1 2 3 KERRVILLE-KERR COUNTY JOINT AIRPORT BOARD 4 Special Meeting 5 Friday, May 9, 2014 6 11:00 a.m. 7 Airport Terminal Conference Room 8 1877 Airport Loop Road 9 Kerrville, Texas 10 11 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: 12 Stephen King, President Bill Wood Corey Walters, Vice-President 13 Ed Livermore Kirk Griffin 14 15 AIRPORT BOARD STAFF PRESENT: Bruce McKenzie, Airport Manager 16 Carole Dungan, Executive Assistant 17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: 18 Tom Moser, Commissioner Pct. 2 Jonathan Letz, Commissioner Pct. 3 19 Heather Stebbins, County Attorney 20 CITY STAFF PRESENT: 21 Jack Pratt, Mayor Todd Parton, City Manager 22 23 VISITORS: J. David Mack, P.E., President, Primero Engineering 24 Tom Kita, Building Envelope Consultant, Primero Engineering Barry Hodkin, Mooney Aviation Company 25 Jonas Titas, Kerrville Economic Development Corporation 2 1 I N D E X May 9, 2014 2 PAGE 3 CALLED TO ORDER 4 1. VISITORS FORUM - 5 2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION 2A Discussion of Mooney roof and possible selection 6 of roofing consultant (§551.072 - 551.087) 3 7 3. ADJOURNMENT 52 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Friday, May 5, 2014, at 8:30 a.m., a special meeting 2 of the Kerrville-Kerr County Joint Airport Board was held in 3 the Airport Terminal Conference Room, Louis Schreiner Field, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open session: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 MR. KING: I'll call this meeting to order, the 8 special meeting of the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport 9 Board Friday, May 9th, 2014, at 11 o'clock. Item Number 1, 10 visitors' forum. At this time, any person with business not 11 scheduled on the agenda may speak to the Airport Board. No 12 deliberation or action may be taken on these items, because 13 the Open Meetings Act requires that it be posted on the 14 agenda for 72 hours before the meeting. Anyone have 15 anything? No. Item 2; discussion and possible action. 16 Discussion of Mooney roof, possible selection of roofing 17 consultant. We're doing this in open session, aren't we? 18 MR. McKENZIE: Yes, sir. 19 MR. KING: Okay. On this, we had a meeting -- 20 we've had a meeting with the City and the County on this 21 subject with Mr. Walters and I, and we kind of came to the 22 agreement that -- to proceed on this roof project, which this 23 project is to try to repair the roof of the Mooney facility 24 over there. We've kind of decided that the scope of the 25 project is pretty large and that we need a consultant, and 4 1 the City and the County have agreed we need a consultant. We 2 need to hire a consultant to basically come up with a plan on 3 how to do it, what to use on it, and then to carry that 4 project all the way through, so that we have some sort of 5 expertise in this project. So, we have with us -- who do we 6 have with us? 7 MR. WALTERS: Tom Kita. 8 MR. McKENZIE: Sorry, I didn't meet you. I'm Steve 9 King. 10 MR. KITA: I'm Tom Kita, and I have with me David 11 Mack. I'm the building envelope consultant, and David Mack 12 is our P.E. 13 MR. KING: Okay. How do you want to proceed? 14 MR. McKENZIE: Just let them -- 15 MR. KING: Do you want to make us a little 16 presentation? Little presentation, and then we'll -- 17 MR. McKENZIE: See where it goes. 18 MR. KING: Then see where we go on this. We've -- 19 MR. KITA: Sure. 20 MR. KING: All right, go ahead. 21 MR. KITA: All right. Well, very good. I -- I did 22 not know exactly what the format of the meeting was going to 23 be. 24 MR. KING: We don't either, actually. (Laughter.) 25 MR. KITA: Well, that makes me feel good. 5 1 MR. WALTERS: I think -- 2 MR. KITA: I overdressed a little bit. 3 MR. KING: I'm sorry, I underdressed a little bit. 4 MR. WALTERS: We were contemplating -- 5 MR. MACK: While Tom is handing that out, I'll just 6 give you a little background about our company. I'm the 7 owner. I'm primarily -- my background is structural 8 engineering, some civil engineering, and we've been with a 9 large firm in San Antonio for quite a number of years. I 10 went into business on my own more years ago than I would care 11 to -- about 20 years ago now on my own. And we kind of focus 12 on -- not new construction as much as helping people with 13 building problems and repair and renovations and 14 restorations, and it got into doing -- helping with the 15 building envelope, cladding and roofing and that kind of 16 thing, eight or nine years ago. Tom's been that guy for the 17 last about four or five. He's got an extensive background in 18 that, and it works real well that -- you know, there's roof 19 problems; there's also structural damage at times, so the 20 fields work together. And being mainly a roof, I'm going to 21 turn that back over to Tom. I just wanted to say that much. 22 MR. KITA: Yesterday, I had the privilege of 23 walking the -- the structures at Mooney, and we have metal 24 buildings, we have wooden buildings, we have mixtures of 25 different types of structures. We have newer -- newer, 6 1 meaning within the last 20 years. We've got structures that 2 are 40 years-plus old, and they have not been maintained very 3 well. There's one structure out there that has a wooden deck 4 on it, and a modified bitumen; it's an asphalt-type roof, 5 that when I was looking at it, I was quite alarmed at the 6 magnitude of the deterioration of the wood decking. There's 7 some real issues there, folks. It's -- it could require that 8 the entire decking be removed and replaced. 9 MR. GRIFFIN: And just -- that's this building you 10 have labeled Number 14, I think is the one you're talking 11 about? And the same thing -- 12 MR. KITA: It's this one right here. This -- 13 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. 19. 14 MR. KITA: It's a critical -- 15 MR. GRIFFIN: Right. 16 MR. LIVERMORE: 19? 17 MR. GRIFFIN: 19 and 20. 18 MR. KING: One at a time when y'all speak, please. 19 MR. KITA: And from, you know, walking the -- the 20 different manufacturing types that are going on and the 21 structures, that's -- from my -- from what Mike was telling 22 me, that's a critical building, and that when we get 23 precipitation, it shuts down. 24 MR. KING: What -- excuse me. Barry, what is 19? 25 Do you know what 19 is? Do you have a map? What is 19 used 7 1 for? Is that the hammer house, or is that the -- 2 MR. KITA: This one right here. 3 MR. HODKIN: That's the hammer house, and the 4 big -- 5 MR. KING: That's where the big drop hammer is at? 6 MR. HODKIN: Yeah. 7 MR. KITA: And I believe there's going to be 8 several pieces of new equipment that's going to be placed 9 inside that structure, so that's one we're going to have to 10 really, really look at closely. 11 MR. KING: What's -- excuse me. Barry, what is in 12 this building that y'all use, other than the drop hammer? 13 MR. HODKIN: It's got all the press blades in it. 14 It's where the hydroform is. If you're looking at 19 and 20, 15 if you remember 19 and 20 from the walk-through point of 16 view, it appears to be one building. It's really two. So, 17 19 is where the hydroforms are, and 20 is where the drop 18 hammers and press blades are, and also where the old heater 19 used to be. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's where the heat-treating 21 was going on, in 20? 22 MR. HODKIN: In 20. 23 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, right. 24 MR. LIVERMORE: Sir, am I hearing you say that the 25 entire building may need to be replaced? Is that -- 8 1 MR. KITA: Not the entire building, just the -- the 2 roof decking, that wood decking up there. 3 MR. LIVERMORE: Okay. 4 MR. KITA: It has like a tongue and groove type -- 5 MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah. 6 MR. KITA: A shiplap. 7 MR. GRIFFIN: Shiplap. 8 MR. KITA: It's probably three-quarter inch to one 9 inch thick, and it's just -- it's actually a hazard right 10 now. I would hate to see anybody even try to get up and walk 11 on it. They'd probably fall through. 12 MR. WALTERS: Actually, one person did. 13 MR. KITA: They did? 14 MR. LIVERMORE: Have fallen through? 15 MR. GRIFFIN: Leg went through. 16 MR. WALTERS: Yes, leg went through the decking. 17 MR. LIVERMORE: Oh my god. 18 MR. KITA: Looking at that from a liability, it's a 19 pretty serious liability, and we're going to require that our 20 engineering staff be involved with that one. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Of course, that's -- Tom, 22 that's what you're doing. 23 MR. KITA: That's what we're -- 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's what you're going to 25 do. 9 1 MR. KITA: Yes. What we are going to do is we're 2 going to come out and we're going to assess each building, 3 and we're going to determine what the problems are with the 4 structure that's causing the leaks. Is it on the metal 5 panels? Is it deformation or -- or rusting and holes in it 6 that are causing the leaks? Is it -- is it -- 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: It's leaking now. (Laughter.) 8 MR. KITA: Is it stress that -- that's causing it? 9 We're going to address that, and we're going to identify 10 which panels need to be replaced. We're going to do that for 11 each building, each structure out there, and then we're going 12 to get with you and -- and we're going to formulate a plan so 13 we can phase these projects in and have them brought up to a 14 watertight condition. Now, we need to have Mooney's input on 15 this too, so that we properly assess which structures are the 16 most important, because there's going to be quite a bit of 17 disruption and noise and activity that's taking place, and we 18 may have to coordinate with Mooney so that they can 19 reschedule certain production schedules around it, or 20 reschedule to fit their needs. So, it's -- it's an involved 21 process. 22 MR. LIVERMORE: There's a place in there -- I'm 23 trying to remember where it is, but there's a place there 24 where it looks like a round-top building is hooked into a -- 25 MR. KITA: We have -- 10 1 MR. LIVERMORE: I'm not sure where that was. 2 MR. KITA: -- different types of -- 3 MR. LIVERMORE: Can that be resolved? 4 MR. KITA: Yes. There -- every item out there, we 5 can resolve. We have issues where we have sloped buildings 6 coming down this way; the roofs slope, and another one 7 sloping back into the wall. So, the -- where does the water 8 go? Right inside. So, we're going to have to look at those 9 and design gutter assemblies that can handle that water. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. 11 MR. KITA: Yes, sir? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is part of the assessment 13 looking and saying, okay -- I mean, clearly, the two -- west 14 building and east building are pretty new, and they're good. 15 Everything in the middle is -- at what point do you say if it 16 needs to be gutted, torn down and a new building built? At 17 what -- is that part of the analysis, if it's cheaper to 18 build a new building or to reallocate some of that space 19 right now? 20 MR. KITA: We would have to look at that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that will be part of your 22 look? I mean -- 23 MR. KITA: It can be, if that's what you want it to 24 be. 25 MR. KING: Yeah. I mean, I think that's -- I think 11 1 what Jonathan's saying, there's got to be a cost 2 effectiveness of, you know, that old building with the wooden 3 -- that also has a wooden structure also, not only just a 4 wooden roof. It has wooden truss -- an ancient wooden truss 5 system that it's built on, and, I mean, it's -- I think we -- 6 so as I understand, you'll analyze each building separately, 7 and will also do a cost analysis of each building separately? 8 MR. KITA: Yes, we can do that. 9 MR. KING: I would hope that we -- so that we can 10 basically decide, you know, right now, we want to do these -- 11 these two big buildings, and we want to get on those right 12 now. Is there going to be -- are we going to lose economy of 13 scale, as far as are we going to lose some loss of efficiency 14 as far as cost-wise by not doing the whole project all at one 15 time? Or are we going to be -- 16 MR. KITA: I don't believe so. 17 MR. KING: I mean, if you were to say, okay, 18 look -- you give us this analysis, and we got some problems 19 with this hammer house and some stuff in here, but it looks 20 like these two outside buildings are pretty -- pretty 21 cut-and-dried. We can use this process; it's going to cost 22 this much money. Could -- you know, would there be -- would 23 there be any thought to just saying, you know, let's roof 24 those right now? Let's fix those right now, while we're 25 still trying to figure out how we're going to fix these other 12 1 problems? 2 MR. KITA: Well, that's -- that's kind of what I 3 was getting at, is we -- phasing. 4 MR. KING: Right. 5 MR. KITA: Use phased construction. Now, as far as 6 budgeting, we haven't -- we haven't discussed any budgeting 7 concerns with you guys, as to -- 8 MR. KING: We have a lot of budgeting concerns. 9 (Laughter.) 10 MR. KITA: Well, do you want to do -- do we want to 11 formulate a plan where we do this, this, and this? 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That should be an option. 13 MR. KING: That should be an option. 14 MAYOR PRATT: Should be an option, because, you 15 know, every part of that building is -- buildings is all part 16 of one production. It's different phases of it. 17 MR. KING: I understand that. But, you know, we've 18 come -- you know, I think we have to look at it -- the main 19 thing is we have to look at it on an individual basis, and 20 then once we get that, we can decide whether -- you know, I 21 mean, I have my doubts on that hammer house and that Quonset 22 hut that are tied to the hammer house and tied to the metal 23 building, as to whether at some point you're not throwing 24 good money after bad. 25 MR. LIVERMORE: That's kind of what I was trying to 13 1 raise. 2 MR. KING: At some point, it's like, it looks 3 like -- 4 MR. KITA: And that would be -- 5 MR. KING: But you can make that decision. That 6 would be your decision to make. I would hope that at some 7 point, we'd go, you know, "Hey, guys, you're spending 8 $100,000 on something that is -- you know, looks like a 9 Chinese fire drill to get it fixed." 10 MR. MACK: A little bit of the thought process, 11 when we -- we were asked to come up with a plan for your 12 roofs, and really, not having seen the facility, we pulled it 13 up on Global Earth and, you know -- Google Earth, and, wow, 14 you got a lot of different kind of roofs. We're not sure 15 they all needed to be replaced at one time. What you really 16 need is an assessment. And also from some photos, it looked 17 like some of the water was coming maybe in through metal 18 paneled walls as well as the roof, so that's why Tom's saying 19 we're going to assess each one. 20 MR. KING: Right. 21 MR. MACK: And part of it, then we get back 22 together with you and say, "Well, this one is really bad. 23 This one you could put off another four, five years, and only 24 do some patching with some..." -- you know, type of thing. 25 MR. KING: Sure. 14 1 MR. MACK: That's what you want. Now, you were 2 asking about the building itself. That really wasn't the 3 scope, except as what may be damaged -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 MR. MACK: -- by water deterioration or whatever. 6 Of course, we would take care of that. That's one thing, 7 since we're engineers and building consultants, you know, we 8 kind of work that all together. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my concern, is on the -- 10 the hammer house, the Quonset hut, those two, and then the -- 11 how it's kind of connected -- those are connected. What's 12 the economic -- if we put a new roof on there, what's the 13 economic life of that building? And if we get 10 years out 14 of it, and spending that much money, I'm like, "Okay, is that 15 -- is that good use of tax dollars, versus building a new 16 shell building?" 17 MR. MACK: Mm-hmm, yeah. And just so -- Tom did 18 walk through yesterday, had a quick, brief tour, so he had a 19 little bit of an idea of the different roofs. And when you 20 have different roofs, and like you were saying, different 21 conditions, there's always -- how you connect those different 22 things and the flashing and gutter and drainage details that 23 sometimes the roofers address on their own; sometimes they 24 don't. 25 MR. WALTERS: I think there's a lot of questions 15 1 being asked that will be addressed and answered after they do 2 their assessment. 3 MR. KING: Sure. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's the purpose of what 5 they're doing. 6 MR. KING: I just want to be sure the scope is -- 7 the scope is big enough that we -- you know, to get the 8 answers. 9 MR. KITA: I suspect -- 10 MR. LIVERMORE: The ultimate -- I don't how the 11 ultimate answer is going to come, but I think Jonathan's 12 question is really a viable question. 13 MR. KITA: Yes, and that's a decision -- 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's part of it. 15 MR. KITA: That's part of it. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: We're jumping to what's the 17 answer. We don't know. 18 MR. KITA: And at this point, we don't know either. 19 So, once we make the assessment, we'll be able to give you 20 our professional opinion of it. And -- 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: What -- and you're probably 22 going to get to this, but the next question is, what time 23 frame -- 24 MR. KING: Yeah, what's the timeline on something 25 like this? 16 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- for doing this? 2 MR. KITA: Well, once we're commissioned for the 3 project, I would say within the next three weeks or so, we 4 could mobilize and start performing the assessment. 5 Assessment will probably take us around two weeks to 6 complete. Once we have the assessment completed, we want to 7 meet back with you -- look at that rain coming down. 8 MR. KING: Look at that. 9 MR. LIVERMORE: Almost don't know what it is. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Shall we reconvene over there? 11 MR. KING: No, let's not. 12 MAYOR PRATT: Your assessment won't take very long. 13 (Laughter.) 14 MR. KITA: But, you know, not -- 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think we should reconvene 16 over there. 17 MR. LIVERMORE: Get a real experience here. 18 MR. KITA: Not only did -- did I observe issues 19 with the roofing; I observed quite a few issues with the 20 walls, and there are a lot of holes in the walls. There's a 21 lot of rusting and deterioration at the bottom track of the 22 walls. One of the buildings had translucent panels up -- 23 halfway of the wall, so you have a mixed use of materials. 24 And you -- we see -- I saw fenestrations in the side walls 25 that had insulated hot stacks coming through it, with heaters 17 1 and et cetera, numerous areas where there's been 2 modifications made to the roof with sheet metal cladding just 3 screwed on top of it. So, each one of these items we need to 4 address, and if -- if the metal panel is -- has more than 50 5 percent of its integrity that's being patched by something, 6 we may need to consider things such as replacing that panel 7 also. I -- getting back into the process, the first thing is 8 we assess what the issues are, and we develop a -- a plan of 9 action with you guys. Then we'll formulate the bid 10 documents. We'll take our assessment on each building; we'll 11 develop details and scopes of work for that building. Once 12 we have all the scopes and details put together, then we'll 13 get with you and -- and move to the bidding phase of it. 14 And, of course, we'll -- being a public entity, we need to 15 follow the proper procedures and advertise the documents for 16 bidding and provide a selected date where the contractors can 17 meet us out on the job site and walk it. 18 MS. BAILEY: Can I ask you a question? I assume 19 that you've been in projects before that were public 20 entities. 21 MR. KITA: Yes, ma'am. 22 MS. BAILEY: So you know what you need to be in 23 compliance? 24 MR. KITA: Yes. 25 MS. BAILEY: You know it's a little bit 18 1 complicated? 2 MR. KITA: Well, it's more complicated in that 3 they're open meetings, et cetera. Where, for instance, like 4 one of our larger clients, we do the same thing, but we have 5 the board of directors there and then the managers it's going 6 to affect. So, it's -- 7 MR. MACK: You know, we've done federal on down to 8 cities, school district work. Yeah, we're familiar with 9 that. 10 MR. LIVERMORE: So, I understand that it will be 11 three weeks till you can actually mobilize on-site, and it 12 will take about two weeks for the study? 13 MR. KITA: We'll be on-site -- 14 MR. LIVERMORE: So that's five weeks; that's really 15 the first of July, basically. 16 MR. MACK: Then after that -- 17 MR. LIVERMORE: When will we have the report? 18 MR. MACK: After that two weeks, it's going to take 19 us a couple weeks to compile everything and get it together 20 with you -- for you. 21 MR. LIVERMORE: We're looking at July. Is that 22 roughly -- 23 MR. KITA: Possibly. 24 MR. McKENZIE: At the earliest. 25 MR. MACK: Yeah, at the earliest, probably. 19 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: The earliest to have the specs 2 for the RFP? 3 MR. MACK: No, that's for the assessment. We 4 say -- 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 6 MR. MACK: -- this is -- you can put this building 7 off for -- 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Got you. So, you do that, you 9 meet back with the Airport Board, come to an agreement, then 10 you have to write the specs for the -- for the RFP, so that's 11 a couple of weeks, probably, so now you're at the first of 12 August. Okay. Then -- so by the time we get from today to 13 the time we can release an RFP -- or have an RFP prepared, 14 put it that way, probably be first of August. 15 MR. KITA: Possibly, yes. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I mean, just -- 17 MR. LIVERMORE: I think that's reasonable. That's 18 what it sounds like to me. 19 MR. KITA: We don't want to jump into this and 20 spend a million dollars and not have it properly planned out. 21 MR. MACK: Do you have some kind of time frame? 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, yesterday. 23 MR. MACK: Yesterday? 24 MR. WALTERS: As soon as possible. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I mean, it's leaking out there 20 1 like crazy, and they're making airplanes. So, let me -- let 2 me just -- in light of this, can you crunch that schedule a 3 bit? I mean, it takes three weeks to -- to get mobilized? 4 MR. MACK: Yeah, we can look at our schedule and 5 work out a detailed schedule. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: You know, from just putting my 7 Mooney sympathy hat on, and their production out there, and 8 they've got 90 employees out there, and it's -- right now 9 it's probably leaking like a sieve. 10 MR. KITA: You used the right word earlier. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Anything we can do to expedite 12 that would be -- 13 MR. MACK: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- would be good. 15 MR. MACK: You know, we could also phase it. We 16 could do a quick assessment, look at the worst roof and say, 17 "These are the worst ones." Let's focus on them, get some 18 bids out for that. Then we could phase our actual 19 investigation. 20 MAYOR PRATT: I'd rather look at the whole thing at 21 one time. 22 MR. LIVERMORE: Rather see the whole deal. 23 MR. KITA: We'll proceed however you wish for us 24 to. 25 MR. LIVERMORE: But I really -- I really agree with 21 1 the comment that we've got to -- we've got to get this thing 2 moving. 3 MR. MACK: Okay. 4 MR. LIVERMORE: We've got a meeting on Monday -- 5 the third Monday in July, and it'd be great to have it right 6 then. 7 MR. MACK: Okay. Our assessment? Or the -- 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 9 MR. MACK: By first of July? 10 MR. LIVERMORE: What do you think, Mr. Chairman? 11 MR. McKENZIE: Third week of July. 12 MR. KING: Yeah, I think that's -- 13 MS. DUNGAN: The 21st. 14 MR. KITA: 21st of July? 15 MAYOR PRATT: You got a June meeting, third week in 16 June. 17 MR. McKENZIE: Yeah, every third -- 18 MAYOR PRATT: So you got -- that would be five 19 weeks from now, about. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, there's no problem 21 calling a special meeting. 22 MR. LIVERMORE: I was going to say, this is so 23 important that we can have a special meeting. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let them work a schedule, then 25 worry about -- 22 1 MR. LIVERMORE: We don't need to worry about that. 2 I brought that up, and shouldn't have. We have -- this is 3 important enough to move it. 4 MR. MACK: We did assume that with Mooney involved, 5 you know, that it was of importance. Let's put it that way. 6 MR. KING: It is of importance, but we want a 7 thorough -- we want a thorough, you know, examination of the 8 buildings. 9 MR. MACK: Okay. 10 MR. KING: We want -- and I would assume your scope 11 of your work goes all the way through construction. 12 MR. KITA: Yes. Once -- once we properly assess 13 the issues and develop the bid documents, the -- and the 14 project is placed out for bid, and we receive the bids, we'll 15 sit down with you -- I guess it would be with you, sir. 16 MR. McKENZIE: And we would -- 17 MR. KITA: And we'll go over the bids and come up 18 with a rating system in order to fairly evaluate the 19 different bids. 20 MR. WALTERS: I have a question. 21 MR. KITA: Then we'd make a recommendation to you 22 as to which one to select. 23 MR. WALTERS: I have a question. This -- you 24 prepared this proposal prior to actually seeing the 25 facilities. 23 1 MR. KITA: Yes. 2 MR. WALTERS: Is there anything in this proposal, 3 and based on what we've talked about today, that isn't 4 included in this proposal? 5 MR. KITA: Is not included? 6 MR. WALTERS: Yes. 7 MR. KITA: I -- 8 MR. WALTERS: Based on what you've seen of the 9 facilities, and based on -- 10 MR. KITA: The only item that I -- unfortunately, 11 it's this wood deck area may require more engineering time 12 than we -- 13 MR. MACK: And just the idea of looking at the 14 buildings themselves, because we understood it to be roofing. 15 MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah. 16 MR. MACK: And now there's discussion about, well, 17 is the building actually good, so -- so there would be some 18 more time for us involved with our structural group to look 19 at the actual buildings, too. 20 MR. WALTERS: I know that your proposal has an 21 hourly rate -- hourly rate in the proposal for structural 22 engineer. 23 MR. MACK: Mm-hmm. 24 MR. WALTERS: Is that basically what we do? If we 25 were to engage you based on the price of your proposal, it 24 1 would be that for the services, but under the -- with the 2 understanding that plus the additional time for a structural 3 engineer to look at those -- 4 MR. KITA: I think that would be absolutely 5 agreeable to us. 6 MR. MACK: Yeah. If you asked us, as an addendum 7 to the contract, "We want you to look at this building," we 8 could give you another fee proposal for that building for 9 structural, or if you want us to just do it on an hourly, you 10 know, not-to-exceed, or different ways we could do that. One 11 reason for that hourly, too, is just so you know, if there is 12 an additional fee, it's not going to charge you $1,000 an 13 hour for somebody's time. 14 MR. WALTERS: I think it would be -- I mean, it 15 puts us in a little bit of a difficult situation, 'cause 16 we -- we hope to have a meeting today in which to really try 17 to make -- see if we have a motion and a vote to engage your 18 services. And if we do that, as a -- if we need to look at 19 what that amount would be, we actually can't do that today. 20 I mean -- 21 MR. KING: I think we can. I believe -- I believe, 22 the way I understand it with the -- with the state law, we 23 basically have to vote to engage them. Is that correct? 24 MS. BAILEY: Yes. 25 MR. KING: And then from that point, we have the 25 1 option -- we have the right to negotiate -- 2 MS. BAILEY: The contract. 3 MR. KING: -- a contract for services. In fact, we 4 are prohibited from engaging you -- 5 MR. MACK: That's correct. 6 MR. KING: -- for a fixed amount. In other words, 7 we cannot engage you and say, "We would like to hire you for 8 98,300-something dollars." We can only engage you for your 9 services, and then from that point on -- is that true, Ilse? 10 MS. BAILEY: That's correct. 11 MR. KING: There's no dollar amount to be brought 12 up, I believe, in the initial -- in the initial motion. 13 MS. BAILEY: Except for, you know, hourly fees. 14 MR. KING: That's how I understand the way the 15 state law is. Is that correct? 16 MAYOR PRATT: Yes. 17 MR. KING: Is that what you understand it to be? 18 MR. WALTERS: I think we would like for you to come 19 up -- since you've looked at the building now, is give us an 20 idea of what those additional amounts may be from a 21 structural engineer's standpoint. 22 MR. MACK: Okay. 23 MAYOR PRATT: Along those same lines, I got a 24 question, 'cause I need a full understanding of this. The 25 roofing that we first called you about, you said Google 26 1 Earth, but that also included whether the structure is strong 2 enough to hold whatever roof you recommend, so there's some 3 type of structure that's already included in that. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: He's just coming up with 5 specs. 6 MR. MACK: Yeah. 7 MAYOR PRATT: But I'm talking about the extra work, 8 is what -- 9 MR. GRIFFIN: Well, what he -- what Tom -- what 10 they're talking about is the fact the that the panels on the 11 sides of the buildings have issues as well. It's not -- 12 MR. WALTERS: Not the roof deck. 13 MR. GRIFFIN: -- not just the roof or the roof 14 deck. 15 MAYOR PRATT: I understand that. I'm just saying 16 it's not all structures that's -- 17 MR. GRIFFIN: No. 18 MAYOR PRATT: I just want to make sure it's 19 included, so that -- understand where I'm coming from? 20 MR. GRIFFIN: But it could be -- there are some 21 areas over there in that area between the Quonset hut and the 22 stuff that's added onto the side over the years, unless you 23 start peeling the walls apart, you're not going to know what 24 the base of that -- what the base of that column is. I mean, 25 I've remodeled too many 70-year-old houses in the hill 27 1 country to know that it just doesn't work that way until you 2 open it up. And so there's going to have to be some -- that 3 part of it is totally separate than covering the roof or a 4 roof deck. 5 MR. WALTERS: Okay, let me just ask the question. 6 Your proposal that you made, does it include a review from a 7 structural standpoint of -- of the weight and the loads on 8 the roof? 9 MR. KITA: For the metal buildings, that is part of 10 our assessment. 11 MR. WALTERS: Okay. 12 MR. MACK: We wouldn't -- we would not come back 13 and specify a roof that we weren't sure was -- the structure 14 was going to hold it up. 15 MR. WALTERS: No, I know that you wouldn't, but I 16 just want to -- 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Everybody go one at a time for 18 Kathy. She can't -- 19 MR. WALTERS: I just wanted to make sure. And the 20 mayor's correct that your proposal already included that. 21 MR. MACK: Oh, I see. 22 MR. WALTERS: On a fee basis, that your analysis 23 did include a review -- the structural review of the weight 24 and the loads on the roof for the material that you 25 recommend. 28 1 MR. KITA: Let me -- we'll check out the spacing of 2 the purlins or the joists to make sure that the -- that the 3 cross members, for instance, like some of the structures will 4 have a tube -- pipe type of trusses on it, and then you have 5 wood runners going out. Those wood runners are deteriorated. 6 That -- that metal's got to come off, and you have to replace 7 that wood. So, it's all part of it. 8 MR. MACK: Yeah, but to answer -- yes, we have 9 included in that fee to you, you know, just review in 10 general. I mean, I'm not going to go -- we're not going to 11 go back and do a detailed analysis on each member if we're 12 taking a metal roof off and putting another metal roof on, or 13 like, you know, simply a membrane on it. Those weigh very 14 little anyway. The only significant roofing you're talking 15 about is a built-up gravel roof or something like that, if 16 you're putting that on instead of a metal deck, but we 17 probably wouldn't recommend that anyway. So, yeah, that's 18 included. But Tom's point, if, all of a sudden in part of 19 our investigation, we see, wow, there's some of rotted wood 20 or rusted out steel that's going to need to be repaired, that 21 is not really covered. 'Cause we don't -- 22 MR. WALTERS: I understand that. 23 MR. MACK: Okay. 24 MR. WALTERS: That was in addition, or would be in 25 addition. 29 1 MR. MACK: Oh, yes. Okay, did that answer your 2 question? 3 MR. WALTERS: It did. 4 MR. MACK: Okay. 5 MAYOR PRATT: That cleared it up for me. 6 MR. KING: Okay. 7 MAYOR PRATT: Okay. 8 MR. MACK: And I brought all that up 'cause the 9 gentleman over here, you know, said you want to assess this 10 -- whatever building it was that was in bad shape. Well, 11 that means, you know, going back and looking at the entire 12 structure and -- 13 MR. WALTERS: And that was out of the scope of our 14 original conversation. 15 MR. MACK: That's out of scope. If you want us to 16 do that, we'll be glad to do that, but -- 17 MR. KITA: Right now, we have the assessment. We 18 have the bid documents, and the -- what the bid documents do 19 is it gives an even, fair ground for all the bidders, so 20 they're all bidding apples to apples. This guy's not going 21 to bid what I think it should be over here -- you know, what 22 he thinks. It's going to be what we think -- what we 23 determine it needs to be as -- as a group. Once we select 24 the -- the contractor, then comes the -- the construction 25 phase, and we will make periodic observations of actual 30 1 construction that's taking place. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, the question is, is the 3 thing that you've submitted, is that scope sufficient for 4 what we're talking about? 5 MR. KITA: For what we -- well, it may have to be 6 tweaked a little bit. But as far -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I can answer it. I 8 think the answer is yes, you can engage the contract -- 9 negotiate a contract, and the contract will have to come back 10 to the board for approval. Right? 11 MS. BAILEY: That's what -- I was trying to 12 formulate an articulation of that, and I think that maybe 13 what you want to do is try to engage this firm for the 14 purpose of evaluation, assessment, and making a report to the 15 board, and direct staff to negotiate and draft a contract 16 with the firm to accomplish that for the hourly fees as set 17 out in the written proposal, with the scope adjusted as per 18 our discussion today. 19 MR. KING: That's a pretty good motion. 20 MR. KITA: That's pretty good. 21 MAYOR PRATT: Does what you said take it all the 22 way to the key? 23 MS. BAILEY: No, no, no. 24 MR. KING: I think that's negotiated in the 25 contract. 31 1 MS. BAILEY: Right. That's -- that was one of my 2 questions. Because, certainly, I realize we're not stuck 3 with this fee now, but I'm certain that they don't want to go 4 through the whole process to turnkey for $98,000. 5 MAYOR PRATT: Well, I don't know whether we can 6 make that assessment or not, but my question was related to 7 they're going to tell us when we -- how much to -- when to 8 pay the draws and those type things. 9 MS. BAILEY: That's what they'll -- that will have 10 to be in the contract. 11 MR. WALTERS: Ilse, it was -- you know, under the 12 original scope, this was taking it all the way to key. 13 MR. KITA: Right. 14 MS. BAILEY: I guess what I'm saying is that -- 15 I mean, we don't want this to happen, but if we get an 16 assessment from them that says this is going to cost 17 $10 million, then we might want to back up and go, "Oh, 18 let's hold off; we're not going to do it now." 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's the second step. 20 MS. BAILEY: Yes. So -- 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: First step is -- 22 MS. BAILEY: I contemplate the first step, get the 23 assessment report, and then we decide what we want to do, and 24 then the contract will say if we want them to go forward. 25 Then Step 2 is that they're going to manage the construction. 32 1 They'll manage the bids, and then they'll -- you know, 2 whatever it is that we decide on. 3 MR. KITA: That's included. 4 MR. WALTERS: That's included. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think you're wrong. 6 MR. KITA: We plan -- once we're commissioned on 7 this, we're -- we're going to take charge of the project. 8 MS. BAILEY: Right. I guess I'm saying -- 9 MR. KITA: Till it's completed. 10 MS. BAILEY: In the unlikely event -- since I'm a 11 lawyer, I have to cover unlikely events -- that we were to 12 decide not to go forward, that has to be provided for in the 13 contract as well. 14 MR. WALTERS: Have a provision that allows us, if 15 we decide not to go forward, we could terminate. 16 MS. BAILEY: Right. Right. 17 MR. MACK: Sure. 18 MR. WALTERS: Pay all your fees up-to-date; we 19 would have the option to terminate. 20 MS. BAILEY: Not just a carte blanche, once they're 21 on board, they get to run -- 22 MR. KING: I agree. I understand what you're 23 saying. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Got you. 25 MR. KING: In case it comes out that we -- you 33 1 know, we don't have an unlimited budget here. 2 MR. MACK: Understood. 3 MR. KITA: Understood, yes. 4 MR. LIVERMORE: How do we get repaid for these 5 services? 6 MR. KING: Who's that? Us? 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I have a suggestion on that. 8 MR. LIVERMORE: This board right here. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I have a suggestion. You're 10 going to do this contract; they're going to come up with "X", 11 okay, to provide these services. You -- a way you could move 12 forward from perhaps the County and City perspective, I know 13 from the County, you could take that out of reserve, which 14 apparently you have. 15 MR. LIVERMORE: Their fee. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, their fees, okay. And 17 put that in -- you haven't submitted your budget yet. Put 18 that in next year's budget to reimburse your reserve. 19 MAYOR PRATT: Well -- 20 MR. KING: What do you think about that, Todd? Or 21 City Manager? 22 MR. PARTON: Sure, that's fine. 23 MR. KING: I mean, we -- I want to be clear that 24 when -- the meeting we had with Todd and Commissioners and 25 everything, this -- this arrangement that was being made with 34 1 the Airport Board is out of -- is being done to help out the 2 owners to come up with the money. The City has their money 3 available; the County has some budgeting issues that they've 4 got to get through, so we've -- we've come forth and said 5 we'll try to pull this out of our reserve, but I want it to 6 be understood, -- 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Keep it in two separate 8 things. You talk about -- 9 MR. KING: -- I'd like the 98,000 back. I just 10 would like the 98,000 back. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: City's already come up with 12 their money, but that's for what we thought the scope of the 13 whole work was. Now we're talking about let's just use 14 $100,000 for consulting that we're talking about right now. 15 MR. KING: Sure. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Is all I'm suggesting. 17 Separate out the million dollars, okay? Push that aside, 18 okay? Talking about the $100,000 consulting thing. 19 MR. KING: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: The straightforward way to do 21 it is take it out of reserve, put it in, reimburse your 22 reserve by putting it in next year's budget. 23 MR. KING: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Keep it simple. 25 MR. KING: I'm just saying that at this point, you 35 1 guys don't have 45 -- you don't have $50,000 to donate to the 2 project? 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, we -- but I'm making a 4 suggestion to you, probably, so -- but why not just do it the 5 way I suggested? That way it's clean. We're going through 6 the budget process. You've got it in reserve. 7 MR. KING: I don't have a problem with that. 8 MR. GRIFFIN: I don't have a problem. The problem 9 that I have is I think the number's going to change between 10 now and the time we get to signing a contract. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Absolutely. I said use 12 100,000 as an example. 13 MR. GRIFFIN: Well, and so -- but next Monday and 14 Tuesday, we press forward to come to you, both you and the 15 City on Tuesday, and say, "Here's our budget for next year," 16 and we don't have these dollars in that budget right now. 17 MR. KING: I don't -- Kirk, I don't have a problem; 18 it's not going to be that much. I mean, I'm just saying a 19 number of $100,000 out of our reserves isn't a lot of money 20 considering the amount of buildings we have now that we have 21 to maintain, we have to do some sort of fix-up for tenants 22 because, you know, there's no other way to go. So, I just 23 want to -- I don't mind if it goes up to 110 or 115; we'll 24 cover that. We don't have a problem. 25 MAYOR PRATT: I just want to know what it's going 36 1 to do to reserves. 2 MR. KING: Going to knock them down by -- 3 MR. McKENZIE: Not quite half; about a third of 4 them. 5 MR. KING: -- almost 40 percent. Almost half, 6 yeah -- less. 7 MR. McKENZIE: Less than half. 8 MR. KING: And I just want it to be understood in 9 the budget that I'm going to present next week to the County 10 and the City, we have slashed that budget to the minimum. In 11 fact, we -- we've cut that budget and we've returned money to 12 the owners -- returned money to the owners. I think we're 13 only asking for $45,000 in -- in contributions versus $90,000 14 last year. 15 MR. GRIFFIN: Right. 16 MR. KING: So we've taken that down to the bare 17 bones, and we did not put any money in that budget for 18 fix-up/repair of any -- we have these three buildings that 19 we've taken back from Mooney that we now own that have got 20 some huge problems with them already, just like these 21 buildings do. We did not put anything in the budget, because 22 it was -- we couldn't identify it. We could not identify the 23 project; therefore, we didn't feel like it was right to put 24 it in the budget as an unidentified project and just throw 25 $50,000 in there as a possible. So, you know, we kind of 37 1 have decided that if -- if there is something, you know, that 2 needs to be done to those buildings, any sort of 3 construction, makeover, anything like that to get a tenant in 4 there, that we would probably come back out of reserves for 5 that money. 6 MAYOR PRATT: That's the reason I asked the 7 question, because we worked so hard -- you guys worked so 8 hard to get that reserve where it is. 9 MR. KING: Exactly. 10 MAYOR PRATT: And so I'm even -- 11 MR. KING: What do you got, Todd? 12 MR. PARTON: I think if you back to the interlocal 13 agreement for the airport, -- 14 MR. KING: Right. 15 MR. PARTON: -- it actually talks about when you 16 have to go into utilizing your reserves, that -- that 17 entities can authorize those, and then we're supposed to 18 reimburse that within the next cycle, so I think that would 19 be consistent with the interlocal agreement. 20 MR. GRIFFIN: That's where I was. 21 MR. KING: That's fine. 22 MR. GRIFFIN: That's where I was trying to go. 23 MR. LIVERMORE: Where would we put it? We have to 24 come up with -- is there -- 25 MR. KING: Todd, would we put it as a line item for 38 1 building maintenance or building -- what do we put it in? 2 How would we put that in the budget? 3 MR. PARTON: It could be an allocation to reserve. 4 You can actually budget -- 5 MR. KING: We can actually budget it to reserve? 6 MR. PARTON: Absolutely. 7 MR. KING: Then we'll do that. 8 MR. LIVERMORE: Okay, that's easy enough. 9 MR. KING: Unfortunately, we haven't voted on that. 10 MR. GRIFFIN: That's -- 11 MS. BAILEY: Well, but I think even though you 12 haven't officially amended your budget proposal, you can 13 represent, -- 14 MR. KING: We can represent it. We can present it. 15 MS. BAILEY: -- "Here's the step we're going to 16 change," and add this one. 17 MR. McKENZIE: I think we did that last year also. 18 MAYOR PRATT: You did. 19 MR. PARTON: And I think what we're prepared to do 20 is, depending on your action today, is to present this to 21 City Council, and I know that Commissioners Court is going to 22 pick this up on Monday. 23 MR. KING: Sure. 24 MR. PARTON: And say, "Hey, you know, there's a 25 request to amend the fiscal year '14 budget to add this and 39 1 this." Part of that discussion will be, you know, about the 2 request is also to reimburse that reserve allocation in the 3 '15 budget. 4 MR. KING: Sure. 5 MR. GRIFFIN: We're good with that. 6 MR. PARTON: Yeah. 7 MR. KING: And if we end up, like, again with a -- 8 if we can return some of it back to you guys, we will. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 10 MR. LIVERMORE: We can't vote today to amend the 11 budget. 12 MR. KING: We don't have to. 13 MR. LIVERMORE: That's not on our -- 14 MS. BAILEY: You do it next time. 15 MR. KING: Do it next time. I understand; that's 16 how we'll handle it is back into reserve, okay. All right. 17 So, where do we go from here? Any more questions on the 18 project -- on the thing? So, as I understand, after we make 19 this motion and -- to engage this firm, then we will enter 20 some sort of negotiation with you guys as far as scope and 21 what some numbers are. 22 MR. MACK: Yeah. That would be if -- 23 MR. KING: Is that correct? 24 MR. MACK: I agree. 25 MR. LIVERMORE: What do we need to -- do we need a 40 1 motion? 2 MR. KING: Probably, we need a motion similar to 3 what Ilse came up with. 4 MS. BAILEY: Maybe Kathy can read it back. 5 MR. LIVERMORE: Would you read your motion again? 6 None of us can make it. 7 MS. BAILEY: I think the motion you want to make is 8 to engage this firm for the purpose of evaluation/assessment, 9 and report to the board, and direct staff to negotiate a 10 contract with them to accomplish all of that for the hourly 11 fees as stated in their proposal, and with the scope as 12 amended during the discussion today. 13 MR. LIVERMORE: I thought long and hard about this, 14 and I love that motion. So -- (Laughter.) 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Is that -- 16 MR. LIVERMORE: -- I make the motion. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: If I could suggest that, you 18 know, we look at the roofs and fixing the roofs so it would 19 preclude the -- the leaks. If it's -- if we take on the 20 thing of looking at the hammer house, okay, "Do we keep that 21 building?" If we could keep that as an alternate to the 22 proposal, that's really -- unless you guys think -- 23 MR. GRIFFIN: Fallout of them going off and doing 24 their work. It kind of leads to what Jonathan was saying. 25 If -- if we get to the point that the building is so bad -- 41 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. I just didn't want to 2 keep that separate if we could -- 3 MR. MACK: Yeah. 4 MAYOR PRATT: That's after the assessment. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay, that's cool. 6 MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah, I think we need to direct them 7 to look for structural deficiencies, then come back to us 8 with structural deficiencies. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's good, then. Okay. 10 MR. KING: I need a second to that motion. 11 MR. WALTERS: I second. 12 MR. KING: Second by Mr. Walters. Discussion? 13 Okay. So we can expect from you guys, though -- in the 14 negotiations, we can expect a fixed price on some of this; is 15 that correct? 16 MR. MACK: A fixed price, yes, sir, after we have a 17 meeting to determine exactly what you want to us do. 18 MR. KING: We can expect a fixed price? 19 MR. MACK: Yeah. 20 MR. KING: Not to exceed, and then probably -- 21 MR. MACK: We'll give you a fixed price, yes. 22 MR. WALTERS: I think, actually, the scope -- the 23 modifications to the scope for what we originally talked 24 about is really very few. 25 MR. MACK: Yeah, it's not going to vary a whole 42 1 lot. 2 MR. GRIFFIN: In fact, if we look at Item 1, it 3 says, "Perform visual condition assessments of roofs and 4 claddings." You could almost just expand that one sentence 5 and say, "and support structures." And I think probably at 6 that point, you know any deficiencies that you may have, 7 because you've already dealt with the roof and the claddings 8 on the outside of it. We're just now looking to the internal 9 piece and saying, "Are there any internal structural issues 10 that may be existing?" Whether it's subdecking or columns or 11 whatever. 12 MR. MACK: Joists, beams. 13 MR. GRIFFIN: Right, exactly. 14 MR. MACK: You're talking about, like, if it's 15 rusted or -- or -- 16 MR. GRIFFIN: Well, in the case of the hammer 17 house, you've got either shiplap or tongue and groove, 18 whatever it is. When you get that off and then you're 19 looking, if it's got a pipe truss underneath it that has a 20 two-by bolted on top of it so that they can put that truss so 21 they could put that subdeck on, how much -- how bad is the 22 cancer? We don't know till we get the patient open. But, 23 you know, it's that kind of look. So -- 24 MR. MACK: And we're talking about roof, 25 water-related issues. And what I'm saying is, just so 43 1 everybody understands, if you got a crane hanging off of a 2 beam and it's going like that, -- 3 MR. GRIFFIN: Right. 4 MR. MACK: -- that's not a roof or water issue; 5 that's a structural issue, which is over and beyond that. 6 Just for clarification. 7 MR. GRIFFIN: Absolutely. 8 MR. KING: And you said in the other buildings, the 9 system that you're talking about using on the roof is not -- 10 the weight is probably not sufficient to affect the 11 structural -- the structural -- 12 MR. MACK: No. 13 MR. KING: -- integrity? 14 MR. KITA: Well, I follow F.M. Global guidelines. 15 They're -- they are really the standard in the industry, 16 although they're an insurance company, and their standards 17 are only applicable to their clients. And I -- I don't know 18 who your insurance carrier is on -- on the structures. I 19 presume you own the -- the structures. 20 MR. McKENZIE: Mm-hmm. 21 MR. KITA: So -- and you probably -- your insurance 22 probably covers the structures, and your insurance probably 23 covers the contents of the structure. Barry? 24 MR. HODKIN: I think I have the structure as well. 25 I think, from my memory of the lease, we have to -- 44 1 MR. MACK: That will be addressed in the 2 negotiation. 3 MR. KITA: There's coating systems that can be 4 applied. I looked at the Duro-Last. I have a lot of 5 questions concerning the Duro-Last. One that -- that it 6 just -- it blares out at me is, okay, we have 12-, maybe 7 14-inch wide panels, and it appears to me that they're 8 running the membrane up the slope. And if these sheets 9 are -- are 10 feet wide, 20 foot wide or whatever, that puts 10 all the fasteners for that sheet into one -- one panel going 11 up. So, there's a lot of considerations. So, the other 12 thing is, I don't disagree with their -- their expanded 13 polystyrene infill, but then they're covering the top of it 14 with another piece of polystyrene that has a density of maybe 15 .75 pounds per square foot. So, when you walk on that, it's 16 going to leave a footprint in it; it doesn't come back out. 17 So we -- we do things a little bit differently. We put a 18 hard board on top of that, and we make sure that that 19 membrane, instead of running up the slope, it runs 20 perpendicular to the way -- so that the loading, when that 21 wind travels across that membrane and tries to pull that 22 membrane off, it's not -- that load's not being dissipated to 23 just one run; it's being shared all the way across. So, if 24 you look at many different aspects of it where a roof's -- 25 MR. MACK: Those are some details we can get into 45 1 with -- and part of it, too, if you've got a building or part 2 of a building that, say, Mooney only thinks they need for 3 another five years before they want to add on or do something 4 else, it doesn't make sense to do a complete brand-new roof. 5 We may, you know, coat it or do something like that. So, 6 that's part of that, giving you some flexibility and 7 understanding the needs that -- that comes after we do the 8 assessment. 9 MAYOR PRATT: I just want to make sure the RFP also 10 is very tight so that we don't get stuck with a bunch of 11 change orders; somebody tries to low-bid the bid and hope 12 they make their money on change orders. I'm not interested 13 in that. 14 MR. KITA: I'm right there with you. 15 MAYOR PRATT: All right. 16 MR. KITA: I think you need to -- on the size of 17 this project and dollar amount, you may consider bonding. We 18 don't want a low bid to come in that looks very attractive, 19 and next thing you find out in the middle that they're 20 bankrupt. 21 MAYOR PRATT: In our meeting that Steve was talking 22 about, we already stated that we wanted a performance bond. 23 MR. McKENZIE: Payment and performance bond. 24 MR. KITA: It's going to add about 5 percent to 25 your bid or so, but -- 46 1 MR. McKENZIE: Payment and performance bond. 2 MR. KITA: -- it's very important. 3 MR. KING: Okay. Any other questions? And I would 4 assume during the process, you'll be in touch with the 5 Airport Board as far as -- on an ongoing basis if you have 6 questions and stuff? And, I mean -- 7 MR. KITA: Is that going to be -- our contact is 8 going to be Bruce? 9 MR. KING: Bruce will be our contact. 10 MR. KITA: Okay. It's an open -- open avenue for 11 both of us. We will need permission to assess the facilities 12 as we -- as we need. 13 MR. McKENZIE: You can directly contact Barry with 14 that. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Did you vote? 17 MR. KING: No. 18 MR. GRIFFIN: At that point -- or maybe it's after 19 we get through this first step, but to create a subcommittee 20 so that we don't have -- that we don't have to pull the whole 21 board together to keep things going. I don't know; maybe we 22 have a Mooney person and a couple -- 23 MR. KING: Sure. 24 MR. GRIFFIN: -- of us -- 25 MR. KING: We'll do that at some point as part of 47 1 the negotiation. 2 MR. GRIFFIN: That way, you don't have to deal with 3 the whole kit and caboodle. That makes life a little more 4 streamlined. 5 MR. MACK: You seem like a lot of nice people, but 6 I agree with you. 7 MS. BAILEY: I would prefer that you appoint the 8 committee now, because if we're going to be negotiating with 9 them on contracts, if we have some issues about, "Should we 10 do it this way or that way?" I'd feel more comfortable being 11 able to say, "This is the committee. Let me call one of them 12 or both of them, and -- and see how we want to do that." 13 MR. KING: Okay. 14 MAYOR PRATT: I got a question about that. Do you 15 really want to establish a committee now? Because your -- 16 you really want the full board to have their input on their 17 assessment, not a committee. 18 MS. BAILEY: Well, I'm talking about getting the 19 contract agreed to. That's kind of a -- 20 MR. GRIFFIN: Scope of work. 21 MS. BAILEY: I don't think that's a very -- it's 22 not a complex process. But what I don't want to do is, I'm 23 trying to get a contract with them, and if there's an issue 24 that is a policy issue, I don't want to have to call a whole 25 board meeting to say, "Do you think we ought to do this or 48 1 that?" Because we could always, in June, go back to the 2 board, present the contract and say, "Here's our proposal. 3 We had this question, and we chose to go this way, but you 4 could also go this way." 5 MAYOR PRATT: I think Steve and Corey are -- 6 MR. KING: I would say probably on this, unless the 7 board has a different opinion, I would suggest that we have 8 Corey be the point of contact for you on the questions on 9 that. 10 MS. BAILEY: Right. 11 MR. KING: He has experience in this, obviously, on 12 this side of it pretty heavy. 13 MR. LIVERMORE: Kirk does also. 14 MR. KING: And Kirk does also. But, I mean, I 15 think that we -- you want to just let those -- let two people 16 negotiate the contract? 17 MR. WALTERS: Kirk and I would be fine. 18 MR. KING: Do you want input on that also? 19 MR. GRIFFIN: I don't think we're going to do 20 anything without talking about it. I just wanted to make -- 21 there will probably be some questions that come up, and in 22 several weeks, 'cause as these guys are putting this 23 together, as opposed to having to get us all together, I was 24 tying to streamline it. That's my thought process. 25 MS. BAILEY: I don't know anything about airplanes 49 1 or construction; I just know the legal stuff. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I would encourage you, as you 3 proceed, don't wait till the next Airport Board -- 4 MR. KING: I would think probably -- I think 5 probably what we should do is probably have a workshop -- a 6 workshop to negotiate that contract, because really, legally, 7 you can't really call me and discuss -- discuss what you're 8 discussing with Corey about the Airport Board contracts with 9 this guy. I don't want to fall into that trap. So, I think 10 we'll probably call a workshop to -- and just have an 11 informal workshop to -- to discuss the contract with these 12 guys and negotiate it, if that's fine with everybody. 13 MR. KITA: Are you going to issue some sort of 14 directive to us today? 15 MR. KING: To do what? 16 MR. LIVERMORE: We need to vote. 17 MR. KING: We're going to vote on this motion. 18 MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah, we got to get -- 19 MR. KING: This is the longest discussion in the 20 history of a meeting. Okay. So, I have a motion; I have a 21 second, I have discussion made. All in favor? 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote, 4-0.) 23 MR. KING: 4-0, okay. 24 MS. BAILEY: Does that include direction to them to 25 proceed? 50 1 MR. KING: Yes. 2 MR. GRIFFIN: After we get through the scope of 3 work. 4 MR. KING: That would include -- that would 5 include -- that would give us permission to enter 6 negotiations with them to come up with a sufficient scope and 7 contract. 8 MS. BAILEY: Is that sufficient for what you need 9 for right now? 10 MR. KITA: Yes. 11 MR. KING: I think the motion basically 12 accomplishes engaging you guys to see what kind of guys you 13 really are, and see what kind of contract we can come up 14 with. Okay? 15 MR. KITA: The -- 16 MR. MACK: That's fine. 17 MR. KITA: Do we have a date? Can we set a date 18 where we can meet to -- 19 MR. KING: Sure. 20 MR. KITA: -- do this? 21 MR. KING: What's y'all's availability? 22 MR. KITA: Next week I have a mixed week. My 23 daughter's graduating from the University of Texas in Austin. 24 MR. GRIFFIN: Yahoo! Sorry about that. 25 MR. KITA: It's the 16th. 51 1 MR. KING: What about the following week? 2 MR. KITA: The following week would work well. 3 MR. KING: What is that week? 4 MR. KITA: The 24th, I have -- I have some meetings 5 in San Francisco that I have to go to. 6 MR. KING: That's a Saturday, right? 7 MR. KITA: For a week, yes. Taking some personal 8 time off. 9 MR. MACK: You're talking about the week of the 10 19th, then? Yeah, we can -- 11 MR. GRIFFIN: I cannot do it. 12 MR. KING: I'm leaving Thursday. 13 MR. WALTERS: Why can't we do it right now, after 14 this meeting? 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's what I was going to -- 16 MR. GRIFFIN: You guys got a little time? 17 MR. MACK: That's fine with me. 18 MR. KITA: That sounds like a winner. 19 MR. WALTERS: Won't take us very long to really 20 talk about some of the things that we've talked about today. 21 MR. MACK: That would be fine. 22 MR. KITA: I would like that. 23 MR. LIVERMORE: Great proposal. 24 MR. KITA: I took pictures yesterday; I have them 25 on my laptop, and I can show you some of the issues. 52 1 MR. KING: Can we do that, Ilse? 2 MS. BAILEY: Well, the committee can. 3 MR. KING: Oh, the committee can, okay. 4 MS. BAILEY: But then we need to set -- unless you 5 want to wait to approve the contract at the next board 6 meeting, we need to set a meeting earlier than that to say 7 okay, you could do that. 8 MR. WALTERS: I would rather discuss it now and 9 then let them go back and redraft their proposal and then 10 send that to you and us. And then if we need to, then we can 11 get together and talk about, you know, their proposal. 12 MR. MACK: That would be great. Keep it moving. 13 MR. WALTERS: We'd like to do that. 14 MR. GRIFFIN: That would be good. 15 MR. MACK: Sure. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let's roll. 17 MR. KING: That's fine. Is that it? 18 MR. LIVERMORE: Move we adjourn. 19 MR. KING: Motion to adjourn. Second? 20 (Mr. Griffin raised his hand.) 21 MR. KING: All in favor? 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote, 4-0.) 23 MR. KING: 4-0. 24 (Airport Board meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 53 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 I, Kathy Banik, official reporter for Kerr County, 4 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a 5 true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken 6 at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 13th day of May, 2014. 8 _______________________________ Kathy Banik, Texas CSR # 6483 9 Expiration Date: 12/31/14 Official Court Reporter 10 Kerr County, Texas 700 Main Street 11 Kerrville, Texas 78028 Phone: 830-792-2295 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25