What goes up must come down, that is, unless it’s an elevator at the San Benito County Sheriff’s building. The topic of the elevator resulted in an unusual amount of discussion at the March 22 county Board of Supervisors' meeting, and even caused one supervisor to ask in frustration, “why has this risen to our level?”
When Brent Barnes, director of the Resource Management Agency, stepped up to the podium to give his report on the status of the elevator at the Sheriff’s and Public Works Planning building on Technology Drive, he set the mood of the discussion by prefacing his comments with the apology, “I’m just the messenger.”
He told the supervisors that the problem with the elevator had been going for at least a year, longer than he had been with the department. The problem, he said, was a disagreement over the contract on maintenance and repair that resulted in the elevator being red tagged by the state, essentially rendering it inoperable.
“It has not been maintained because we cannot agree on a contract with Otis (United Technologies), which is the proprietary maintainer of that particular elevator,” Barnes said, and then he told the supervisors he didn’t have any more to say about the topic, adding, “I suggest that you direct any questions to the (county) counsel’s office, where this seems to have resided for the last year.”
Chairman Robert Rivas told the rest of the board that there were four options. He said the staff was looking for direction on which of the four or possible combinations of options on which to act.
Supervisor Anthony Botelho said the issue has gone on way too long.
“How can we be that far off on terms of maintenance with somebody (Otis) that’s been in the business forever?” he asked, dismayed. “This is real frustrating that we’re even talking about it here. I would suggest whoever is doing this, get it done. It’s not that big of a deal. Otis is the company that fixes elevators. We need this elevator fixed for the public and we shouldn’t even be talking about this.”
Supervisor Jerry Muenzer compared the situation to when he was testifying concerning a bill sponsored by Congressman Sam Farr and a congresswoman asked, “Why has this risen to our level?”
“I have the same question here. Why has this risen to our level?” he said and agreed with Botelho that the dispute had gone on too long. “It needs to get done and it needs to get done now. Just like we need to get these bridges built and they keep getting bogged down in issues.”
The board was told that the main issue is liability, and that the board needed to assume the liability. They were told that there have been at least three rounds of reviews of the contract between Otis and the county, which had been approved by various company officials, only to come back with requests for more changes on the county’s part. As recently as the morning of the board meeting, another email from Otis stated that the contract had been passed to its legal department and more revisions would be coming. The supervisors were told that various versions of the contract included liability amounts that Otis was willing to pay in case of incidents that began at $15,000 and had been reduced to $4,000.
Muenzer wondered about one stipulation in the contract about a $2 million self-insurance policy that Otis had been willing to include the county. He was told that figure was in an earlier draft, before Otis insisted on lower liability limitations, basically rendering the $2 million meaningless.
Asking if the board was expected to approve the current version of the contract that was before it, Muenzer was told that since Otis had not yet given its final approval of that version of the contract, the board should move forward anyway and delegate Ray Espinosa, the county's chief administrative officer, to continue to negotiate with Otis, and authorize Espinosa, acting as the purchasing agent, to execute it. If the board was not willing to assume the risks, other options would have to be considered, including a one-year contract.
Botelho exclaimed, “How the hell do you get hurt in an elevator?”
He was advised that liability also includes damage to the building. He responded that he thought the county staff was, “thinking too much into it.”
In response, Botelho was told, “That’s our job, to let you know the risks.”
Barnes chimed in, “We are professional paranoids.”
“I could trip on the curb walking into the building,” Botelho tossed back.
Then Matthew Granger, county counsel, tried to mollify the conversation: “This is an unfortunate situation. It’s somewhat rare. I can’t explain Otis’s actions. Nonetheless, the repairs need to be made. The contract is not for a large amount. I do believe that while it’s very annoying, that Otis will not stand behind its work, and it’s a serious legal issue that they won’t indemnify the county for any damages caused by their work, I do believe the county’s insurance would cover any incidents that occur there. I think it’s probably remote that something would happen.”
Granger said that if the board felt comfortable assuming the risk, it should instruct staff to move forward and sign the contract and get the repairs done.
Botelho said whatever option or combination of options were voted on he did not want to see the issue come back in a year to be debated yet again. He was told the county was ready to move forward by signing the contract, but Otis still must approve it.
Even though there were still issues to be ironed out and Otis has yet to sign the contract, the board voted unanimously to have Espinosa, acting as the purchasing agent, sign the contract.
Become a Member Today
Support your local independent news.
We work hard to give you the news and information you need. By becoming a member, you will be part of something bigger; BenitoLink, your community-supported news source.
Add Facebook comment
Comment using your Facebook account. Facebook comments will be published on this page, and on Facebook. It will not be posted to the "Recent Comments" list on the BenitoLink front page.