Will County Capital Improvements Committee met Feb. 2.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
II. CALL TO ORDER
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Van Duyne led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
IV. ROLL CALL
Chair Herbert Brooks Jr. called the meeting to order at 10:03 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Chair | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Julie Berkowicz | Member | Present | |
| Natalie Coleman | Member | Present | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present |
1. WC Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting - Jan 5, 2021 10:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
1. Update on 1300 Copperfield Ave. Project (Former Silver Cross Hospital Property) (Dave Tkac)
Mr. Tkac stated regarding this acquisition in talking with the State’s Attorney’s Office Mr. Wise; we had some requirements from the surveyor where we needed some utility easements more clearly marked on the final plat. I believe that is the only issue preventing us from us scheduling a closing date. I hope that we are able to still schedule that; possibly for this Friday. I have not heard back from Mr. Wise and when I do I will make everyone aware. I would like to mention that we did get together with all of the end users in the Copperfield Building. We are prepared to fine tune their requirements for each of the floors and with their respective spaces; we are ready to get going.
Mr. Brooks asked when we sign on these buildings beside the County Executive who else is present at the closing of these buildings.
Mr. Tkac replied the Attorney’s for the Seller; the Title Company and the Attorney’s for the Buyers. Things have changed who gets to attend; due to Covid.
Ms. Mueller asked if we are still on track as to who is moving into the building. Is the plan the same; has it changed at all. My understanding it will be the VAC, the CAC and storage for the Clerk’s Office.
Mr. Tkac replied that is still the primary plan; there is still some fine tuning that we have to do.
Ms. Berkowicz stated I am curious about entrances’ for this facility. I know in a prior meeting there was a discussion about security; the access coming and going. Will there be a seprate entrance for the Veterans.
Mr. Tkac advised the current plans call for a seprate entrance for the County Clerk; a general entrance for the Veterans Assistant Commission, and a secure and seprate entrance for the Child Advocacy Center; with a dedicated elevator for the CAC as well. There are two elevators one for general use the other will be exclusive to the CAC.
Mr. Brooks asked there will be one main entrance; and will they be split off to the other offices.
Mr. Tkac said there will be a main entrance; it will be the entrance that is there now. But there will be other means of ingress and egress. There are plans for an overhead door; for loading in and out; at grade for the County Clerk’s equipment. Additionally to the north of the main entrance there will be a seprate and exclusive entrance for the CAC; and anyone that is coming to utilize those services.
2. County Office Building Renovations
(Dave Tkac)
Mr. Tkac stated I am thankful to report that we are about 98% complete with phases I & II in the County Office Building renovations. I appreciate everybody’s understanding and cooperation as we muscle through those tasks. We have an ADA ramp to the County Board Room that remains; we ran into a problem with the railing. We hope to have that installation complete soon. That is one of the remaining items and there are some miscellaneous items that we have to take care of as well. As we are opening the building; all of the technology, the conference rooms, the AV equipment, and video conferencing capabilities are installed and are ready to roll. We look forward to having the Will County Capital Improvements and Members of the Will County Board; and for that matter all members of the public to return to this building in the very near future. Worth mentioning Phases III & IV the final phases; which include the new security improvements at the main entrance on the first floor; that will start after the April Election. We don’t want any interference with that; and the weather factor as well.
Ms. Fritz asked is there going to be a seprate line for employees with badges; so there is no delay.
Mr. Tkac stated the details haven’t been outlined in great detail yet. Generally speaking there will be a security check point for the public. I am sure we will have more ordinary arrangements for employees. That is the typical approach for all of our buildings.
VII. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion Re: Proposed Morgue Project
(Discussion)
Mr. Tkac stated there have been some discussions; I think there is consensus that the Morgue Project is needed by the County and as our population grows; so do our requirements along these lines. I think that there is support for the project; however I believe that the administration here is looking for an approval and a routing of the project first with funding approval through the Finance Committee. Then oversite itself by the Capital Improvements Committee. That is where we stand with regards to this project at the moment.
Mr. Brooks said so we need direction from this committee if we want to do an RFQ or RFP.
Mr. Tkac stated I think the first step this is needed; and if anybody else has a different point of view on this please speak up. I think that the first order of business would be an action by the Finance Committee to approve funding for the project. Once that occurs then it would fall upon the Capital Improvements Committee to make the decision.
Mr. Brooks replied I thought that we did that already. I thought that there was $7 million appropriated for this project.
Mr. Tkac stated I thought that approval came from the AD-Hoc Committee with the CARES. I don’t know that official action has been taken by the Finance Committee yet.
Mr. Fricilone stated yes Mr. Brooks the CARES Act Committee ear marked the money to go toward the morgue. I think that you should ask the Speaker to put this on your agenda for next month that we go maybe go out for an RFQ. We had talked about doing a design build. I know Wight had done some initial planning for us. But to just do an RFQ on a design build contract to move forward with it. They did some pulmonary plans already so we have an idea of what it would be and what it would cost. That is why the round number of $7 million was ear marked from the CARES Act Committee. That money is now in the County Budget so if Finance would approve the money; you would approve the building. We need to get those resolutions on for next month.
Mr. Palmer said just to dove tail on Mr. Fricilone comments, I think as he said that the Speaker can assign that to the appropriate committees; and we can take formal action through Finance. That is where the dollars are in the Counties Corporate Budget. I don’t believe that would preclude that Capital Improvements giving direction to precede with drafting the bid documents and get that going at the same time. I don’t think there is anybody strenuously objecting to this project so we know that funding is going to come formally. That would allow us to keep this project moving forward; because the documents are going to take some time to prepare and get them on the street.
Mr. Moustis stated I just want to point out that the committee has to decide before they do a RFQ or a RFP; on what form of construction that we want to do here. The committee did talk about doing a design build to streamline it; even though I haven’t supported that type of project. This project because it is a smaller size design build may work. I do think you might want to look at the method of construction. I think design build would work here; but I do think it is something we should decide.
Mr. Tkac stated I did get a smile on my face when Mr. Moustis talked about design build project delivery method because I know in past discussions that has not been a preferred method for him. I do believe that we have an opportunity to expedite this project; especially in the face of our current needs. I think that the size and the work that has been done thus far with the citing of the building at Laraway; and the initial floorplans. Which by the way have been produced and also reviewed by the Coroner. I think we are off to a good start for the basis for serious consideration for a design build project delivery method. I have no objections to that approach and hope other may feel the same way. I think we can get it done and we can expedite its completion. It is roughly a 10,000 square foot one story building. I think that some of the initial concepts have been developed and vetted and which is part of doing any project. We are ahead of the curve; I do have experience with design build project delivery method.
Ms. Berkowicz said I went over to take a look at the Coroners Facility tour. The facility is quite inadequate especially for their needs. It lacks a lot of the safety needs that County Staff should have there. I am very supportive of this project. Also if Mr. Tkac can give us a little bit of information of the design build project delivery method.
Ms. Traynere stated I just want to concur with what Ms. Berkowicz said. From soup to nuts it is absolutely deplorable. The employees have been doing a yeoman’s job under what I would consider very difficult circumstances.
Mr. Van Duyne said I was at the morgue and agree with what everyone has said about it. I was hoping that Mr. Tkac would explain what the design build is; for those of us that don’t understand it. Also how much time are we going to save on going this route; and I want to know if the committee thinks it’s a good idea not to send this project out to bid.
Ms. Mueller said I have similar questions and am interested in the design build because I want to expedite this for our staff and our residents. I am also interested in learning more about design build. If we did decide to design build does that mean that we are not going out for bid; I did not know that they go hand and hand.
Mr. Tkac stated the traditional approach to any given project would be design, bid and build. That is a conventional method and a traditional approach the design build method contains the same steps. But rather being done in these steps it is done simultaneously. The designer completes the building footprint; so the foundation is determined; maybe the rest of the building is still being worked on as far as what the components are going to be. In the mean time we know what we need for the foundation. This can be taken for any of the early trades; the time savings comes in when you are able to begin the work on that excavation and the poring of the concrete foundation. Together with the underground utilities and get rolling on that while the rest of the design work for the rest of the components continues. The question of billing still takes place; it is not done with respect to handing it off to somebody. You would have bid packages would go out as these various trade packages are complete; such as i.e. concrete, i.e. underground utilities, i.e. sight excavation. These would still go out for bid and there would still be a completive process by which trade contractors would compete. To sum it up the construction essentially would start when the design is at 100%. Knowing that whatever started would have to be coordinated and taken into consideration as the rest of the design work is expedited and complemented. It is not done in a vacuum and is a proven method to save time. I think that we would save a minimum of 90 days or more on time.
Mr. Moustis said I think you might want to mention that with design build there is also guaranteed pricing. Then you would know your maximum cost would be up front. That is generally an aspect of design build.
Mr. Tkac stated that is true they usually a guarantee maximum price that is developed in conjunction with the project; the contractor would have to hold to that. The only thing that would change that would be unforeseen conditions or owner changes that would occur during the construction phase.
Ms. Traynere said my only concern is they pour the concrete and we would have all of the electric and water in all of the appropriate places; given that they don’t have the rest of the design done. I understand the benefit and moving ahead; maybe I am worried about nothing. Secondly it seems like a small enough project that we could focus on a lot more minority contractor hire.
Ms. Berkowicz said thanks for that explanation and I think that it is the way to go. It appears to me we would be taking advantage of the upcoming spring construction season. That sounds like a great way to get this going and moving.
Ms. Mueller said I want to back up what Ms. Traynere said about minority contracting this is a good project to explore some of these ideas we have been talking about.
Mr. Tkac stated we always make our best efforts of participation level of minorities and women owned contractor in all of our projects. This project will be no exception; I understand the renewed interest in this. I think this project also lends itself to doing better than we have with respect projects. Which by the way have been around 30% with regard to our overall participation rates. This project is sized to be able to give some of the smaller trade contractors a shot at participating; I will work hard to that end. I also have one more comment we still have to go through a solicitation process to select the design build entity. To get to get the solicitation to get it out for review and responses; and for the Capital Committee to make a selection. That is still going to take some time; I don’t want anyone to have the misunderstanding that it is something that we will be able to have roll with in March. We are probably looking at the earliest of selection would be early May. Mr. Brooks asked if we need any kind of action in moving forward; are we talking about an RFP or do you need direction from this committee.
Mr. Brooks asked if we need any kind of action; are we talking about an RFP or do we need some direction form this committee.
Mr. Tkac stated if it pleased the committee; if a motion to proceed with a directing and releasing of a solicitation document pending the action by the Finance Committee would be a welcome event.
Ms. Fritz stated I have not heard in any of this discussion if the proposed morgue project; where would this morgue be sited; do we have land for it.
Mr. Brooks replied it is to the east of the Public Safety Complex.
| RESULT: APPROVED [7 TO 2]
MOVER: Julie Berkowicz, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Mueller, Parker, Traynere NAYS: VanDuyne, Gould |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair SECONDER: Julie Berkowicz, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Gould, Mueller, Parker ABSENT: Fritz, Traynere |
(Discussion)
Mr. Tkac stated I would like to take some time to talk about the report that was compiled; based upon an onsite review of four of our properties. The buildings included were the Department of Transportation, the County Office Building, and the Sunny Hill Nursing Home.
The Department of Transportation was built in the 60’s; part of the Farnsworth Group’s recommendations for improving air quality; are to maximize the amount of fresh air intake into the building environment. Based on recommendations we are looking at a way to do that. The engineering work is being done; and we expect it to be completed soon. The estimated cost associated with that improvement is going to be area of $25,000 to $30,000; we have that underway at DOT. With respect to the County Office Building we are at 100% fresh air intake; we try to maximize that in all or our buildings. The Farnsworth Group recommended the filtration process to step up to merv 13 filters; which do a more thorough job. We currently use those in all of our buildings since the onset of the pandemic. In our newer construction we do maximize our air very efficiently. At Sunny Hill we have some control issues that were highlighted in the report.
Mr. Fricilone stated this is another area that the CARES Act Committee earmarked funds; that is why the initial study was done by Farnsworth. We are very much in favor of this project.
Mr. Tkac stated we are proceeding with that based on the authorization per the CARES Act Committee.
Mr. Palmer stated on the advice of the State’s Attorney we probably need some formal action. Maybe by moving this to the Finance Committee as well. With the appropriation of dollars it would formalize it and give it direction. That way we would be transparent; we could recommend it to Executive and then assigned by the Speaker to Finance Committee for a resolution. I know the States Attorney said we needed resolutions that sighted statutory authority. It is now corporate money but it has coming out of the CARES fund; that way there is no question in the future where the money was directed to.
Mrs. Tatroe said Mr. Palmer is correct.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
Mr. Brooks asked Mr. Tkac to comment this item for the committee.
Mr. Tkac stated initially the 12th Circuit Court gave a request to the AD-Hoc CARES Act Committee to equip the new courthouse with additional video conferencing capabilities. Initially per the original design we included 15 of the 38 courtrooms. There was a separate request to equip the balance of those courtrooms with the same capability. In addition there was a request to move forward with work at the EMCO Building and at River Valley; then came the request which is before you at this time as described in item #3. This includes the capability for the capacity to not only introduce evidence; but also to record that introduction of evidence in any of the 38 courtrooms as a part of the permanent record.
Mr. Holland stated I am the Trial County Administrator; I work for Chief Judge Kennedy at the Will County Courthouse. The initial request came from Court Reporters. Much of what we are doing now is done through video conferencing. This item doesn’t require installing any more video cameras; what it does is allow for additional audio/video feed to go from those courtrooms and be sent directly to the State video recommendation system. This would lessen to a great extent the need to have Court Reporters present; and in addition it allows us to record evidence that is place on the audio/visual equipment in those courtrooms. This was not contemplated in the original request for video conferencing; but it is something that the Court Reporters and the Chief Judge have requested. It is a timesaver and make for a much cleaner and better record.
Mr. Brooks asked it would also apply to item #4 for the Juvenile Courts as well.
Mr. Holland stated #4 is a little different; it is the adding of video conferencing capabilities in two buildings; in which we have no video capacity right now.
Mr. Moustis asked Mr. Tkac if we have totally closed out the Courthouse Project; if there is some funding left and we haven’t closed things out can’t we just make this part of the project now; and attach a change order to the current contract.
Mr. Tkac stated well said and good point; that’s exactly what we are proposing to do. However, it is my intention to have Capital funds left over from this project. You can also note the working of the resolution before you; we are seeking reimbursement from CARES Funds to the project. We are treating them as change orders to the project; we do respectively seek reimbursement from those CARES Funds.
Mr. Moustis stated I would not necessarily support this; you have the money that we allocated for the courthouse. When you have the funds in the Courthouse Project to make a change order and go forward with the Capital Committee approving the change order. I think that is the way to go; it streamlines it and you have the funds. You may say I want to use some other funds for this; in my opinion that is not the appropriate approach courthouse. I do think on the other projects; that is not part of the courthouse project and CARES Funds can be considered there. You do have the money for the Courthouse and you proceed with it. I am not on this committee; but I would hope that the committee would support; because that is the one that makes sense. That is what we appropriated part of the money for.
A motion was made by Mr. Van Duyne, second by Ms. Mueller, to authorize expenditure of construction contingency funds for additional video capacity in 38 courtrooms for evidence introduction and recordation. MOTION CARRIES.
Mr. Moustis said what you are basically saying is you are going to use CARES Money. I am going to point out you don’t need to do anything. You can just bring back the change order and approve it; they already have the funding. I don’t think approving #3 and then go back to the Finance Committee; you can’t be assured they are going to use the CARES money. I think Mr. Tkac should bring back a change order and let the committee decide. You already have the money in the Courthouse Budget to approve this; and that is how you should approve this. Be very cautious about approving what you just put out there. They can move forward tomorrow if they want to. They are just trying to get additional funding.
Ms. Traynere stated my comment is ditto; I agree with Mr. Moustis.
Mr. Fricilone stated we need to amend the motion and take out the wording of CARES Act. The resolution has in there that you are using CARES Act Funding to do this.
Mr. Brooks stated so we need to amend the motion; and take out the CARES Act; and then pass the motion without the Cares Act.
Mr. Van Duyne rescinded the motion.
Ms. Mueller rescinded the second.
Ms. Berkowicz said I listened to Mr. Moustis and I agree; I want to make sure we do this the proper way. So we withdraw the motion and then proceed with a new motion and take Mrs. Tatroe guidance.
Mrs. Tatroe said I think you are proceeding correctly; the other issue is under the CARES Act if the money is budgeted; you cannot use CARES Money. You are right on target; if it is already in the budget for the courthouse; you are right on target with moving forward with a change order.
Mrs. Adams asked Mr. Tkac do you still need an authorization to use the contingency funds or is that something.
Mr. Tkac stated I do and I think I understand the intent of the committee and the legal opinion put forth. Because of the amount of this expenditure in item #3 I do still need that authorization to precede with the use of that Construction Contingency Funds.
Mrs. Adams asked Mrs. Tatroe if we do have them approve it and then amend the resolution to remove that WHEREAS that states that it would be therefore it be resolved that the CARES Funding would reimburse it.
Mrs. Tatroe stated yes.
A motion was made by Ms. Traynere, second by Mr. Gould, to authorize expenditure of construction contingency funds for additional video capacity in 38 courtrooms for evidence introduction and recordation. All in favor. MOTION CARRIES.
A motion was made by Mrs. Traynere, second by Ms. Mueller, to amend the resolution by removing the language that the expenditure will be reimbursed from CARES funds. All in favor. MOTION CARRIES.
A motion was made by Ms. Traynere, second by Ms. Parker, to approve the resolution, as amended. All in favor. MOTION CARRIES.
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Annette Parker, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
Mr. Moustis asked if we have four courtrooms over there.
Mr. Holland replied at River Valley we only have two; at the annex we will have five going forward. It will be a total of seven.
Mr. Moustis asked if both rooms are used for juveniles; or is one used for probate.
Mr. Holland stated Judge Gomora primarily handles the juvenile call in one of the courtrooms. The other courtrooms are mostly probate work and some juvenile.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Julie Berkowicz, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Donald Gould, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Donald Gould, Member SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Julie Berkowicz, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Donald Gould, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Annette Parker, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Parker, Traynere |
X. PUBLIC COMMENT
XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn @ 11:16 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Gould, Mueller, Parker ABSENT: Traynere |
Alerts Sign-up