Will County Capital Improvements Committee met April 17.
Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:
I. Call To Order / Roll Call
Chair Ray Tuminello called the meeting to order at 9:30 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 Absent
Donald A. Moran Member Absent
Annette Parker Member Present
Beth Rice Member Present
Denise E. Winfrey Member Present
Also Present: R. Freitag and M. Johannsen.
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
II. Pledge Of Allegiance To The Flag
Ms. Freitag led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. Approval Of Minutes
1. WC Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting - Apr 3, 2018 11:00 am
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
IV. Old Business
1. Update from Courthouse Delivery Teams (Wight, Gilbane & Farnsworth)
(Discussion)
Mr. David Lesniak reviewed Project Status 4.17.2018 attached. Bid Release #5 for ceramic tile and access flooring was due on April 19th. We extended that to get one additional ceramic tile bidder. Both bids are due April 26th. Martin Cement continues on the basement and 95% of the elevator core has been poured. The climbing forms should be showing up this week for the elevator core area. They are working on the north/south and west foundation walls with a pour today on the north and south sides. The demolition contractor is sorting the debris into piles and moving it out, that should be done by the end of next week. The excavator will be back in leveling the east side of the basement. Next week we will be bringing in the forms for the post tension deck. Steel is on track for a May 21st start date.
Mr. Tuminello commented on the number of safe man hours are approaching nine full time positions. As this project grows we will see the number of people growing also. I would caution although we are tracking to the budget now, until the final bids come in I am holding my breath. I hope Bid Package #5, the final bid package, comes in favorable as well.
Mr. Fricilone asked for Bid Package #5 is ceramic tile and access flooring, all in one bid?
Mr. Lesniak responded there are three packages; access flooring, ceramic tile and interior and exterior signage. We extended the bid because one tile firm was on the fence when I spoke with him and we had one say if he had an extra week he would bid the project. We are basically guaranteed three bidders and possibly four. Three firms are bidding the access flooring and six bidding on the signage package.
Mr. Tuminello thanked Mr. David Hales, City of Joliet, for attending the meeting and for the City’s help during the demolition of the First Midwest Building. The police were outstanding in closing the road when it was necessary. Mr. Fricilone and I were at the site with Mr. Tkac and able look over the fence into the pit; there was an area where there looked like hundreds of thousands of feet of rebar. How deep was that?
Mr. Lesniak replied there was several tons of rebar. The mat is four feet thick and there were #12 bars there which are 1.25 inch thick bars, some were 40 plus feet long. It took three iron workers to carry a bar. The pours took from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., there were 70 trucks.
Mr. Jason Dwyer stated that is the main lateral reinforcing piece for the building, which is why we have such a big anchor and it has taken a lot of the wind load for the tall building. From a submittal standpoint, everything is going well. We continue to support construction operations. I have been working with Ms. Samantha Bluemer and we have gone after the ComEd Energy Efficiency Program incentives. We received an initial reservation from them; we continue to fine tuning the energy model of the building and figure the incentive. Ms. Bluemer and I are coordinating to see whether we hold off and get that executed or if there are adjustments that need to be made before we do it.
Mr. Jim Rickert stated we are reviewing shop drawing with Wight. We are working with Gilbane to develop an overall quality plan during construction and tying the commissioning piece to that; what is their responsibility and what is ours, all related to quality. We are defining the quality expectations as we ramp up into the construction. That is an on-going process. We will continue to meet with them over the next several weeks to get that defined.
Gilbane Project Status April 17, 2018-
(Handout)
2. Discussion Re: Animal Control Facility and EMA Building
(Discussion)
Mr. Dwyer stated I have a different project manager assigned to this project. We are moving forward and have been working with Dr. Schild and Animal Control staff to sort out the programming and design. We started with a base program in terms of size for the building, with small growth for the operational components, just to be conservative. It is a small building, just under 7,000 sq. ft. We accounted for a small amount of personnel growth, if you add one or two people it is not efficient to do an addition on a building that small, so we are adding a buffer. The County currently does not house animals, the function is outsourced, but we have looked at the potential to add on if that changes in the future. We have designed the building and site layout to accommodate that if things change down the road. We have also been doing planning work on the site to see whether the site could accommodate an EMA storage building and have found an opportunity to do that. You are suggesting it may be included in the design plan. We have been looking at it as a placeholder since we were not sure if that was something you wanted to move forward with. We are in the design phase, the floor plan is in place. We have been fine tuning trying to find the efficiencies that we can to tighten it up. We are working on the building look and design with a target toward the end of July to have all that wrapped up and move into the a construction phase.
Mr. Tuminello stated I spoke with Mr. Creech regarding the wetlands. Do you feel there is enough room for the detention and the Animal Control facility, with a possible future expansion and the EMA structure?
Mr. Dwyer replied yes; in the initial review we looked at a couple of different sites to accommodate the stormwater detention. One area to the north and the existing stormwater on the site, established with the last project with a potential to expand that. A study is being done to see if all of it can be consolidated into an expansion of the existing stormwater basin and we are close to determining if it is going to work. Even if it did not work, I think we would be able to accommodate the stormwater, it just would have caused more site disruption in a couple of different spots. We feel confident we can accommodate the stormwater we need with the added impervious for the base Animal Control, expansion for animal housing and a small EMA building.
Mr. Tuminello asked since the programming for the Animal Control building is just about complete; at what point do you think we would see something for the entire Committee?
Mr. Dwyer replied we will give you an update on the floor and site plan layout at the next meeting.
Mr. Tuminello stated we thought because Animal Control charges fees and had them in a capital fund for this project, we could use them for the facility. The State’s Attorney has said, even though the money is set aside for that fund, we are unable to take it until it is budgeted. We are looking to loan Animal Control money from our bond proceeds and then at the end of the year, they will pay it back.
Mrs. Tatroe stated a solution is to borrow from the bond funds to get the project started and not use the Animal Control funds until they are appropriated.
Mrs. Dollinger asked what is the budget for this project?
Mr. Tuminello responded the site does pose some challenges and there will be some hefty site work fees that will have to be incorporated. I would say the budget will be around $3 million, but that has not been finalized. Animal Control has over $4 million in their capital fund.
Mr. Dwyer added in our discussions with Animal Control, they were planning to hold some reserves in the fund to be conservative. Our target is to a $3 million number. There are issues with the site; the good news is you are not buying a site, because you own this. There are issues with the stormwater management. We talked about the extension of the sanitary main down Route 52 and bringing it to the site to service the building. Those are costs, not be typical of a small, standalone building like this. As much as we are going to keep fine tuning this to the $3 million, it might be slightly more. Some of that is based on the final details of the stormwater analysis and what is vetted out by utilities. The building is pretty small. We have been working as a team to keep the dollars tight. You have a lot of site costs spread over a very small footage of the building and it drives up the costs.
Mr. Tuminello asked would some of the site costs be spread to EMA?
Mr. Dwyer replied ultimately, with EMA being involved there will be an analysis of the stormwater and some will be for Animal Control and some for EMA. Services, such as sanitary and water, will be split costs. We will look at the total allocations and determining the property allocation between the two buildings since their budgets come from two separate funding sources.
Mr. Tuminello asked where are we with the City of Joliet on the sewer and water?
Mr. Van Essen replied Mr. Creech is working that design. He gave us a schedule and trying to get that through the permitting process. He is trying to accelerate that ahead of design work. We have to coordinate, since it goes in front of the old SWAT area as well.
Mr. Fricilone explained we have bond proceeds continuing to pay for the other buildings we are doing. The money is sitting in the pot. We will use that money and in the 2019 budget we will take the Animal Control cash on hand and appropriate it back into the bond fund.
Mr. Tuminello asked do we have a timeline, if you were to get the design to us next month?
Mr. Dwyer responded our target to wrap up construction documents is the end of July. The only thing we have not evaluated is what you would like to do with EMA and the timing. Do you want to run a parallel track? Would you hold off and let us quickly ramp up and get that done? We could bid it together for some economy of scale. I don’t know your timing. There are efficiencies to building the two together. It is a tight site to build to next to it and can be disruptive if you are out of sequence with the construction. We want to evaluate more to see if there is any scheduling impacts.
Mr. Fricilone stated we are currently month-to-month on the lease.
Mr. Tuminello stated working both on the job site would be beneficial to the taxpayers.
Mr. Dwyer stated there is very little in the way of lay down and construction logistics area and if you are bringing trucks in over newly completed pavement it will mess it up. If it works for you timing wise, it would certainly would be better financially to do it at once.
Mrs. Rice asked from the proposal and the $198,000 what does that include as far as the EMA feasibility aspect? I am clear on what Animal Control includes, but I was unclear on that part.
Mr. Dwyer replied our first proposal, because we were unsure what you wanted to do with EMA, was to look at a site plan and layout of where it could be positioned; how big the building could be and what the implications of the stormwater would be for the impervious service. We have done master site planning in terms of the layout and that is where we stopped with EMA. If you want to move forward and finish the design that is not in the current proposal.
Mrs. Dollinger asked the EMA facility, is that storage for vehicles?
Mr. Van Essen replied yes. It may also have a small training classroom.
Mr. Tom Murray stated the current facility does have office space for two individuals along with a small community room for our volunteers, a modest bathroom and a small kitchen area.
Mr. Tuminello asked what square footage were they anticipating?
Mr. Tkac answered about 10,000 sq. ft. about two-thirds the size of the garage at the Public Safety Complex.
Mr. Fricilone asked how many vehicles would fit in the building?
Mr. Murray replied between our two facilities we store 17 or 18 vehicles indoors. We have the large command vehicle, but the rest are different pickup trucks, generators and tools.
Mr. Tuminello stated we should move forward with both of the projects together. We will get to the point we need to add a construction manager early in the process to make sure we get the same savings and hit the schematic design at the same time. We need to consider a commissioning agent to make sure when the building is turned over we get the same files as with the Public Safety Complex. Our goal with the Facilities Manager to maintain all the County assets, I don’t see why we would treat these two assets differently. At some point Mr. Tkac will need to bring a Resolution back to this Committee to negotiate with a commissioning agent. For the next meeting, do you think you could do budgeting for both buildings?
Mr. Dwyer replied since we have not designed anything on EMA I would not want to go too far for a budget. I would like to give you a design update on Animal Control at the next meeting and work through what a proposal might look like for the EMA scope. The only reason would be to keep us moving in a parallel path. If you feel that is the direction you want to go, we could start before it is officially approved.
Mr. Tuminello stated at the next meeting I would like to see the design of Animal Control and a potential Resolution on what it will cost to move forward. At that time, if the Committee feels they want to direct Wight to do the EMA and feels the contract is sufficient to add to the contract.
Mr. Fricilone stated to move forward we need at least a rough budget.
Mrs. Dollinger asked have we looked at any numbers for the EMA building?
Mr. Fricilone replied no nor where it is coming from.
Mr. Dwyer stated let me see if I can rough something out for the next meeting. I will look to see if I can draw something from the recent details of the SOG building. We have not talked about the materials, but let me work with Mr. Van Essen and Mr. Tkac on something.
3. Presentation for Energy and Conservation Plan (5 year review) – Attachment Added
(Samantha Bluemer)
Ms. Samantha Bluemer reviewed the attached PowerPoint presentation.
Committee Members were given an opportunity to ask questions for clarification.
Mr. Fricilone suggested a Committee of the Whole to share the information with the entire Board.
Mr. Tuminello thanked Ms. Bluemer. Years ago conservation was not in the forefront of my mind. Working with Ms. Bluemer over the past six month has opened my eyes to things we could do better as a county, an individual and homeowner to do our part. I appreciate your work. The Committee was asked to review the binder. Ms. Bluemer went through the presentation quickly, I am extremely impressed with the amount of detail and work put into this, and you will be impressed as well. We have Board Members enthused about opportunities to sell energy back to the grid. There are a number of projects we have been discussing.
Mr. Fricilone stated with Mr. Van Essen's work we have been looking at every facility and the projects coming up over the next 10 years. We are picking out energy related project, as Ms. Bluemer does her study and says here is your operational and buy in costs. If the payback is in a couple of years, we will find the money to make it happen as soon as possible. We are in the process now. The faster we get the projects going, the faster we can save money and can make the County greener. Ms. Bluemer can you give your recommendation on the electric energy buy; how green do you think we should go?
Ms. Bluemer asked as an information provider to decision makers, what is your ultimate goal for procuring the energy? That is what it comes down to. If it is only to save costs, that will be a different approach to the options available to you on Thursday. If you are looking to use this as a marketing mechanism, to also save money from a PR angle, based on what we are talking about today and in the future and if renewal energy is a priority, I would advise 100% renewable. It has a better marketing and PR sell. I can try to monetize the marketing value of 50% versus 100%.
Mrs. Rice stated as we look to make our maintenance and operations more efficient, and as we continue to build, we keep this in mind as we are making choices. We can see the accumulation of money savings. I hope your department feels it can reach out to the maintenance department and keep making progress along these lines. This is so encouraging to many of us.
Mr. Fricilone stated this is one of the reasons I pushed LEED when we looked at the courthouse. Many of these initiatives are part of LEED. It also certifies you did this and lets everyone know you are trying to point yourself in the right direction for your energy spend and being as efficient as possible.
Ms. Bluemer thanked everyone and complemented Mr. Van Essen for how he has brought everyone together. The facilities team is excellent and we work together seamlessly. Now that we have the CMMS, this report will be even more impressive next year as I will be able to show what we are saving in labor by using an LED versus a florescent bulb, since it will not have to pay to have it changed as frequently. I will also show the warranties and how that can be a cost savings.
V. Other Old Business
Mr. Tuminello stated Mr. Moustis added a Resolution to the County Board agenda to form a sub-committee to help develop and determine the firms that can be added to the current list of scope of work. We will be discussing the CM for the Health Department. We are interested in getting this person on board early in the process. At a future meeting, we will discuss the Commissioning Agent for the Health Department. We have not discussed that and that is something we will have on a future agenda. Mr. Tkac was asked to prepare something for an upcoming agenda. We want to have the facilities manager involved and keep everything in line, we will need to put this person on as we go through the Health Department process.
VI. New Business
1. Discussion Re: Solar Energy for Courthouse
(Samantha Bluemer)
Mr. Dwyer reviewed the attached handout. We used HeloScope modeling software to look at potentially adding PV panels to the courthouse roof. The software modeled the capacity and shadowing, areas with shadows will have issues generating power, the back side, shows a diagram. There are three locations we can add solar to the roof of this building. The far south edge along Washington Street, the sallyport, is the lower roof of the building as it is pretty open. It is a ballasted roof, we could swap that out and put solar panels there. That is about 35% of the total solar we are looking at. The roof above that is the highest roof, the orange is other equipment we have on the roof and we are trying to work around it. To the west is the main roof of the ten story building outside the penthouse area. On the front, what it comes down to is 72 kW of rated power in terms of the power itself. On an annualized basis it looks to generate 110 MWh or 110,000 kWh and we are looking at that from a dollars and cents standpoint. We have done a number of these recently, and each is a little different in terms of how it is anchored and how it is placed. Most recently we did a rec center in Plainfield, it is a targeted net zero. The cost on that was $2.63 per watt for installation. In this case, I would probably use $3.50 per watt on the array, just to be safe. We have different roof areas and part of the analysis is whether we can do a ballasted system so it has a slight pitch to it on a racked system, to hold the PV panels. If you do a ballasted system you are not anchoring through the roof, causing roof penetrations. One tricky part is the high roof of the building since we will have pretty heavy wind loads up there, 200 feet in the air. The preliminary indications are that we can still do a ballasted system, it will just be a heavy ballasted system. I think $3.50 per watt is appropriate for cost of an install on 72 kW system is about $250,000. We have not fully analyzed whether there will be a structural impact. On the sallyport roof we have stone ballast right now, maybe we could do a trade out to have minimal if any, structural impact. We have more work to do to analyze that. On the high roof, there will be some structural modification that will have to happen and that cost is not figured in. I don’t expect a huge impact, but it is something we have to look at a little more.
Mr. Tuminello asked are you talking the actual structural steel? Isn’t the structural steel pretty much done?
Mr. Dwyer responded yes it will affect the structural steel. This is one of those things if you want to go this route, we want to have a feel for that right away so we can coordinate with the steel contractor. We have a steel contractor on board producing shop drawings. This might mean on the penthouse instead of spacing on center at 8 feet, we may have to adjust and go to 6 feet or 7 feet. I don’t see it as a huge deal, but it is something we have to evaluate. It does have sporadic placing. I will ask our structural engineers to take a close look at it and see. Mr. Fricilone asked will the sallyport generate the same energy as the roof top, since it will be shaded and there is no shading on the high roof.
Mr. Dwyer replied the sallyport faces south. We only put solar in places we feel we will get value out of it. There are areas noted on the back where the roof is available but it has issues with other penetration that will shade the area. We only put it in areas with maximum value.
Ms. Bluemer stated the long term renewable resource procurement plan which determines all those numbers was filed on April 4, 2018. That means they just put out the RFPs for the administrators of those programs of the adjustable blocker programs, which is a large portion of the incentives. Those numbers will not be finalized until June 4th. I took numbers in the current plan and tried to do my best estimate on what it is going to be and it should not be too far off from what I have.
Mr. Fricilone stated that is the incentives; I am looking at what this will generate and what dollar amount does that save us and what is our payback?
Mr. Dwyer responded I believe $250,000 is an installed cost. ComEd has a rebate program of $250 per kW; that is $18,000 that can come off. Another piece is the renewable energy credit of $40 per rec, one rec is 1,000 kWh and that is over a 15 year period you can extrapolate the value for that at $4,400 per year, but the total over the 15 years is $66,000.
Ms. Bluemer added you would get approximately $13,200 per year. Because of the size of the system, the payment plan for those recs would be paid for the first five years. You would then get your capital back faster. There is a part of the LTRRPP that has a special carve out for public facilities, it is vague and we are having a hard time figuring out what that means. When I say “we” I mean the policy center as well. If we qualify for the carve out and show this is a necessary public service facility, which it is, since a portion of the residents being served are from the low income community, then we would qualify for a rec program and that would double that. I don’t want to say that definitely until I know this would qualify.
Mr. Dwyer stated if we are conservative the $250,000 goes down to $165,000 again the next piece is what are you paying for power. It looks like you have a favorable rate and we used $0.06 per kWh as a safe number. At 1,100 kWh per year is $6,500 per year in savings for energy consumption and it becomes about a 25 year payback. It is hard to plan for this, but overtime energy costs will go up and this is a hedge against that. I did some quick math. If you are locked in for three years at $0.06 but after three years it goes to $0.08 that little amount makes the 25 year payback 20 years, a lengthy payback. The evaluation is looking at the overall dollars, whether the value of doing that and having a hedge against energy price increases and the value of promoting solar energy is worth the initial investment.
Ms. Bluemer stated we don’t have to buy the panels. We can lease the roof space and not have to put up any initial capital. However, if that is something you want to consider in the future, it would probably still be favorable to make any structural adjustments. Leasing would be straight revenue. It still ends up being more favorable if you buy the panels, it just takes longer to get the capital back.
Mr. Tuminello stated the big question will be what the structural engineer comes back and says. If they say it is $1.4 million to do this we will have to step back; if it is $10,000 we will move forward and that is the next step.
Mr. Fricilone stated I believe the payback will be less than 10 years.
Mr. Tuminello stated when you get the clarification on the doubling; if that happens, it becomes a 12 year payback.
Ms. Bluemer stated we are waiting to hear back on whether we will qualify.
Mr. Dwyer stated I talked before about the other ComEd incentive program we are in the middle of and that looks at the energy savings of the whole building. We have not gone back to talk with them to see what other incentives we would get if you did the PV. There should be more savings because there is a direct translation of energy savings. From a LEED certification standpoint, we were always looking to pursue silver level at a minimum, right now, we are into LEED gold, only a little bit. This is one of the things where they have a vigorous vetting process. Depending on how you proceed, the renewable energy in the building could add some additional LEED credits. However, if you sell the recs you cannot get the same, but it will have an impact on optimizing our energy performance. We did a project, with an extensive number of PVs, the clients sold the recs and could not get the credits, but what they did was bought green power back on their renewable wind power back at a fraction of the cost and still received all the same LEED credit for it and continued to invest in green power. There are a lot of complicated factors in that, but it does have benefits based on those factors.
Mr. Fricilone asked if we go for 100% renewable when we do the electric does that contribute to the LEED on the building, because we will be buying all green energy?
Ms. Bluemer replied it will service the facility. That should contribute.
Mrs. Dollinger clarified the proposal is to use the energy within the building and not sell the energy.
Mr. Dwyer stated the solar here it is a small percentage, maybe 7% so the idea becomes to use all the energy on the building rather than sell it back.
Mr. Fricilone stated we have to remember to include solar from the beginning on the Health Department.
Mr. Tuminello indicated he would bring that up at his meeting this week.
Mrs. Dollinger left at this juncture.
Handout Re: Courthouse Rooftop Solar-
(Handout)
2. Authorizing Payment to Nicor Gas for the Will County Public Safety Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Seconder: Mike Fricilone, Vice Chair
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
3. Authorizing Payment to Geocon Professional Services for the Will County Public Safety Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
4. Authorizing Payment to DLR Group for the Will County Public Safety Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
5. Authorizing Payment to Hepa, Inc, Asbestos Abatement for the Will County Public Safety Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Vice Chair
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
6. Authorizing Payment to Leopardo Companies Inc., for the Will County Public Safety Complex
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Gloria Dollinger, Member
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
7. Authorizing Payment to Hepa Inc., Asbestos Abatement for the Will County Courthouse
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Vice Chair
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
8. Authorizing Payment to Midwest Environmental Consulting Services Inc., for the Will County Courthouse
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
9. Authorizing Payment to Gilbane Building Company for the Will County Courthouse
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
10. Authorizing Payment to Farnsworth Group for the Will County Courthouse
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
11. Authorizing Payment to Wight & Company for the Will County Courthouse
()
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
VII. Other New Business
Ms. Winfrey announced the City of Joliet is offer a chance to see what the new downtown area around the 121 Building will look like. It is tomorrow at the Historical Museum at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Hales stated there will also be details on the downtown square that will have drawings from the architectural firms as they are nearing completion.
Ms. Winfrey stated we looked at the number of judges we are entitled to and how we are going to seat them. We have not looked at this from the perspective of the Sheriff. We will have more floors, different visitor intake, different ways to manage inmates in and out and we need to know their staffing needs. My guess it will be more, certainly it will be different than what we have now. Along with our work on the courthouse we need to look at how we will manage this and what needs to happen. Perhaps a study has been have done already we can look at. We could also look at some of the similar facilities in the area. That needs to be covered before we move into the building.
Mr. Tuminello asked has the Sheriff’s Department worked with anyone on staffing needs based on the new design?
Mr. Tkac stated there are plans to hold meetings, to run through all of the details relative to new courthouse security, building access and such. As part of that process, this would be a good time to address staffing needs. It is something we need as the model from the existing courthouse may not work for the new courthouse. These are things we will need to discuss. Meetings with the elected officials will take place in the next few weeks.
Mr. Tuminello asked should that go back to the Finance Committee instead of Capital?
Mr. Fricilone stated this deals with personnel so it will need to go to the Executive Committee.
Ms. Winfrey stated maybe the first thing is for everyone to get together and look at the layout and what needs to be placed where. After you figure that out it would probably go to Executive, Finance and Capital to see how we will cover that.
VIII. Public Comment
IX. Chairman's Report / Announcements
Mr. Tuminello thanked Ms. Bluemer for all her hard work. Ms. Bluemer’s presentation is something the entire County Board should see. Perhaps we could schedule a Committee of the Whole in May.
X. Executive Session
XI. Adjournment
1. Motion to Adjourn at 10:45 am
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Vice Chair
Seconder: Gretchen Fritz, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Fritz, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher, Moran
Left Meeting: Dollinger
Next Meeting - May 1, 2018
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=2957&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up