Will County Capital Improvements Committee met April 18.
Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:
I. Call to Order / Roll Call
Vice Chair Mike Fricilone called the meeting to order at 9:33 Am
Attendee Name; Title; Status; Arrived:
Ray Tuminello; Chair; Absent;
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; Present;
Beth Rice Member; Present;
Denise E. Winfrey; Member; Present;
Also Present: J. Moustis, H. Brooks, R. Freitag and M. Johannsen.
II. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Ms. Fritz led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. Approval of Minutes
1. WC Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting - Apr 4, 2017 11:00 AM
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Charles E. Maher, Member
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
IV. Old Business
1. Update from Will County Public Safety Complex Delivery Teams (Leopardo, DLR and Farnsworth Group)
(Discussion)
Ms. Nicole McElroy reviewed the attached Biweekly Construction Report - April 18, 2017. We are working to get the main electrical rooms turned over to the County early so they can get everything up and running as soon as possible. We are looking at June 1st as the turnover date to give them the four main rooms to do their work. Mr. Tkac asked me to talk about the Phases. We consider this project to be two phases. Phase 1 is the base building and all the site. Phase 2 is the existing building to the east of the site with parking. We were going back and forth on the timing for Phase 2. Since we are starting our site work the first week of May; it made sense to continue the site work for that portion as well. We have been working with the County and the Sheriff's Department to figure out the logistics, because we still have to keep the current building working and do the work. Mr. Tkac has done some negotiating and we are moving all the impound cars and employee parking to the Highway Department. That will allow us to do the site work. We have worked out logistics with the Sheriff's group; they can still access the building and continue working and it will be safe. This will allow us to continue the work at the same time. It will save money from a remobilization and doing it later. When the project is substantially complete the only thing left for Phase 2 will be abating the building and demolition. The building will be completed in the winter and you would not be able to do this until next spring.
Mr. Kevin Curran stated the work is progressing very well. We continue our weekly observations and everything appears to be in conformance with the contract documents. The quality is very good.
Mr. Jim Rickert stated we continue our weekly site observations. I agree the level of quality has been exceptional. A few very minor issues came up regarding the MEP installation; and they were addressed by Leopardo immediately. We are approaching a critical milestone in terms of commissioning with the roof top unit starting in the next two weeks. The unit has been set; it will be energized and powered up. Our site presence will continue to ramp up from here.
Ms. McElroy continued some have asked how the early start of the equipment will affect the warranties. When we make our schedule we wanted to get all the permanent units up as it is better to keep them running. All of the equipment has extended warranties; once they start up it will not affect the warranty for the County. It is an extended warrant to make sure we can use those, but the County’s warranty will be based on your substantial completion. We did that early on and it has worked for us in the past. It is not just about heat and cooling or trying to keep the humidity under control; it is better to have the main unit than the temp units to help the building acclimate faster.
Mr. Tkac stated it is also important to have the final lighting when you do the final coat of paint; otherwise when you turn on the permanent lights it might look terrible. We have protected ourselves in terms of the warranty start dates. The condition of the equipment on those start dates is one of Farnsworth's responsibilities to make sure the early starts on this equipment also includes a turnover date at substantial completion where the equipment is brand new or like brand new order. That is important for us, important for the warranty and very significant for the project.
Bi-Weekly Construction Report - April 18, 2017
(Handout)
2. Update from Judicial Center Delivery Teams (Wight, Gilbane & Farnsworth)
(Discussion)
Mr. Jason Dwyer stated next month we will present our final design and budget. We are continuing to work on that and will be in good shape for the next meeting. We have been continuing with construction documents to keep the process moving forward. Our goal is to apply for permits in July and start bidding in August. That is consistent with the schedule we have been looking at the entire time; our schedule is on track. The new courthouse is pretty tall at 10 stories; that puts it in the in-between zone on whether it was necessary to do a wind tunnel test on the building. Our recommendation is to have wind tunnel test performed. They will build a scale model of the building, put it in a wind chamber and test it from all different angles for wind speed. In the absence of a wind tunnel test on a building of this size the code requires you to use more conservative numbers in terms of loading pressure for structural design. The wind tunnel test will give us greater detail of the wind loading for the building. I spoke with Mr. Tkac this is similar to the mock up we did for the bench. The idea is to provide additional information. We got feedback from the curtain wall contractor and they feel having this extra information will give them better detail in putting their bids together. We don't know for certain, but it could result in tighter bids on things like the curtain wall, which is a predominate component of our exterior enclosure. With the rain screen system, we have a metal stud backup, if we get more details on the loading, rather than just taking a conservative approach with the design of the backup system; we may be able to tailor that and even lighten the structure and potentially save some money on the project. Our contract has a reimbursable budget. The cost for mockup of the court bench came from our reimbursable budget. I am proposing that we engage the wind tunnel test and bill it to our contract as a reimbursable expense item. Currently, we have used only 35% of the overall budget; so there are plenty of available funds to do this. I was not sure if this required formal approval. We wanted to make everyone aware of it to let you know we are recommending it and we should proceed forward with the wind tunnel testing.
Mr. Fricilone asked could this be done with computer simulation rather than creating a model?
Mr. Dwyer responded they can, but it is better to create the physical model and put sensors all over it to actually test the wind speeds at all the different locations. It is a more accurate test than doing computer simulation.
Mr. Tkac stated Wight did seek bids for testing, they ranged from $23,000 to $29,000. It is recommended that we proceed with the lowest responsible bidder at $23,000. I believe this is money well spent. It may help us save money at bid time.
Ms. Winfrey clarified this money is already in the budget.
Mr. Dwyer answered we have dollars available so it will not require any change in the budget.
Mr. Moustis asked if this is something that is preferred or is good practice, why was this not included in the first place? Now it is coming back as a reimbursable. I'm not saying we should not do it; it is just if this is something that should have been done, it should have been in the base, not the reimbursable.
Mr. Dwyer replied when you are talking about skyscrapers a wind tunnel testing would be done every time. This building is sort of in between; you are not required to do this test. After feedback from the curtain wall contractors we felt it was something that will provide extra value. We did not include it initially because we are right on the borderline of where it is required or an option.
Mr. Maher asked Mr. Dwyer to explain the test in more detail. Where does it take place? Can people observe? Is it just fact finding?
Mr. Moustis asked what if you get something back that says you need to change this? We are pretty far down the road with this project.
Mr. Dwyer answered the group we are proposing is Boundary Layer from Ontario Canada. We went with three different groups, we also consulted with our partners at HOK who are working on the exterior skin design. They have worked with Boundary Layer on multiple projects, had very good success and we were pleased their number came in at the lowest price because, as a group, we feel very comfortable with them. I don't know that it is typical to witness the test. They will build a mass model of the building, they will put dozens of sensors all over the building at different locations and then do the wind speed test from multiple angles at 10 degree increments. They will generate a report giving mapping of wind pressures on the building. We have a couple of specialty details on the building, some fly-by pieces or sharp angled corners, typically the challenges are on the corners when you have heavy wind. This will give us more information. For the curtain wall contractors we basically will spell out all the basic parameters for wind speed testing. We design the primary structure and the attachment to resist the wind speeds. The curtain wall manufacturers are the ones that will fine tune the exact curtain wall framing details. That is not stuff the designer does; it is on the contractor. Just getting this additional information will give them better detail to tighten up their specifications.
Mr. Maher stated we identified the skin we are using; will that material be part of the test?
Mr. Dwyer replied they put sensors over the entire face of the building, the entire exterior skin, so we will know what wind pressure are around the building.
Mr. Maher asked are you looking at power pressures versus maybe this skin blows off because something gets underneath it.
Mr. Dwyer stated it is not that. The attachment anchoring is a separate issue. This is more for primary wind loading. The other question was what happens if we find something that is radically different. The code parameters for what we need to design for are conservative. The hope is that we are getting data that tells us we can lighten up in some areas. There is some potential that parts of the structure or the skin might require additional reinforcement. That kind of stuff will not affect the primary building structure, the main core of the building. I don't have major concerns with that. This will provide more information for the contractors to tighten it up on the curtain wall side. As we are designing the metal stud framing behind the rainscreen, if we find areas mid-face of the building that have a lighter wind loading, we might be able to lighten up the design and save money on the project.
Mr. Moustis asked when they do the wind test, do they look at our weather patterns? I would like to see a video of the wind test.
Mr. Dwyer answered it is tailored to the local weather and wind data. They actually go a step further and do some modeling of the structures surrounding the site. As you know that can affect the wind patterns. This courthouse is not as big of an issue since it is not surrounding by really tall buildings.
Mr. Moustis thanked Mr. Dwyer for bringing this to the Committee. Overall this may not be large amount of the project; I do think it is a large amount for the reimbursables. I think it is best you bring it back to the Committee.
Mr. Tom Leonard stated we continue to put together our bid document. We continue to work with Wight and Farnsworth to put together the quality plans and schedules. We are preparing for our bidder outreach event at the County Building on May 3rd. We have been providing Mr. Tkac with information and he has given us an idea of what should be put in there. We are responding to that with bid packages. We believe we have 43 bid packages at this stage. We are still looking at how we structure these so they are small enough for some of the local companies to bid; not only the suppliers but some of the smaller contractors. A part of our outreach program will be devoted to pairing the mentor and the protégées contractors; the bigger companies with the smaller ones. We want to attract as many people as possible. Much of this will be talking to the companies about what they will be able to bid and what they can provide in terms of manpower and expertise. It will get very involved, I hope we are able to do more than just scratch the surface and get many of these things brought out in the open so these companies can bid the project. We continue to refine the schedule. We have milestones set; which is important for the outreach program. The bidders will need to see the projected start date; the milestone for building enclosure, curtain wall in place, MEPs, building water tight, interior finishes and deliveries. We continue to refine the draft of the P6, the scheduling program. This is the bar chart with the different colors and lines; it provides the logic and the dates. We are working to refine the numbers. Mr. Tkac and Ms. Freitag looked at those late last week. That will be part of the discussion on May 2nd when we look at the numbers for the project and how we got it within the $195,500,000 budget. If you have any questions, please let us know and we will respond.
Ms. Winfrey asked that notice of the May 3rd meeting be made available to the Committee members.
Mr. Leonard indicated the flyer would be available tomorrow that will be a condensed version of the outreach, a list of the packages and the bids. There will be three design release and the dates will be included. The meeting will be May 3rd at the County Office Building at 3:30 p.m.
Mr. Tkac explained 3:30 is a good time for the meeting as many trade contractors get off work around 3:00 p.m. and we want to maximize the turnout.
Mr. Mike Wolf stated as part of our scope and design, we have done two full design reviews; one during the schematic design phase and the other at the 100% DD, we did a back check at 50% DD. We have accumulated a lot of design review comments. We had 273 open comments. That number has been whittled down over the last couple of weeks to 12 comments that we need to talk about with Wight. We met yesterday and were able to come to resolution on all but 4; a big effort in terms of preparing for that 50% CD set roll out. We will do a full review at that time. We are in a good place; I am very happy with where the comments are. We should be able to resolve those at the 50% CD. We finalized the building envelop commissioning testing recommendations. We are working with Wight to get that wrapped up so when the 50% CD package comes out we have coordinated and incorporated into the specifications. It had been in the previous set, but now we are narrowing that down to the tests we feel will provide the County with the most value. We don't want to over test the building, but we also don't want to skimp on the quality. We want to give the assurance that things have been tested as they are assembled. We have gotten closer with that list. We have started to work with Gilbane to look at their quality control plan and construction and coordinating with our construction check list. This is a very preliminary phase, but we will continue that throughout the next few months as we further refine getting the construction documents completed.
Mr. Moustis asked Mr. Tkac for an update on the Facilities Manager search process.
Mr. Tkac replied we had 40+ responses. We narrowed that to 10 top tier applicants we want to bring in for initial interviews. There is a group of another 10 people that if no one is found in group one we may bring in. Group 3 probably don't meet the basic qualifications. We began interviews yesterday with two applicants and four are scheduled for this afternoon. There is a standard list of questions that have been asked of each applicant. The interviews are being done in conjunction with the HR Department. If you would like to sit in the interviews they are today from noon to 4:00 p.m. This is an important job. We will narrow this list of 10 down to 3 people to come back for a second interview.
Mr. Moustis stated I think it would be helpful to have either Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Leonard of Mr. Wolf sit in. Not necessarily to be part of the interviews; but just listen and give feedback. None of us at the County has ever hired this type of person before. I think you should reach out to our team and see if they can sit in through the final interviews. Perhaps they could put some questions together to ask during the second interview. I think they could offer additional expertise, because this is such an important position for us and we have to get it right the first time.
Mr. Fricilone agreed and suggested Mr. Tkac get questions and input for the team.
Mr. Tkac stated I would be glad to share the questions assembled. I think they hit to the key points we are looking for and what we hope to accomplish in hiring of a Facilities Manager. From the beginning we wanted to cast a large net with respect to potential candidates seeing the job posting. I did reach out to Farnsworth and they were able to direct me to some more industry specific organizations.
Mr. Moustis stated I would suggest you reach out to Farnsworth and see if they have any suggestions.
Mr. Fricilone added especially when you get down to the final group. If you are torn on the final group and someone knows the systems we are putting in; that could be a little thing that kicks them over, if they have worked with the exact same systems we are putting in.
Mr. Maher stated if you interview 10 applicants over multiple days things can start to get confusing about who said what. Are you planning to have a final interview?
Mr. Tkac answered I believe there will be a second interview, unless there is one outstanding candidate.
Mr. Maher stated even if there is a stand out candidate that you bring in; that candidate and the next top two candidates should be brought in for final interview. Perhaps you could bring in our Chief of Staff and someone from the team to come in so everyone will feel comfortable.
Mr. Tkac stated once the finalists are identified, if you want introductions or a Q&A at the Capital Committee we could do that also. We always welcome your input and we hope to complete the first initial 10 interviews this week.
Mr. Moustis stated the Executive Committee acts as the Personnel Committee; if anything is done, it would be done at the Executive Committee, although it would be unusual for us to comment. You might tell us the names of the final three candidates. As a policy making part of government we don’t get too involved in hiring. That is the function of the executive branch; with County Board consent and approval. That does not mean you can't report. I am interested in the person we hire for this position. This is not a position we have hired in the past nor do we have the expertise and it is such an important role not only from a technical standpoint, but it has to be the right fit personality wise. The person will need not only technical skills but also management skills.
Mr. Tkac stated time is of the essence with particular emphasis on the CMMS, which is the computerized maintenance management system for the new projects. This program will allow every piece of equipment to be itemized, the information about the equipment would be accessible; work orders and routine maintenance would be generated by the program. The thought process was to get the information in a simplified, all-inclusive format we need so when the Facilities Manager is hired they will have a voice in the software. We will then upload the two new projects; which will become our standard for moving forward. Once those are fine-tuned then we begin to bring the existing facilities on line in a similar way. It will be a systematic and mythological approach to building maintenance and real estate asset management that we don't have now. It will increase our efficiencies and I believe it will extend the useful life of our equipment.
Mr. Leonard stated our Manager Building System gave a presentation in October. I will follow up with him to see if he has any suggested questions he may have and forward them to Mr. Tkac.
Motion to Approve Wind Tunnel Testing Using Reimbusable Budget:
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Beth Rice, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
3. Authorizing the Will County Executive to Execute Amendment #2 to the Contract with DLR Group Inc., for Additional Design Engineering Services Required for the Will County Public Safety Complex
(Dave Tkac)
Mr. Fricilone stated at the last meeting we talked about a Resolution to amend the DLR contract. There was a list of items, some that happened and some should happen. The Committed asked to have the Resolution split into two for this reason.
Mr. Tkac stated there was an issue with respect to approving one Resolution. I took it very seriously. A policy statement was drafted and shared with the Ms. Freitag and Mr. Tuminello. I believe they will proceed with some version of that at the May meeting. It is consistent with County's Purchasing Ordinance and provides a level of flexibility for getting things done that are very urgent and could not wait for the Committee to convene for the review and approval or the disapproval process. There is also a dollar threshold for approval by this Committee; which is consistent with the Purchasing Ordinance of $20,000. Essentially, anything that is greater than $20,000 will come before this Committee.
Mr. Moustis stated we are also looking at cumulative changes that go substantially higher, not just each individual change that is within the $20,000. You have to consider the cumulative effect of changes and inform the Committee this is occurring. I want to make sure you approach it in that way. I think it will be better communication and a better way to do it.
Mr. Fricilone stated I think there should be discretion even when we are adding something, even if it does not hit the threshold.
Mr. Moustis stated the threshold should have been more direct. If the cumulative change exceeds $20,000 you need to come to the Committee.
Mr. Fricilone added it could be under the $20,000 threshold that we should talk about. We are acting as the Owner's Rep.
Ms. Fritz stated a good example of the cumulative effect is the lobby design upgrade section. The development of those upgrades only cost $4,100, but the upgrades themselves will take it way above that.
Mr. Moustis stated in some cases we were aware there were alternates out there and after the initial bidding came in we went back and looked at the alternatives we should have had a discussion about the changes and the cost of changes; just to point that out. When the Committee is approving alternates they should have some understanding of the additional expense above and beyond of just accepting the alternate; there could be additional work by the architect. It is also the responsibility of the Committee to ask those questions and they will in the future. As we move forward we all become better at this.
Mr. Maher asked how are we tracking the cost of the projects, the add-on and the cumulative costs?
Mr. Tkac responded we are tracking it to the penny.
Mr. Maher stated it is a matter of communicating that to the Committee. Is there a spreadsheet we can get?
Mr. Tkac answered we can provide any level of reporting the Committee or Board cares to see. If you are looking for a one page summary; I would be glad to draft something and include it for each project. I have a spreadsheet; it is my tool for cost control.
Mr. Maher stated I think that would be helpful for us to see that as we approve these payouts. It would be nice to know this is the budgeted dollars and how close we are getting as we make decisions to move on different project.
Mr. Moustis clarified we will not exceed the budget under any circumstances.
Mr. Tkac stated he would create a summary and share it with Ms. Freitag. She can tweak it with feedback from County Board Members.
Result: Moved Forward [Unanimous]
To: Will County Board
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Charles E. Maher, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
4. Authorizing the Will County Executive to Execute Amendment #3 to the Contract with DLR Group Inc., for Additional Design Engineering Services Required for the Will County Public Safety Complex
(Dave Tkac)
Mr. Fricilone stated this Resolution deals with the items not done yet; this includes the way finding and monument sign designs. Breaking it out from the original Resolution allows everyone to look at this before the work is done.
Mr. Tkac stated the additional meeting schedule for moving forward is also included.
Result: Moved Forward [Unanimous]
To: Will County Board
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
V. Other Old Business
VI. New Business
1. Authorizing Payment to DLR Group for the Will County Public Safety Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
2. Authorizing Payment to HR Green for the Will County Public Safety Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Charles E. Maher, Member
Seconder: Gloria Dollinger, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
3. Authorizing Payment to Leopardo Companies Inc. for the Will County Safety Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Gloria Dollinger, Member
Seconder: Charles E. Maher, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
4. Authorizing Payment to Farnsworth Group for the Will County Public Safety Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Gloria Dollinger, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
5. Authorizing Payment to Burris West Building for the Will County Public Safety
Complex ()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Beth Rice, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
6. Authorizing Payment to ComEd for the Will County Public Safety Complex Minutes Will County Capital Improvements Committee April 18, 2017
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Seconder: Gloria Dollinger, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
7. Authorizing Payment to US Datacomm Inc., for the Will County Public Safety Complex
()
A brief discussion took place regarding the sign-off procedures for invoices.
Mr. Kluga gave an overview of telecommunications portion of the Public Safety Complex. The Laraway complex is all wired to the current Sheriff's building, including network and phones. When the building goes away all the connections go away. My goal is to get the DOT portion of the campus re-wired to the current Highway Admin Building. That will then be connected back to the new Sheriff's building which is part of this project. In advance of these things; we will have fiber run between the EMA building, the two admin buildings, DOT and the garage to the current Highway Admin building. When the server room is working at the new Sheriff's building we will migrate the network from Highway to the Sheriff's building.
Ms. Jackie Falbo stated we are looking at bringing a new core network to the Sheriff's Department and tying in the phone services with all the outer buildings.
Mrs. Johannsen stated on May 3rd you will see Ms. Falbo's initial request come through. She is trying to put together her final pricing.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Beth Rice, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
8. Authorizing Payment to Wight & Company for the Will County Judicial Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Beth Rice, Membe
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
9. Authorizing Payment to Gilbane for the Will County Judicial Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
10. Authorizing Payment to Robbins Schwartz for the Will County Judicial Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Charles E. Maher, Member
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
11. Authorizing Payment to Midwest Environmental Consulting Services for the Will County Judicial Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
VII. Other New Business
VIII. Public Comment
IX. Chairman's Report / Announcements
Mr. Fricilone stated it is very important for everyone to come to the next meeting. We will be talking about the final budget. There will be some things to look at.
X. Executive Session
XI. Adjournment
1. Motion to Adjourn at 10:34 am
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Charles E. Maher, Member
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Maher, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Tuminello, Moran
http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=2678&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up