Will County Capital Improvements Committee met May 1.
Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:
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 Absent
Donald A. Moran Member Present
Annette Parker Member Present
Beth Rice Member Present
Denise E. Winfrey Member Present
Also Present: J. Moustis, H. Brooks 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 - Apr 17, 2018 9:30 am
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Vice Chair
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Moran, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher
IV. Old Business
1. Update from Courthouse Delivery Teams (Wight, Gilbane & Farnsworth)
(Discussion)
Mr. Lesniak reviewed the attached Project Status May 1, 2018. The overall project construction cost with all bids included is $205,023,000, this includes the construction costs, owners’ soft costs, MEP, FF&E and moving costs.
Mr. Fricilone asked does this number include the $500,000 we are not saving on the tile.
Mr. Lesniak replied the amount includes all the current low bidders and that number does include the difference in the tile.
Mr. Tuminello thanked Mr. Lesniak for the weekly reports.
Mr. Dwyer stated we continue to look at shop drawings and submittals as they come in. We will be part of the scope review for the last bid package, but they are very straightforward. At the last meeting we talked about solar and PV. There will be some changes to the structural steel to support the PV panels and that is being priced.
Mr. Lesniak stated we received a cost of $36,000 to do the structural changes for the sallyport and main roof.
Mr. Dwyer stated we are putting together the LEED design submittal as a two part submittal rather than waiting until the end of the project. That will allow us to get feedback on all of the design credits which is roughly half of the LEED credits and have them in the bank, if we get the approvals from the USGBC. We will then know better where we are trending.
Mr. Tuminello asked are we tracking silver or gold?
Mr. Dwyer responded we are silver and we are a point or two into the gold range. The PV’s can have a positive impact on that, because it will impact optimizing the energy performance. Depending on how we structure this, we have to look closer on how the energy credits go. You can also get energy credits for renewable energy on site.
Mr. Fricilone asked do we need to vote on moving forward with the PV, since we are still under budget?
Mr. Tkac stated the dollars mentioned were just for the structural steel revisions. Ms. Bluemer has been working up some additional pricing for everything.
Ms. Bluemer stated I did a best guess cost estimate on the solar array based on the information shared with me. The total projected cost includes the steel, the array and other costs not included, an O&M contract, a contract for someone to care for the panels and monitor them and the inverter replacement at 50% useful life, a premium on the inverter to qualify for the incentives and a 2% project buffer. The initial cost would be $468,000, including the $36,000 for steel and the O&M contract extrapolated out over 25 years, with a de-escalator as cost to operate and maintain these systems goes down. The total financial benefit, if we qualify for the adjustable block program and if we get the adder for the size of the system, the smaller system they give you an adder to the S rec because the economies of scale are not there, energy savings and the ComEd rebate, the financial benefit over the life of the system of $272,000. Your annual financial benefit is about $13,000 or a negative ROI on the project of 42% and a simple payback of 35 years.
Mr. Fricilone asked what is the life, is it still 25 years?
Ms. Bluemer replied yes, the recs are provided over 15 years as given in the contract with the ICC as it reads today under the Future Energy Jobs’ Act Law. If we get in under the public sector carve out for the recs the ROI changes to a negative 28% and your financial benefit jumps to $338,000 with a simple payback of 29 years.
Mr. Tuminello clarified this is a 35 year payback if we get the adjustable block and a 29 year payback with a public sector carve out.
Ms. Bluemer stated I was as conservative as I could be with those numbers.
Mr. Tuminello stated the system has a 25 lifecycle.
Ms. Bluemer stated yes, the lifecycle is 25 years but they usually end up last longer. That is the mainstay for calculating the benefit.
Mr. Tuminello continued if we were to go with the mainstay we would not be able to receive the payback before the life of the system expires.
Mr. Fricilone stated I think the key is going ahead with the steel at $36,000 to complete. That will give us more time to study this. Even if we don’t put them on right now, the roof will be designed to take them.
Ms. Bluemer stated you could always do the steel and then lease out the roof for someone to use for solar panels. I do not have the exact numbers since a lease has not been negotiated. The lease price, what it would look like and the security of the building factors in. That would certainly return its initial investment. The numbers will not be finalized until June 4th and we don’t know what the price of the hardware and soft costs will be in two years, they could go down.
Mr. Tuminello stated you don’t know the cost of energy in four or five years.
Ms. Bluemer clarified my numbers were based on the energy number procured at the last County Board Meeting.
Mr. Tuminello stated it is important to have an option to move forward whether it is at the beginning of the project or five years from now. Technology is changing so fast that five years the payback on solar energy may be five years. Then, we cannot go back and reengineer the building. I would agree with Mr. Fricilone it would be a wise investment of $36,000 for steel.
Mr. Dwyer stated in terms of planning for the future, we probably want to take a closer look at any electrical infrastructure; is there anything we need to do to the main electrical gear readiness to accommodate invertor? I will check with the team and see where we are with the submittals that have come in. We don’t want to get ahead of ourselves on something we would have to make a change, something approved or bought. We can look into that as well.
Mr. Tuminello agreed.
Mr. Moustis stated we will go ahead with the steel. We should do any additional cabling where it has to be done. Doesn’t this say we are going to go in this direction?
Mr. Fricilone stated Ms. Bluemer has not done a study yet to see if we leased out the space for solar it might be more profitable. There is more work to do on that end.
Mr. Moustis stated Ms. Bluemer based the cost savings on today’s energy rates. The rates will not be the same 15 or 20 years from now. The cost of renewables will drive the market, not fossil fuels.
Mr. Fricilone asked when do you think we need to make a decision?
Ms. Bluemer replied the longer you can wait to buy the panels, the better. The tariff on panels steps down every year. I would put my trust in Mr. Dwyer to say at what point is it best for his team to know yes or no definitely. I would say that is not a decision that needs to be made this year, but Mr. Dwyer is the expert.
Mr. Moustis stated if we are 100% ready to hook up, I don’t think it is that important. I assume we are going to do it, we just need all the infrastructure.
Mr. Dwyer stated the steel design is based on loading criteria based on the current designed panel placements. If you go to a leased scenario with a third party, you would have to make sure you give them the parameters of the areas to work in. The steel is very specifically planned for that placement. I am not sure if the market changes a lot in terms of cost of panels. We have not bid out any of that stuff so I don’t know the pricing on panels. If you reached out to a supplier they may have historical costs based on other projects. I am wondering if it makes sense to finalize that detail and put it out for bid or hold off for a while.
Consensus was to hold off.
Mr. Fricilone stated there is so much development going on and a year from now it can be totally different.
Mr. Moran stated this has to go back to where the connection is going to eventually be made, you have to have risers for running cabling in. Even if you put the conduit in you have the conduit in the risers and you will need space for the panels and batteries and whatever else is needed downstairs. The electrical could be a lot more than what the steel is costing. If the technology on the panels changes or is it a constant voltage amp per square foot or will that be a bigger number so when the conduit is sized now do we size it for what we expect it to be later on? How much energy will these panels put out? I don’t want to see you put in 2 inch conduit and then needing a 3 or 4 inch conduit.
Mr. Dwyer replied the panels are always getting better; the number of watts you are generating per square foot on the different panels is increasing. I don’t think it is going to increase so much we need to change conduit size. It is important. Inverters will have to be placed in the location, we have not mapped out exactly where, it is not going to be big, and there is plenty of room in the penthouse for the ones on the high roof. I don’t think it will be a problem to find the locations. Now is a good time to look at the electrical side. We have a good raceway area, if we need to add extra conduit, to have that readiness, now is a good time to map it out. We are not generating much power, maybe 7% of the consumption. We are not looking at batteries on this. It will just be netting out power that is consumed. The changes are not going to be major and there may be some base building electrical infrastructure in terms of conduit that makes sense to stick with the base building electrician on. Much of the other scope we can package in terms of invertors with a solar PV panel contractor. I will get with our electrical staff to see if any tweaks are needed to accommodate the interface. It is not usually complicated, because we are not doing batteries.
Mr. Tkac stated we need to look at the method of attachment, in this case it will be a ballast system which means a minimal number of roof penetrations for the membrane. The grid the system will sit on can be weighted down basically with cinder block or you can mechanically fasten, but that requires a roof penetration. It is a minor concern, but something that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Fricilone asked where are we with rainwater recycling system?
Mr. Lesniak replied we bought the system and have a detention system. We will utilize the rainwater for irrigation and it is part of the project scope.
Gilbane Project Status Report May 1, 2018
(Handout)
Motion to Move Forward with Steel for Solar Energy Panels at the Will County Courthouse
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Gloria Dollinger, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Moran, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher
2. Discussion Re: Animal Control Facility and EMA Building
(Discussion)
Wight Presentation Re: Animal Control Facility
(Joel Van Essen)
Mr. Matt Zelecki reviewed the PowerPoint presentation in the packet.
Mr. Moustis stated when you talk about doing the EMA building there, which is not part of the scope currently, I do think it has an effect on this. I suggest we consider, while doing this project, setting the scope to include the EMA building since it effects this building and possibly has design implications and they should be done together. That would require an amendment or extension to the contract.
Mrs. Tatroe indicated she would look to see what had been passed before and whether the Resolution can be amended or if you need a new one.
Mr. Moustis stated we will save a space at the Executive Committee on May 10th to be placed on the County Board agenda for approval.
Mr. Tuminello stated at the last meeting we discussed constraints due to the site being so tight. It makes more sense to construction both projects at the same time, design and spread the costs out to another project. We did not move it forward.
Mr. Tkac stated based on discussion at the last meeting, Mr. Dwyer and I talked. Wight has submitted a proposal for inclusion of the EMA building as part of the overall project. It appears to be fair and reasonable. I don’t see any problem with having it reviewed by next week.
Mr. Moustis added you need to check with Mrs. Tatroe to make sure it is being brought forth in the correct format.
Mrs. Dollinger asked how long are animals kept on site? Are they kept overnight?
Dr. Schild replied that is temporary holding. Late at night if facilities are closed, we have a place where it can be brought and held. The next morning it would be transported to one of our regular holding facilities.
Mr. Fricilone asked is there enough space on this site for the large EMA vehicle?
Mr. Zelecki answered talking high level with Mr. Van Essen, I understand there are some larger command vehicles. Preliminarily we took a look at the specs on the largest command vehicle and we think the turning radius shown is tight, but there is some room if we shift the EMA south. We are working with HR Green on how the detention would work.
Mr. Creech stated we received the information last week on the command vehicles and are currently running the turning templates. We can pull the building south to the high water mark, approximately 15 feet and have the big vehicle turn north and back. We will confirm that will work. That will happen this week, we are pressed for time to get the site concept laid out because I know we want to put in the entrance and get a permit from the Highway Department to get the earthwork moved quickly.
Mr. Tuminello asked do we have 15 feet south?
Mr. Creech replied we do, the pond was preliminarily calculated to include the EMA building. The pond is sufficient and will be one large pond, with no divider. With two building, we will need two water services and the sanitary sewer will come across and be a main, because it will serve two buildings. We will need an easement all the way through. Joliet will own that sanitary main all the way to a manhole at the edge of the parking lot. We will work though that with the City of Joliet.
Mr. Tuminello stated there was discussion of picking smaller firms to come and handle the smaller projects. We will put together a Committee to make a CM decision moving forward on the Animal Control and EMA buildings.
Mr. Moustis stated what we will request of the Executive’s Office is to put an RFQ for CM services, for smaller firms. You can tell me what the number is; up to $10 million. One of the concerns Mr. Tuminello, Mr. Fricilone and others including colleagues on the Democratic side is smaller firms, minority firms and their participation. We are thinking one way to get that more local and minority participation is to qualify smaller firms to do smaller jobs. It could be up to $10 million, it could be remodeling jobs, or a building like the Animal Control in the area of $5 million. We would qualify them and have them on a list of qualified firms we could go to. I’m not sure how you would put together that RFQ. Certainly, we have to say we are looking for smaller firms. I am willing to discuss this further, even at the Executive Committee. If you could start thinking of an RFQ of that nature, it would be helpful.
Mr. Tkac stated the RFQ has been drafted and is ready to go. It is targeted at smaller firms. I used $5 to $7 million range in the body of the document. I could change the range to $0 to $10 million. We wanted to get that out as soon as possible. We have a very assertive schedule for this project.
Mrs. Tatroe added you do not need to go to County Board until you chose the vendor.
Mr. Moustis stated we may qualify several firms.
Mr. Tkac stated we will give you the direction to get it on the street. What is a good timeframe to put it on the street and bring it back? I would like to do something this month.
Mr. Tkac stated we can get it out this week. Ms. Weiss has penned a timeline with a selection in June. It is very assertive, but provides enough time for interested firms to get the document and respond.
Mr. Moustis asked Mr. Tkac to send copies to the Executive and Capital Committees and if anyone has comments they can bring it up at the Executive Committee.
3. Update from Health Department Team (Kluber)
(Discussion)
Mr. Tuminello stated we had a phenomenal kick off meeting with the Health Department, Kluber and the Executive's Office. It set the tone for how we will move forward in the future.
Mr. Chris Hanson stated we decided to meet as a group on the first and third Thursday of the month from 1:30 to 3:30. Our meetings will be held here on the first Thursday and at the Health Department on the third Thursday. At our last meeting the major overviews were to look at the goals and objectives previously established by the Health Department and planning team; to review the site planning concepts initially developed for additional input and we reviewed the various departmental areas. It was an eye opening experience for those that attended. There were quite a few areas where people did not grasp the magnitude of the project size. Based on that it was a fantastic initial meeting to kick off the project. Other logistical items discussed at that meeting; the soil boring for the site have been ordered and will be drilled tomorrow morning. We requested to engage Midwest Environmental Services to prepare a proposal for the environmental analysis of the existing Health Department building scheduled for demolition. When we do a demolition project that information is necessary and a report has not been filed previously. That proposal will be at the County by the end of the week for review, consideration and execution. In addition, HR Green has been on the site several times to perform to topographical survey and most of the work along the tree line was done before the trees leafed out. The speediness by which you made your decision helped the project. We talked about a high level overview of the proposed project schedule. We intend to complete the SD around June 18th. The overall goal and objective is to have the construction drawings completed in mid to late November with the intent to bid in January, 2019 to take advantage of the preferred bidding climate, with a Board award in February, 2019. Decisions are being made very timely and things are rolling along nicely. If we continue there is no reason we cannot hit those established deadlines. We have another meeting here on Thursday at 1:30 p.m. I understand one or two members of the Committee will be attending. The primary focus of that meeting is to begin looking at preliminary floor plan layouts we are developing and have further conversation on how that building will be sitting on the site as it relates to access to the site, about the site, through the site and connecting to the Community Health Center areas of the site.
Mr. Tuminello stated Mr. Fricilone and I will attend the first meeting in May and Ms. Winfrey to be at the second meeting.
Mr. Fricilone asked how many boring are we doing?
Mr. Hanson replied Wight & Company did a few borings and we are having 17 or 18 being performed at various locations at the site. The primary focus is in and around the building area. Fortunately, in the area we chose the building to be sited, some of those were done by Wight. The ones we are looking at now are primarily in pavement areas, areas near where the building will be demolished and the grade releveled for the future parking lot areas. We are taking a few in the wetland area east of the property, to see what the soil percolation rates are and to understand what type of soils we are dealing with and whether it is clean construction debris or not in those areas. All of that will be provided.
Mr. Fricilone stated this demo will be different from the demo at the Sheriff’s Department; do you have a transition plan for how we will get into the building, then it knock down and have a parking lot done?
Mr. Hanson replied we have talked very briefly about that. We understand a site logistics plan is critical and why I am thankful you are going to have a construction manager come on board in the next 30 to 45 days. The proximity of the current building to the new building does pose some interesting site flow logistics, but more importantly for the users, parking for the public will be somewhat limited. Keep in mind the large area we are building to the back of the building is where all the staff parks. We believe we can accommodate quite a few of the parking requirements, both near the Community Health Center as a portion of the existing lot is scheduled to remain. We will likely need to use some overflow on the ring road north of the property, by Sunny Hill and portions of the Sunny Hill Nursing Home parking lot to enable this project to move forward.
Mr. Tuminello stated knowing the age of the Health Department building and what could potentially be there in terms of asbestos, we want to know the remediation cost going into the project, so we will be prepared and not surprised at a later date.
Mr. Moustis stated I would ask the Committee to establish a demolition budget outside the construction budget. The remediation needed is an unknown. I am trying to keep the $25 million budget strictly to the Health Department brick and mortar and soft costs. I believe we should establish a budget. We were told demolition would be approximately $500,000.
Ms. Winfrey asked would that include abatement of asbestos.
Mr. Moustis replied no.
Mr. Tuminello stated the proper way is to establish a budget outside the construction budget, once we get the proposal on the cost? How long do you think it will be before we get the proposal back for the abatement and demolition?
Mr. Van Essen replied the full scope of the abatement is due this week.
Mr. Tuminello stated at the next meeting we should have a better understanding of the cost for demolition and abatement.
Mr. Hansen clarified they will need approximately 30 days to complete their testing onsite and have the report prepared. We will then have a better understanding of exactly what we are dealing with. I asked them to include an estimate for remediation and we will pass that information along to the CM as part of the budgeting process. It will be approximately 45 to 60 days before we have a final numbers.
Mr. Moustis stated we have discussed the CM a couple of times and how crucial it is to bring them on as quickly as possible. We do have qualified CMs that are on board and do not need to go through the entire process. I spoke with Mrs. Tatroe and asked if we could select from one of our current, qualified CM and she said it would be fine. I suggest we move forward. I have created an Interview Committee, most members are from the Capital Committee. I have selected: Mr. Tuminello, Mr. Fricilone, Mrs. Dollinger, Mr. Moran, Ms. Winfrey, Mr. Brooks and myself as voting members and Mr. Tkac as the Executive’s Office representative and Ms. Olenek from the Health Department as non-voting members. I am going to suggest we talk with Leopardo and Gilbane who are currently doing work for us. Both are capable companies and both can handle this job. These two will give us a good choice, one is a midsized company the other is a large sized company.
Discussion took place regarding a date for the interviews and the format of 20 minute presentation, 20 minute Q&A, 5 minute wrap up and time for second company to come in.
Mr. Moustis asked to have the decision of the Interview Committee placed on the Executive Committee agenda to move forward to the May County Board Meeting. The Resolution will give the County Executive’s Office the ability to negotiation. After that it will come back for approval.
V. Other Old Business
VI. New Business
1. Authorizing the County Executive to Convey Permanent Utility Easement on County Owned Property Located at 20 W. Washington Street, Joliet, Illinois to Commonwealth Edison Company for Placement of Electrical Equipment (Dave Tkac)
Result: Moved Forward [Unanimous]
To: Will County Board
Mover: Donald A. Moran, Member
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Moran, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher
VII. Other New Business
VIII. Public Comment
IX. Chairman's Report / Announcements
X. Executive Session
XI. Adjournment
1. Motion at Adjourn at 12:04 pm
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Vice Chair
Seconder: Donald A. Moran, Member
Ayes: Tuminello, Fricilone, Dollinger, Fritz, Moran, Parker, Rice, Winfrey
Absent: Maher
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=2972&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up