Will County Capital Improvements Committee met April 4
Will County Capital Improvements Committee met Tuesday, April 4.
"Meetings will be held in the County Board Committee Room in the Will County Office Building, 302 N. Chicago St., Joliet, IL. unless stated otherwise."
WILL COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
302 N. CHICAGO ST. JOLIET, IL 60432
APRIL 4, 2017
County Board Committee Room Regular Meeting 11:00 AM
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Ray Tuminello called the meeting to order at 11:00 AM
Attendee Name / Title / Status / Arrived
Ray Tuminello Chair Present
Mike Fricilone Vice Chair Present
Gloria Dollinger Member Present
Gretchen Fritz Member Present
Charles E. Maher Member Present
Donald A. Moran Member Absent
Annette Parker Member Absent
Beth Rice Member Present
Denise E. Winfrey Member Present
Also Present: J. Moustis, H. Brooks, R. Freitag and M. Johannsen. Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Brooks led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting - Mar 21, 2017 9:30 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Charles E. Maher, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Vice Chair AYES: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Rice, Winfrey ABSENT: Moran, Parker
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Update from Will County Public Safety Complex Delivery Teams (Leopardo, DLR and Farnsworth Group) (Discussion) Mr. Tkac stated thank the DOT and Sheriff's Department for their cooperation in helping to rearrange the site to accommodate the work east of the new building. We are jump starting the utility connections, curb and gutter, flat work and asphalt. We are ahead of schedule.
Ms. Nicole McElroy reviewed the attached Bi-Weekly Construction Report - April 4, 2017.
Mr. Kevin Curran stated since our last meeting mechanical engineer was out to look at the mechanicals that are in place. We continue to visit the site weekly.
Mr. Jim Rickert stated we are on site weekly and continue our site observations and inspections. We are focusing on mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, security and communication systems. Our site activities will continue to ramp up from this point as we get closer to equipment start up. We have no red flags or major issues from a commissioning perspective.
Mr. Moustis asked have we decided on a maintenance program?
Mr. Tkac replied we are looking at several options, but have not yet made a selection.
Mr. Moustis stated when is the crucial time to start in putting data into the system? It would seem to me we are getting close to the time frame.
Mr. Rickert stated we made a proposal for asset data that can be uploaded into any system you choose. At this time, we are setting up the frame work regardless of the system you choose so we have all the data populated and collected. It will be a universal system and will not affect the decision made on the system. We are having all the data collected now. We are finalizing some of the details on how the naming will lay out.
Mr. Moustis asked what is the process. Who is involved?
Mr. Tkac replied everyone is involved; the County and the current building maintenance staff. We don't want to put something together that would be difficult for anyone to understand. We want this as the standard for moving forward with all the new projects. We do not want to put together an equipment itemization that we would have difficulty uploading into a CMMS. We are cognizant of that. We have narrowed the field and will begin to conduct interviews in the very near future for the Facilities Manager position. That was the dependency we were trying to avoid. We have crossed that bridge without making that process any more difficult than it has to be and to lend itself to as much flexibility when we bring the Facilities Manager on board.
Mr. Tuminello stated I met with Mr. Tkac this morning. We are on time and under budget at this time. The numbers continue to look favorable and hopefully the rest of the year will go the same way and this project will done on time and under budget.
Bi-Weekly Construction Report - April 4, 2017 (Handout)
2. Update from Judicial Center Delivery Teams (Wight, Gilbane & Farnsworth)
(Discussion) Mr. Tuminello stated Mr. Fricilone, Mr. Tkac and I met with Wight and Gilbane as we try to drill down the 100% DD numbers. We believe that in May we will be able to come to the Committee with the 100% DD number.
Mr. Dwyer stated we have been working hard to make sure we have the design and the numbers all lined properly. We met with ComEd to coordinate service to the new building and overall it was a good meeting. They have a couple of things they need to do. This will be a rather significant electrical demand for this large building. They are looking at their capacity planning and all the things they do to make sure they can provide the power to the building that is needed. Overall, there should not be any issues; they just need to get through their engineering work. We are expecting within a few weeks to have more detail on that. We also talked about construction service and other things that will be needed for power to the site. Yesterday there was a meeting with IDOT; I could not attend, but members of my team were there. IDOT did not have any issues. We are coordinating with IDOT because there are two IDOT controlled streets surrounding the property. We are looking at trying to remove the parking lane on those streets. Obviously, that will be work in the IDOT ROW. Much of that is related to providing as large of a security buffer to the building and site as we can. The feedback I received was that IDOT did not have any major issues on our proposal.
Mr. Tom Leonard stated we are continuing to assist in the efforts. I attended the IDOT meeting yesterday. We have some questions to resolve for them on the permit drawings. Gilbane continues to work with the utility companies to get determine what has to be relocated and where it will it go. We are trying to identify easements that have been around for decades. We are trimming the numbers down. We have been talking with the contractors. We are meeting in house this week to talk about outreach and to make sure the outreach begins in early May and get the contractors paired up to get the project attractive to the bidders we want, especially the local companies. In addition, we are refining schedules, logistics and utilization plans. We began putting the scope of work together based on the 100% DD.
Mr. Tuminello stated I believe the Committee will be very happy when the numbers are presented next month.
Mr. Rickert stated from the commissioning perspective we are continuing to address our open comments from the 100% DD set with Wight. We are continuing to have discussions on the building automation system requirements. As well as defining the scope for our building envelope commissioning and test and balance work. There are no major issues at this time.
Mr. Tkac stated I did not attend the IDOT meeting, but that does cover the access that we need to the site during construction. There will be a lot of work going on at that intersection and it will be tight. It is better to begin preparing for that now.
Mr. Leonard stated IDOT will be coming to do a walk through with us to determine where we can have access to the curb cut and closing the lanes.
3. Discussion Re: Future of the Current Will County Courthouse
(Discussion) Mr. Tuminello indicated this matter will be discussed at the May meeting.
Mr. Moustis stated we have the prints for the old courthouse. Do you have access to those?
Mr. Dwyer responded we did get some of those prints. Our current approach is at a higher level for overall budgeting purposes. We talked about what groups might move in there. We are not developing a full design. We are trying to use standard cost per square foot for demolition necessary to convert from courtrooms to office space. This Committee discussed putting Probation, Public Defender and specialty courts and associated functions that will not be in the new courthouse. We are looking at it more generally as a cost per square footage for the build out of the offices. We are also looking at the overall building and what items may need upgrades. Items that come to mind are roof replacement, window, elevators and trying to marry the two together to give you an idea of the pricing necessary for that work scope.
Mr. Moustis stated we need to get to a point where we can make a decision on the building. It will not be inexpensive to demolish the building. We have space needs. I am hopeful we could repurpose the building. It is in an ideal location.
Mr. Tuminello stated there are a lot of needs to be met. The location is good. It will be an expensive building to demolish, but it will be expensive to remodel as well.
Mr. Dwyer stated several meetings ago we talked about the range of renovation. If you are going to be there a few years, you may do simple renovations to make it work. The feedback we got from this Committee was this was a long term solution. Then we have to dig deeper; you could move a few walls around, but that will not set you up for a long term solution. You are going to need to replace the HVAC on the floor because the needs of a courtroom are very different than an office. You will have to tear out all the HVAC distribution and rework for an office. We need to determine the condition of the major central planned items. Many of them were upgraded over the years. There are other things like plumbing; do you need to upgrade the old galvanized pipe. We are looking at this building with a long term eye.
Mr. Tuminello asked could you bring some numbers to the May meeting?
Mr. Fricilone stated if we are going to look at the use of the building for us; we need to determine if there is any interest from someone else that would like to use it. If someone else can use the building that will reduce our overall cost and will give us the ability to build something that is exactly rights rather than trying to make a building work.
Mr. Moustis stated I am opposed to selling that property, even if we demolish the building. That would be a site for a new building. That property is too valuable to us with our desire to build an urban campus. The question is do we demolish the building and build new? If the numbers are prohibitive that is what you would do. The other option is to repurpose the building. Selling the property would be a mistake for the County.
Mr. Maher stated part of the Wight Study was to create a campus area. As you look at this building, based on the assessments done of the different work groups; what does seem to be appropriate with the least amount of impact on repurposing the building? Are there groups that could go in there without a lot of improvements to the inside?
Mr. Dwyer stated the study and master planning, we did talk about that. At that time we were trying to focus on a County Government Center and then the courts. We were trying to keep them separate because the more things you put into one spot in downtown it becomes a burden on parking. There were considerations with that. With the big investment in a new courthouse; this is a nice building to take on the functions of the PD, Probation, which will continue to free up space in the EMCO Building. Moving Probation will allow the State's Attorney's Office to grow as the court system grows. Those groups are nice synergy in terms of the overall court system. There has been talk of trying to consolidate as many government components together within one area. There was a discussion about having Land Use closer to the functions. This doesn't mean the different departments work together; but is helpful when people don't know where to go. Usually they will go to the first big county building they see, then they have to go to a different location. There is something to be said for a campus where you make it as easy as possible for the public. Much of the focus down by the courthouse has been court related operations.
Mr. Fricilone stated if we don't sell the property, could we lease? If we do something it will not be done for the next few years. If we lease it for 10 years, we will have bonds rolling off and we could get ready for a major renovation.
Mr. Moustis added another option is a public private partnership for a mixed use building that would be used partly by the private and we would be the public portion. Since it is not security sensitive you could have retail and rental office space within the building and of course, the County use. Not all the rooms in the courthouse are courtrooms. The Circuit Clerk's space is office space. Even if we didn't utilize the entire building, but only used the office space, we would not need four elevators. Looking at the potential utilization of just the office space component and that would be very little expense. We should evaluate that portion of the building.
Mr. Fricilone clarified we need the numbers for demolition and rough numbers before we can move forward.
Mr. Brooks stated I believe that building is more valuable to us than anyone else. There are other entities that would love to have that property. Are you challenged with helping with the repurpose by looking at the other departments to see what would be a good fit in there? We don't want to invest a lot of money on the building, it is 50 years old.
Mr. Dwyer responded we are trying to find a balance. It is a good size building. PD and Probation will not need all of the space in the building. It is how can you renovate those spaces in the building to make them good long term spaces for those two functions. You would want to set the building up in case you want to move another group into the building in the future, without major impact.
Mr. Maher stated you need to take a look at the building and all the activity that could potentially go in there. We could make some of those courtrooms into small conference meetings rooms that we don't have that could be used by departments in the County. There is no reason that County Board couldn't take advantage of some of the space for our meetings.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like to put the specialty courts on the front burner. They are orphaned in the sense we just ask where are we going to put them now. It seems to me that the court system is moving in this direction of specialty courts where we try to divert from incarceration for people who struggle with drugs, mental health issues or our Veterans. I see that as a growing aspect of the courts. As we see success with these programs, I think you will see this area grow. Specialty courts are orphaned because we never have a permanent home for them and I think this building could take us a long way in that direction. Maybe all the courtrooms won't have to come out.
Mr. Dwyer stated specialty courts were part of the original overall program for the new courthouse. It was removed because of the budget constraints. We have been looking for a home for the specialty courts.
Mrs. Rice stated in our Judicial Committee meeting we heard how affective the specialty courts are and it is the way the courts are going. I am happy to hear it is a priority for space. They need a good space to do good work.
4. Discussion Re: Highway Roofing Projects
(Mike Miglorini) Mr. Miglorini introduced consultant Kevin Garmey. We wanted to look at the highway buildings to see if the roofs could be reconstructed or if a total tear off would be needed.
Mr. Garmey stated we did a study on the three roofs and found the roofs are not that bad; they are not failing. I would consider them in fair condition. These roofs were installed 15 plus years ago. There are some anomalies in the roofs; blisters and splits. We try to look at a roof and determine how much life can this get based on the use of the building before we look replacement as a last resort. When you replace a roof you have to add additional insulation because the new building codes are R30. Because of this, when you replace a roof with a small R value the insulation has to be increased and that increases the overall replacement costs. Before we suggest a full replacement we look at the roof and make them better with a fluid applied system for about half the price of a full replacement and still give you a long term manufacturer's guarantee. That is the path we suggest.
Mr. Garmey shared a sample of the product and explained the different types of materials. What you currently have on the roof is the stone system. The white system on top is a fluid applied membrane that is reinforced and will add 100 mils of thickness to a 300 mils roof membrane. If you tore off the roof and replaced you would be at a 200 mils thickness. By keeping what you have, you are increasing your waterproofing by another 100 mils for half the price.
Mr. Fricilone asked how long will this extend the life?
Mr. Garmey responded from a manufacturer's warranty you could extend it 10-15 or 20 years depending on the amount of material put on the roof.
Mr. Fricilone asked what about future and operational costs. Will this increase the costs of the maintenance?
Mr. Garmey replied it will decrease the costs. There are no vulnerabilities like the exposed seams you have currently because you will be putting down a monolithic fluid almost like a liquid plastic. We have done accelerated aging tests on this product. We find you lose about a mil thickness per year with the weathering and foot traffic. The top coat of the product is 32 mils thick, essentially with a 20 year warranty you are still getting 32 mils of the topcoat. If it wears down to the grade beneath it, you will still have 64 mils of that thickness. We are confident in the longevity and weathering.
Mr. Miglorini stated this is the same product we applied to the Record of Deed's Building. That roof was in decent shape so we applied this material on that roof.
The cost for all three buildings would be from $380,000 to $400,000.
Mr. Garmey stated if you replace those three roofs, you would be looking at double that price.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] TO: Will County Finance Committee MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Gretchen Fritz, Member AYES: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Rice, Winfrey ABSENT: Moran, Parker
V. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Awarding Contract for Emergency Radio Communications Tower
(Dave Tkac) Mr. Tkac stated as part of the Public Safety Complex it was determined that the future needs of the site made it very difficult to justify keeping the existing radio tower in the present location; on Laraway Road and north of the new building. Laraway Road will be widened and there is a phased plan by our DOT to do that over the next few years. The roadway and shoulder will be abutting the radio tower. In order to accomplish this, we would have to move the existing fence to accommodate the widening project. From a public safety standpoint, it makes sense to move the tower to avoid someone running into the tower and knocking it down. The secondary reason is the esthetic issue with respect to the new building. We looked at this carefully and planned it to accommodate the needs of the new dispatch center. The current tower is 200 feet and the new tower will be 250 feet the additional 50 feet does represent a potential revenue source for the County of approximately $90,000 per year for leasing the space to a cell phone providers. We did put a lot of time and thought into this and we do believe it is a viable, self- supporting, self-paying endeavor. We put bids out and we received two responses. The low bid was $313,250; the other bid was considerably higher. Since the gap was so large we did look over the bid to make sure nothing was missed. The scope does include the removal of the existing tower after construction of the new tower and the migration of hardware from the old to the new and the removal of the tower which will be turned over to the ETSB and they have plans to site the existing tower to a new location. Dismantling the tower is included in the scope. Our recommendation to proceed with this award.
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS] TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Vice Chair SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Rice, Winfrey ABSENT: Moran, Parker
2. Authorizing the Will County Executive to Amend the Current Contract with the DLR Group Inc., to Include Additional Design Engineering Services for the Will County Public Safety Complex (Dave Tkac) Mr. Tkac stated the original contract with DLR for design services was negotiated at the onset of the design phase. I excluded a number of things that are critical to the project but there was a rational I used for doing that. The backup in the packet will support my discussion today. One of the major items I did not buy at the time of the initial contract was the increased presence of the architect during the construction phase. The reason was we had a construction manager on this project and I did not think we needed the architect there more than once a month, for the monthly billing meetings. Due to the fast track nature of this project, it became very clear that a more prominent role for the architect to do the inspections, to ensure quality and answer questions relative to details is money well spent. That represents $40,000. The interior and exterior signage for the building; at the time I negotiated the contract I thought it would be good to pull it from the scope. I thought we could utilize a local firm. I have found out that was a false rational because someone coming in and doing the interior, exterior and way finding signage would probably have a difficult time putting something like that together. Ultimately, I think that work is well suited for the architect of record. That amount is included as well. Beyond that we decided because of the dollars we had remaining in the project budget there would be room to upgrade the lobby finishes. That took some of the architect's time and that is a major item in this amendment. Beyond that there is some routine detailing that was required as well. I have reviewed this in great detail with DLR and I have presented for review and approval today to the Capital Committee.
Mr. Fricilone asked why wasn't this brought to the Committee before it was done? Did we bring any of the items added to this Committee you went forward with this?
Mr. Brooks left at this juncture.
Mr. Tkac responded I could have brought that forward much earlier. The basis was we were unsure of where we were headed with respect to the SOG building. I thought we could package all that together as one contract amendment, if the design work for that building were to have gone to DLR. It did not turn out that way.
Mr. Fricilone continued if there are decisions made to upgrade finishes for the lobby or we are going to make a sign a digital sign versus a regular sign; those should be brought to the Committee. We may not want to have a digital sign. It seems like those decisions were made and now we have to pay for it because it has been designed and already in the process.
Mr. Tkac clarified the digital sign has not been designed.
Mr. Fricilone stated there is a cost for the sign in the package. Some of the items in the package are things we have already committee to and some are not.
Mr. Tkac stated yes. The monument sign at the roadway with the LCD screen, we have underground conduit that is stubbed out.
Mr. Fricilone continued this Committee decided we will be making those types of decisions on how we go forward with the building. Even if we are under budget, it is this Committee that should decide if they want to add those things or if we just want to stay under budget. If the lobby is going to upgraded; this Committee should at least be told and shown the extra costs. It should be the Committee not a person making a decision to add these things.
Mr. Moustis stated I have been through several building projects. Usually you go in with a very conservative view of how much you will need to have the architect on site. Inevitably you need them there more than you think. This Committee should establish a process and if you want to handle this type of item as a change order; it comes to the Committee. If that is the direction of this Committee, then you should give that direction. Going forward you want all these type of changes brought to the Committee as a change order before you move on. Sometimes, you have to change something on the fly or you will hold up the project. In those cases a call to the Chairman to say I am going to bring this to the Committee, but we need a decision now; might be a better process. The Committee has to give the direction. Mr. Tkac was given some latitude to handle some of these things to keep the project moving forward. Maybe the timing for bringing these issues forward might not have been the best. In my opinion the Committee would have probably Okayed the changes. Let's establish the process you want to see.
Mr. Maher stated this is a change in the scope and when we added a second monthly meeting for Capital and take over the responsibility of the PBC; that was supposed to be our role. It is much easier to deal with things as they come up than to get a list of things we have to do. We need a process and going forward I would ask Mr. Tkac to bring the change orders or project scope changes to the Committee.
Mr. Tuminello stated Mr. Tkac needs latitude to make decisions, we have to be careful not to micromanage. As you look at the list in the packet there are some
Will County, Illinois Posted: 4/18/2017 Page 10
Minutes Will County Capital Improvements Committee April 4, 2017
bid package changes; I don't think the Committee has to make those decisions. The finishes could be part of the policy or if there are upgraded costs; the Committee needs to know.
Mr. Maher stated I believe Mr. Tuminello and Mr. Tkac should sit down and create a policy and bring the process back to the Committee. We don't need to micromanage this project, but we do need to know if there are scope changes.
Ms. Fritz stated before we vote on this Resolution and dollar amount, is it possible to put this off until the next meeting and separate out the things we are committed to and those we are not.
Mr. Fricilone agreed. This will allow us time for a discussion just to see what has to be done. Some of these items have been done; so we do have to approve them. The others are things we will have a chance to look at; while they have not been decided, they look good, but. That will establish a process.
Mr. Maher stated the policy need to include what Mr. Tkac can make decisions on and what has to be brought back to the Committee.
Mr. Tuminello indicated he would sit down with Mr. Tkac and create a policy that will be brought back to the Committee.
Mr. Moustis cautioned the Committee to not stifle the flow of the work. We made a decision to let Mr. Tkac handle the day-to-day decisions. As the Chair of the PBC, the Director would call me, especially if it was something of a higher dollar value. There were times I would ask if this would hold up the project. If the answer was no; I told him to bring it to the entire Committee or we would need an additional meeting to address it. Communication between Mr. Tuminello and Mr. Tkac cuts through a lot of that. I would suggest that Mr. Tkac calls Mr. Tuminello to make him aware of it. Don't stifle the flow of the work. If there is something that needs to be taken care of immediately; acknowledge it and then let the Committee know you Okayed it. Of course, the Committee should agree to give you that latitude. If it is something that can come to the Committee or has a higher dollar value attached to it, and won't stop the flow of work; then bring it here. In most instances I had to make the decision as Chair of the PBC, because it would slow the project too much. Sometimes there was a large dollar amount involved, but there was sometimes no choice.
Mrs. Rice stated I agree with Ms. Fritz about not stifling things and if we need to have a discussion on things that are decision based with an emphasis with Mr. Tkac having input. We don't want to tell him to move a project ahead fast, but don't allow him to do it.
Mr. Fricilone stated I don't want to stifle Mr. Tkac doing his job to get stuff done.
The finish one is the one that got me. You said we are under budget so we decided to upgrade the finish. I would like to know who is the we? Because, it was not this Committee. Mr. Tkac did you make this decision on your own? The we had to be somebody. Was it the architect and you? Was it the Sheriff and you? That's the we I am looking at. This Committee should be part of the we.
Mr. Tuminello stated before the May meeting Mr. Tkac and I will meet and create a process that we will share with the Committee. If the Committee agrees and gives us the latitude, it will make it easy; if not we will make sure by the time the meeting is over we come up with a policy that everyone can agree with. This particular Resolution will come back as 2 Resolutions; one that is already done through the process and some for the future.
A brief discussion took place regarding the budget numbers and whether the guaranteed maximum price included the FF&E.
Motion to Move Resolution Forward and Save Two Spaces on the County Board Agenda
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Charles E. Maher, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Rice, Winfrey ABSENT: Moran, Parker
3. Authorizing the County Executive to Amend Contract with Stromsland, DeYoung and Prybys to Include Additional Professional Design and Engineering Services for a New Specialty Equipment and Vehicle Storage Building at the Will County Public Safety Complex (Dave Tkac) Mr. Tuminello stated this Resolution is to hire the architect to design the SOG building. We have talked about this saving us money in rent and allow us to consolidate. We have our radio lab, SWAT division, dental vehicle and the Workforce van in numerous locations. By consolidating that into one building, there is a path forward to fund the entire bonding on that building should we move forward with the SOG building with the money we will save on rent and the fact we are under budget on the Public Safety Complex.
Mr. Tkac stated the timing for the design of this building and the type of building it will be, combined with the Phase 2 work is crucial to keeping the costs for the overall project down. We would like to do this work without having to re-mobilize. We would like to keep the project rolling and get everything done as soon as possible. It is to our benefit in terms of overall costs. That is the basis for the timing of this Resolution.
Mr. Tuminello added the Committee saw a contract from this company in the past. The scope has gone up slightly because we did add on a few extra options.
We wanted to move and consolidate the radio lab versus paying rent and we will have the vehicles right there on site. I think this is a good idea.
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS] TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Vice Chair SECONDER: Gloria Dollinger, Member AYES: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Rice, Winfrey ABSENT: Moran, Parker
VII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
IX. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT / ANNOUNCEMENTS
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION