of it.
MR. GONDECK: If you read it out of the
paper, you probably just wouldn't understand it, because I
read the article in the paper. That's not -- it was just
all the different things that were happening. That was not
against the paper.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know -- I mean, I
don't -- I think that Blankenship and Faulkner and Lowe
could do the job. I think Huser could probably -- my
preference is Huser did a better job, and T -- I'm
thinking -- this goes back to the -- the makeup of the
Faulkner/Lowe -- and a little bit of a negative in my mind
is to why is Mike Lowe in with Faulkner? Why is he even
there"? And it doesn't make a lot of sense, because Faulkner
is a contractor, and Faulkner has their own superintendents.
They're a huge company. And so I guess, you know, they're
trying to get a local flavor to get points, is how I see
that. But Faulkner is the primary company. And my mind
is -- I have a preference, and everything else equal, and
they're pretty close to being equal., Huser is a local
company. I would rather give business to a local company
than a local/non-local company. I know, you know, Lowe
brings in a little bit of a dotted line to "local." And I
-- you know, I really was -- you know, early on I was
i~ i~-,~
198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
surprised that Lowe went and grouped up with -- or with
Faulkner. But -- and that doesn't weigh real heavily with
me one way or the other. I just like -- I really like the
fresh approach, fresh design that -- and the ideas that
Huser had. I know Huser's reputation. I think he's
qualified to do it. I think he understands the cost issue,
from what he said here, better than any of the others, and
knows that it's a tight budget. And, you know, there's some
things that, you know, he's willing to use his expertise and
knowledge and say we can adjust things here to get what you
want.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a comment when
I get back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- you know, so
that's kind of where I am.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I don't know. You
know, I -- I think with Mike Lowe involved, that it would be
a local construction project. It won't be a project -- I
think it will be purely a local construction project. I
think that's important. We have these two fine, big-time
construction people, and maybe we should utilize them
wherever possible, either one of them.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're both Aggies,
so --
(Laughter.)
1?-1~-U~
149
1
3
4
5
6
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Makes it easy for you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's good. I mean,
can't go wrong.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I just -- as I said before, I
think that Lowe's proposal is one that's truer to where the
Court's trying to go than the Huser one. Which is not to
say the Huser one is a bad one. I just think that it better
reflects the utilitarian approach the Court has taken to
this whole bond issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who is -- which one?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Faulkner -- the Lowe
proposal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm kind of like Jon
in that I'm curious why Mike linked up with Faulkner. But
he did, and that's his business. I know he's built barns;
he just finished one. But I have a question about Adler
that maybe you know. Has he ever really done a facility
like this? In his qualifications, did it indicate that he'd
done facilities like this?
MR. GONDECK: Commissioner, let me -- some of
that gets muddled in my head as to who did what.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. GUNDECK: Somewhere there's a box of
these around here that I'm not sure --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not in my office.
1. 1~-~~'
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
150
MR. GONDECK: -- where they were delivered
to, but as soon as I ran get Michael back in town, I'm going
to find out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Left it on the door
stoop.
JUDGE HENNEKE: County Attorney will discover
it sometime this next year.
MR. GONDECK: I know that they -- in looking
through quickly, that, yes, they have done exhibit
facilities and recreational facilities. My question was
going back as far as the -- I don't see anything
specifically about animal facilities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really what
I'm talking about.
MR. GONDECK: I mean, as far as other exhibit
conference -- community conference facilities, yes, they do
have that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I appreciate,
on Adler's, that what we've asked of them is conceptual, and
he can -- he can get into the inner workings of that
building so as not to create havoc if we decide to expand
it, which, you know, if that decision comes at a later date,
which I hope it does and I hope that's possible. I rank
them -- you know, and I'm going to rank them one, two, and
three. I'm not -- but, in my mind, Huser's -- the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
Quorum/Faulkner/Lowe combine and Huser and Adler, to me, are
just very, very close together. I don't have a problem with
either one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will say this. I
disagree with y'all a little bit on the point that Huser
wasn't maybe up to snuff as others. I thought he was very
well prepared. And, you know, he was -- he was the one --
to me, there wasn't any hesitancy about, "Can you do this
job for this amount of money?" I thought he -- you know, he
asked some questions in that, trying to clarify exactly what
your question is, but I thought he was very forthright and
straight to the point; "Yes, we can do this."
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You got to do puts and
takes. He understood.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whereas the Faulkner
fellow, he hedged several times on that question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That has been so long
ago, I have no idea what the Faulkner --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you weren't in
here, were you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I wasn't, No
wonder I can't remember.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You were Christmas
shopping.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We all heard different
iz-i~-~z
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
presentations. That's the wonderment of the whole process,
you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's why there's
five of us.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right, because I never
heard the hesitation in the Faulkner presentation that you
guys have characterized. I didn't hear -- I heard that they
said, well, you know --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Only thing I heard --
the only thing I heard in that regard was the exclusions,
which is on that page, and he talked to it a little bit
there. And on one of them, he said, hey, we can take that
out, because it had to do with abatement -- abatement was
already -- asbestos abatement was already taken care of, so
he said we can take that one out. He didn't volunteer to
take the other ones out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I want to go ahead
and make a motion that we put the order of teams Huser,
Faulkner, ST R,. That way we can move on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's for
negotiating purposes. That's where we start, right"? Phat's
what's you told us a minute ago.
MR. GONDECK: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But I think that's specious;
the number one guy we select is the guy we're going to end
t i~ o~
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L ~
23
24
25
153
up with. If we don't, this project's not going to fly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree totally,
MR. GONDECK: Under the statute, you're
supposed to rank them so that if -- in case you do. I mean,
you have to rank them so that you can abandon negotiations
with one. Otherwise, you abandon negotiations totally, and
then you -- you could just say one and no others, but then
you would have to start the whole process all over again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One, two, three, That
was my motion. Hisser, Faulkner, STR.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
DODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court rank the
design teams number one, Steve Huser/Allen Adler; number
two, Faulkner Construction/J.M. Lowe/Quorum Architects;
number three, STR and William Epp. Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Griffin
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Baldwin voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay.
Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good work, guys.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we take off, a couple
i~-i~-oa
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
things real quickly. They're having a going -- retirement
dinner for Calvin Weinheimer Thursday. I was asked to
prepare a resolution. Very innocuous. Hopefully, if
everyone would sigr. it, I'll put it on the agenda for Monday
to ratify it. Second thing, I had a phone message a while
ago -- y'all may have gotten the same message -- that the
Sheriff's Department is having a Christmas party Thursday
from 6:00 till 9:00, and we are -- the Commissioners Court
is cordially invited.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This Thursday?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, day after tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of advance
notice.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, I know. I don't have
anything else. Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, yes, I also
have a resolution that I need to leave town with Friday, and
just realized that we don't have it done --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge Sagebiel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- ready to go for
Judge Sagebiel. The thing's just not ready to go, so I may
have to wait and drive out to Hunt to get you tomorrow or
something.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just. holler. Just
holler if it's ready to sign.
~_ _,-u~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
155
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll have to put Letz
down; just scribble like that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can't read it anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't read it anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you need to drive
out to eastern Kerr County. Might get lost, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He gets --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If the bridges get
across the river.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can't get through the
checkpoints.
MR. GONDECK: I have one final question -- or
business matter. One of the statutory requirements is that
the results of the evaluation, if requested by anybody, have
to be available within seven days. I don't know exactly the
form or format; it's not prescribed anyplace in the statute
as to what that has to be, but my own thoughts on that, we
have presented the letter from the first go-round as far as
the analysis. I would presume that the minutes or whatever
level of records that y'all want to make available will be
ample for the second round on the interviews. But it is my
understanding that the interview portion does not have to be
solely based on an objective criteria; that the statute
actually reads that you can select them on objective
criteria in Phase I, and then also on the interview. So, I
1, ~~-n~
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
don't know how that comes out from an attorney's point of
view. we have provided the objective criteria, and I was --
I guess what I'm saying, I'm not planning on formally
presenting another number to -- evaluation to the Court
other than what I presented today in open court.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. If that's all,
gentlemen, we are adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:56 p.m.)
__-,--ate
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2_'
2~
2`
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of December,
2002.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : ___~~~~ -
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
._ ~~-n?
R~raH..lnaesC)r- "z~E~~lc-;ra~zaull_.n Tr_~ar1,;"
RCR HCY'FC RENOV~IT:[CIIV/FXPpnJC~]flN t='RC7SECT
On L-his tt-ie 1.7tt-~ day of December, ~=4'~V+r, i_+pon motion made by
Cummissioner'I_etz, =r:~ronded by Commi.s:ioner Williams, the
Co~.tr't approved by a vote of 3-1-~, wi.~Fh Camm:iss:ione.r' Baldwin
opposing the motion, th-~aF, the Co~_{rt rank th-~e desigr+ teams
r~~.imber one, Steve h1~..+ser/~llr=n Rdltrr; n~..{tuber- +.wu, (-a~_+lkner
Cor~str'~.+ct:irniJ. M. Lowe/C;~_+or~..rm prr_I-~i.tecrtsg n~_rmber' tt7r-ee, BTR
and William 1=pp.
,."~
.~'~