Will County Capital Improvements Committee met Feb. 5.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Herbert Brooks Jr. called the meeting to order at 11:25 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Chair | Present |
| Donald A. Moran | Vice Chair | Present |
| Mark Ferry | Member | Present |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Present |
| Amanda Koch | Member | Present |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present |
| Ray Tuminello | Member | Present |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: P. Mock.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Marcum led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting - Jan 3, 2019 10:15 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member
SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Update from Courthouse Delivery Teams (Wight, Gilbane & Farnsworth)
(Discussion)
Mr. David Laramie reviewed the attached Project Status February 2, 2019.
A brief discussion took place regarding the contingency for the millwork.
Mr. Van Essen explained it is for paneling in the vestibule area before the courtrooms.
Mr. Fricilone asked have there been any challenges?
Mr. Laramie replied the building is not 100% enclosed and it presents challenges as we fight snow, ice, wind and rain. The glazing has been a challenge, but we are working through those issues. We did not work on Wednesday or Thursday last week due to the excessive cold.
Gilbane Project Status February 5, 2019
(Handout)
2. Discussion of Wight Master Plan Update
(Jason Dwyer)
Mr. Dwyer reviewed the attached PowerPoint presentation of the Master Plan.
Ms. Ventura asked will the State’s Attorney’s Office be in the new courthouse?
Mr. Dwyer answered the State’s Attorney will have a satellite office in the new courthouse. Their primary offices will remain at the EMCO Building. The Court Annex, currently in the EMCO will be moving into the new courthouse; along with the Grand Jury, Court Administration and the alternative dispute resolution space. The plan is to allow the State’s Attorney’s to expand, as their needs grow, in the EMCO Building.
Mr. Moustis stated you mentioned an updated version of Records Management; should we be doing the same thing in this building? Are there things that could be done in this building to utilize the space better? Should we take a look to see what could be done here? The SOA and Treasurer take up a lot of space, how much do they need? Could we reconfigure those spaces?
Mr. Dwyer responded some of the offices in this building are a little oversized, while others are undersized. Much of that comes down to timing. We have been looking at a long term plan to address your needs. We talked about a consolidated office building at the current courthouse location. As you think about timing and the ability to do a project like that, when could it happen? There might be some short term things done in this building to address the short term needs and make better efficiencies here. You will need to decide, when you look at funding, how viable is a consolidated office building. If you think it will be many years out, then it is appropriate to look at the space within this building.
Mr. Moustis stated when we started, I believed we would be able to do a new administrative building, but now based on the finances, it would be at a minimum 10 years when some of the bonding runs off. The functions in the County Clerk’s Office will continue to grow with the population. Many offices have been modernized and don’t need as many employees because of technology. This building will be it for at least 10 years and to me that is not short term. If we can utilize the space better or reallocate the space better for those that will need more space we should take a look at it.
Mr. Fricilone stated I think we should do a study on this building now. If we are going to move some offices into smaller spaces, we should look at other things. The REO has to be somewhere else next year. They have 4,000 sq. ft. but maybe they only need 2,500 sq. ft. Maybe we have 2,500 sq. ft. if we rearrange things in this building or use some of the lobby space.
Mr. Brooks agreed.
Ms. Ventura stated if you are going to look at this building, I would suggest you look at the Recorder of Deeds office. How much of their office storage could be digitized and save space.
Mr. Moustis stated the Recorder has been using technology very well for a while.
Mr. Van Essen stated we have been doing a focused effort to do that. We know some records have to be maintained for a period of time, some even forever. Mr. Thompson gave a report last year on the deficiencies he has at Record’s Management.
Mr. Moustis stated it would be nice to know the structural limitations of this building. Could we expand over the roof to create more space? Could we expand the foyer areas on both floors?
Presentation Master Plan Update
(Presentation)
3. Update on Animal Control Facility and EMA Building
(Discussion)
Mr. Shawn Thompson reviewed the attached Project Progress Report, February 5, 2019.
Harbour Proposed Budget for Animal Control/EMA Facility
(Information)
Harbour Project Progress Report February 5, 2019
(Handout)
3. Update from Health Department Team (Kluber)
(Discussion)
Ms. Nicole McElroy reviewed the Monthly Report, February 5, 2019. The TAB was removed from the mechanical subcontractor and will be given to Farnsworth, who has sent a contract to their TAB contractor. It will be a third party, under Farnsworth. We submitted our final contract to be approved at this meeting. The groundbreaking will be today at 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Van Essen reviewed the budget information attached to the agenda. Overall
4. the budget for the whole project is $32 million. Leopardo’s cost for construction only at $25.4 million includes site, demo and destruction. We have been driving down the cost during the entire process. It helped with the pricing to do the bidding in the fall.
Mr. Fricilone asked is the $32 million an all in cost, including FF&E?
Mr. Van Essen replied yes, everything.
Mr. Fricilone stated we have an overall contingency of 10.5%, why is it so high?
Mr. Van Essen answered 10% is used in the industry; we allotted 8% of the 10.5% to be part of the contract with Leopardo for design changes or unforeseen adjustments. The other 2.5% is soft costs, which includes furniture and abatement.
Mr. Fricilone stated I thought the overall contingency for the courthouse was $9.6 million and that is 4%. Why is this so much higher? We have $9.6 million contingency on a $215 million building and this is only $32 million.
Mr. Moustis stated site work was a consideration in the contingency due to the amount of rock in the area.
Mr. Van Essen stated I have always used 10% for construction projects throughout my career. It does not mean you will spend the money, it is a contingency. Anything not spent will come back.
Mr. Fricilone stated my concern is we are bonding out over $12 million for contingency.
Mr. Moustis stated the intent is not to use it for other projects.
Ms. McElroy stated some of this is outside of the Leopardo funds. I don’t know what the 4% for the courthouse entails. Contingencies are made up of three things; construction, in this case Leopardo; owner, the County and design, Kluber. On the Public Safety Complex there was a 7% construction contingency. For this particular project the contingency is 5%, just for construction. It is a Leopardo construction line item. Then you have owner contingency. During the control estimate, the overall project had a design contingency and owner contingency on the soft costs. Those are things Leopardo has no control over, but they are going to happen, just because of the nature. When we put our control estimate together to get the final number, instead of having the 1% below the line, we moved it above. The 1% for design was always in there, it was moved above so during construction if there were changes, it was part of the fund. Nothing has changed, it is more of where they land in the fund above the line or below the line.
Typically, there is a percent contingency for the owner on soft costs and construction. It depends on how you like to see it. If it is below, every single time there is a change we have to come back to you; even if you are shifting only $1,000 and it will slow down the process. When it is above, I still have to get approval from Mr. Van Essen or Mr. Tkac, but it does not slow down the project for that type of cost. On this project, there are no savings, so any dime not spent goes to that. Not every project warrants this, but it is the most responsible thing to do.
Mr. Tuminello stated the Committee voted on a set of rules it guides itself by; Mr. Van Essen and Mr. Tkac have up to a certain threshold and they don’t have to come back to the Committee. We are not looking to have every single change order come to the Committee. The Chair can approve up a certain amount. It is only when it hits a certain threshold it comes back to the Committee. We are rarely bothered by the contingencies. I would like to continue to have the Committee notified when it reaches the threshold for Committee approval, to allow the Committee to have oversight.
Ms. McElroy stated I believe the threshold for it to come back to the Committee is $20,000. A $1,000 cost does not come to the Committee, but you are changing the contract every single time, meaning, if it is built in you are not changing the overall contract every single time; it is more like allocating funds. It is an easier process; you give $20 million and then every time the number increases you allocate the funds in this particular realm. We didn’t do this on the Public Safety Complex. GMP or no GMP it makes no difference, we did that so it was easy to allocate the funds. It still came to you when something was over $20,000. Nothing has changed; Mr. Van Essen and Mr. Tkac review every penny we spend, even on construction. Nothing has changed, it is a less stressful way to do something. They still have to sign off on anything I do, no matter what it is.
Mr. Tuminello asked even if you take money from contingency you have to change contracts.
Ms. McElroy replied when you put it below the line every single time it changes. That is why it becomes a headache. It is the owner contingency and the design contingency when you put it below you are literally changing our contract every time because it is not physically in the approve funds.
Mr. Tuminello asked how often do we use an owner’s contingency versus the construction contingency?
Ms. McElroy responded a lot. It is not because an owner has made a change or added something new; we are not perfect and during the construction you may realize you need an extra door and you cannot plan for every single scenario; so it does happen a lot. Usually, the cost is minimal.
Mr. Moustis stated at the Public Safety Complex, we did change things, we had alternates. The contingency was not always used for something unforeseen. Later in the project, the contingency was being used to accept alternates based on the fact we had a contingency. There is a real distinction you need to make. We spend money on the project alternates that were needed. We did it because there was a contingency.
Mr. Moran stated an example of the owner’s use of contingency at the courthouse was sump pumps. After the original sump pumps were submitted we found a local, Will County manufacturer and the maintenance they proposed for their pumps would require a lot less operator costs going forward than using the original bidder. We spent more money on the front end, but will save money down the road.
Mr. Fricilone stated I have no problem with how we are paying it out. It seems we have a lot of contingency sitting there that we are bonding for. We have $3.2 million; if we use $1 million then we have $2.2 million and then we have $9.6 million on the courthouse. We could have $10 million we are bonding for and paying interest on and we may not need it.
Leopardo Proposed Health Department Project Cost
(Information)
Kluber / Leopardo Monthly Report - February 5, 2019
(Handout)
V. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Awarding Contract to Alliance Fencing Corporation, for fencing at the Will County Animal Control/EMA Complex
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
2. Awarding Contract to Douglas Coleman Home Solutions, for Window Treatments at the Will County Animal Control/EMA Complex
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member
SECONDER: Ray Tuminello, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
3. Approval for Use of Construction Contingency Funds for Added Scope to Courtroom Millwork
Mr. Tuminello stated this is for the materials only. Will there be a second one for installation?
Mr. Van Essen replied yes, this is for materials only. Due to the extensive lead time, this needs to be approved as soon as possible.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
4. Authorizing Payment to Gilbane Building Company for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
5. Authorizing Payment to ComEd for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
6. Authorizing Payment to Farnsworth Group for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
7. Authorizing Payment to Wight & Company for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
8. Authorizing Payment to Kluber Architects & Engineers for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
9. Authorizing Payment to Leopardo Companies Inc., for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
10. Authorizing Payment to AT&T for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
11. Authorizing Payment to Wight & Company for the Will County Animal Control Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
12. Authorizing Payment to Harbour Contractors Inc., for the Will County Animal Control Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
13. Authorizing Payment to Harbour Contractors Inc., for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
14. Authorizing Payment to Wight & Company for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
15. Authorizing Payment to Hey and Associates Inc., for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
VII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Van Essen reminded everyone of the groundbreaking at the Health Department today at 1:00 p.m.
IX. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT / ANNOUNCEMENTS
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XI. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 12:20 PM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: Brooks Jr., Moran, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Marcum, Tuminello, VanDuyne, Ventura
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3168&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up