Will County Capital Improvements Committee met June 1.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Berkowicz led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Herbert Brooks Jr. called the meeting to order at 10:02 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Chair | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Julie Berkowicz | Member | Present | |
| Natalie Coleman | Member | Absent | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Absent | |
| Meta Mueller | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present |
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting - May 4, 2021 10:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Mueller, Parker, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Gould |
1. RNG Facility Construction Update/Financial Summary
(Christina Snitko)
Ms. Snitko reviewed the Memorandum that was provided in the agenda with regards to the RNG Monthly Report Update (RNG Plant & Pipeline).
Ms. Berkowicz stated you said there would be a cost savings with the new company. Do you have a comparison of that so you can share it with us?
Ms. Snitko stated I have an Excel sheet; I also did send to Mrs. Adams all of the quotes from all of the cameras so you have that information. If you scroll through the memo; I did include the construction and labor costs by Harbour. From Earth Cam the total sum with the installation and the camera; also to install the 4G for the Wi-Fi service that was about $18,000. True Look for the camera itself is $8,000 but with the labor cost from Harbour Construction would be about $10,000; that is also $18,000. The iBEAM camera is $7,000 and if you add the $10,000 for the labor cost that is $17,000. That is why I mentioned it was the cheapest option.
Ms. Mueller said in order to move forward with this camera; do we need to make a motion to do that?
Mr. Brooks stated I do have other questions so hold that thought.
Mr. Fricilone said thank you Mr. Brooks; I was a big proponent of having cameras both on the Sheriffs Complex and the Will County Courthouse. That way we could see the progress of the construction of two buildings; that were very important to all of the citizens. In light of some of the costs that we have been incurring, and the overage that we still haven’t figured out; I am wondering if we really need a camera on this building. It is a utilitarian building it’s not 12 floors of courthouse with glass, and all shiny. It is basically a square building with a bunch of pipes inside. Who is going to be watching these cameras all day; to see this exciting utilitarian square building go up?
Mr. Brooks said I know we had a lot of conversation about this; Ms. Snitko do you want to comment on this.
Ms. Snitko stated my Director Dave Hartke and I would have sole access to camera; however we would make it available to the public as well.
Mr. Fricilone stated that was for the public; that was the idea of doing that. What
is our idea on this one; just so you can look at it throughout the day? Ms. Snitko said this would also be for the public.
Mr. Fricilone said let’s forget the public for a second; what is the reason that we are installing this camera.
Ms. Snitko stated there was interest to have a construction camera. In the past the cameras on the courthouse and the Public Safety Complex were rented; because they were rented we don’t own a camera. That is why I was looking for a different option or alternative that we could have.
Mr. Fricilone said I understand but my point is we put those on for a specific reason; to really see the progress. Especially the Will County Courthouse; a major building being built in Downtown Joliet. This was so all of the public could see this building that they all would be able to access eventually; no one from the public is going to be accessing the RNG Facility. It is utilitarian; more or less a manufacturing building. I really don’t see the need for us to spend any money on a camera.
Mr. Van Duyne said Mr. Fricilone you brought up a good point that I never considered before; so thank you for that. Ms. Snitko my comment is I just wanted to thank you for researching this camera situation; and also addressing my concern about hiring a prevailing wage contractor. Thank you; it seems like we may be able to hire a contractor here in Will County.
Ms. Fritz said I would like to offer my apologies to everyone; I brought up the camera. I see Mr. Fricilone’s point entirely and I had no idea what the cost was; I didn’t know that we didn’t own a camera. I thought we were just going to be re installing a camera that we had from a previous project. That was my lack of knowledge on the subject. I think it might not be a bad idea for us to own a camera. This might not be a bad project to roll it into; eventually this project will make money; so you can look at it as an investment. It is a little more expensive than I thought it was going to be. In the grand scheme of things it is not a huge amount of money; I just want to apologize to anyone who thinks this is an extraneous cost; I had no idea.
Ms. Berkowicz stated I understand the reason to question the need for the public to be able to survey the construction. However, I do think that security is something to keep the construction site and the project secure. This is something we need to consider especially with the things you see happening nationwide. This is a critical project for our County; it’s a huge investment; that is why I support having a camera. We know that contractors and builders; whether it be housing projects or whatever are experiencing issues and theft on job sites. I think this is a huge project and that is why I would consider a camera. If this is too expensive; is there a way to reduce the cost? We know that people are stealing precious metals and materials; I would imagine that there could be some temptation with this project. I would hate to have this tossed out without some additional thought and conversation.
Mr. Brooks stated a video camera to me is something I would rather have and not need; then need and not have. I am in beautiful downtown Joliet right now; I can pull up my office and look at my parking lot; I can look all around my building with twelve cameras. I would rather have the comfort of knowing that I have the ability if something does occur. I agree maybe we can look at something less expensive; but I think it is best if we own these cameras and we can use them again if possible at another facility.
Mr. Fricilone said this is at the Waste Management site; they have some kind of security there don’t they? They just don’t let people wander into their site at night; do they?
Ms. Sintko said no, the site has a gate and the operational hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Fricilone asked if they have any other security there.
Ms. Sintko replied I do not believe that they have any security cameras on the site.
Mr. Olsen said there is the security camera at the scale house; where you come in. They capture the license plate when you go across the scale. Ms. Snitko is right there are two gates the second one is by South Arsenal Rd.; I don’t know if it is locked all the time. There is only one camera; but it is not on the RNG Plant. The only security that I know of is a Forest Service Security firm that drives around; that is on their property which is adjacent this property.
Mr. Fricilone asked if we have access to the camera that Waste Management uses for the scales.
Mr. Olsen replied I’ve never accessed it; I have never had a situation where we would. But I am sure we could.
Mr. Fricilone asked if that camera is close enough that we could maybe add a second camera there.
Mr. Olsen said I would have to ask them; it is over by the scale house where you first come in.
Mr. Fricilone asked do you have to pass the scale house camera to get to the RNG Plant.
Mr. Olsen said if you are going to come in you’re not going across the scale. You are going to go on the road next to it; which is a bypass road.
Mr. Fricilone said has anybody talked to Waste Management about what they think about security at the site.
Mr. Olsen said I talked to them about this camera; and they are definitely fine with it. Beyond the security of the site; specifically no.
Mr. Fricilone stated I assume that they would be fine with it; but I think we should ask them if they feel there is a security issue. If they felt there was a security issue with the RNG Plant; there would be a security issue with their building as well. If they are comfortable that no one is going to get to their building; they are probably not going to get into our building.
Mr. Olsen said probably; I can’t say for sure. I guess what I don’t really know is I’ve never built an RNG Plant; so I don’t know. There is a lot of equipment worth millions of dollars that is going to start showing up at the end of the summer.
Mr. Fricilone asked isn’t the contractor providing security; to protect the materials that they are bringing in.
Mr. Olsen said Chris Kozak is on the meeting; I don’t recall him arranging any specific security for the RNG Plant project.
Mr. Fricilone said he might be providing security for the materials that they are buying.
Mr. Olsen said SCS Energy is buying the material, and Harbour is installing it. SCS Energy is in California and Harbour is located here; they are two different entities.
Mr. Fricilone asked what you mean by they are in California; they are going to be working on the site. We need to ask them if they are providing security for the materials that they are bringing in.
Mr. Olsen stated SCS Energy; I don’t know. Harbour is the one you need to ask; they are the company on-site; they are the ones that were hired. They specifically are the only ones that are building the plant; that was part of the contract. They are the one’s doing prevailing wage; it is a long explanation about that; I don’t want to get into it. That is why Harbour is building this facility.
Mr. Brooks said just to interrupt this conversation; I think it is good conversation but it is incumbent upon us whether or not we want a camera out there for our own protection. What Harbour and what Waste Management do; that is on them.
What we are talking about with this project is what we want to have; and whether we need it or not. There are some non-committee members that have had their hands up; I would like to call on them and bring them into the conversation.
Mrs. Ogalla stated my questions are pretty much in line with Mr. Fricilone. The RNG Plant will be built within the current facility. Is that fenced in or wide open? What type of fencing exists there today?
Ms. Snitko said it has a gate because trucks go in and out of the facility. There is a road that leads up to the plant; then there is a gate that is open during business hours. It gets locked after hours. No one can have access to the building. There is a fence within the boundary of the landfill; it is a six foot chain link fence.
Ms. Ogalla asked if there was barbwire on top.
Mr. Olsen said in a few spots there might be; but generally speaking it is mostly a chain link fence.
Ms. Ogalla said I knew that there was a fence around it; I wasn’t sure what type of fence. I assume most people don’t want to go into a garbage dump and play around. I know that the road access is only up front and that does get locked. I understand Mr. Fricilone’s concerns about spending money on something like this; when we are running into some money issues with other projects; we need to be concerned about whether or not that is a problem. I think where this location is it would take quite a great effort to scale a fence. You are not getting in and out of the roads because they have a gate that is locked. I wonder if this would be something we should worry about. No one else is really going to be in that area besides the people building this plant.
Ms. Berkowicz said I was looking at the agenda and I didn’t see the information on the cost for the systems. On the agenda there is number one and then you go to letter A; I see eight pages and I don’t see anything else. You mention it was in the meeting materials.
Ms. Snitko state I will check with Mrs. Adams; if it is not attached I will make sure you have that information.
Ms. Berkowicz stated Mr. Brooks there are obviously some people that support securing the facility with more than a locked gate; or maybe it’s just me. Then there are obviously several people who may or may not be on the committee who don’t support it. So where do we go from here?
Mr. Palmer stated I am seeing the agenda on line and Ms. Snitko’s memorandum is on there and below it there are bullets that have the individual quotes that she was referring to. It is posted on the agenda. It is under old business under RNG Construction.
Ms. Ceci stated I have the agenda in front of me; there is Ms. Snitko’s Memorandum; the pages that follow have the EarthCam.net information. Then there is the True Look quote; as well as the iBEAM quote. All of that information is attached to the agenda.
Mr. Brooks stated earlier Ms. Mueller did entertained a motion for the cameras. Was that motion to what Ms. Ceci just shared with us that we already have attached?
Mrs. Tatroe stated you are just moving it on to the Executive Committee agenda; then they can vote to move it on to the full County Board. Final action will take place at County Board.
Ms. Mueller stated I make a motion we move this to the Executive Committee. Seconded by Ms. Berkowicz.
Ms. Snitko stated I would like to clarify do you want to make the motion to move iBEAM as the construction camera to the Executive Committee.
Ms. Mueller replied the one that does prevailing wages.
Ms. Berkowicz said since there is a concern with some members on the cost; Ms. Snitko mentioned there may be a way to reduce this cost. Should we give her the opportunity to come back with a lower proposal before we forward it? I hate to complicate things but I realize that there is that concern.
Ms. Snitko replied I can inquire and see if we can lower the cost on that.
Ms. Berkowicz replied maybe we should give it a little more time to see if we can reduce the expense for the benefit of the County Board.
Mr. Brooks stated when it goes to the Executive Committee; it still has to go to the full County Board. Would that give you enough time to see if the cost could be reduced?
Ms. Snitko replied that would be enough time.
| RESULT: REFERRED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/10/2021 10:00 AM
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Julie Berkowicz, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Mueller, Parker, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Gould |
(County Executive's Office)
Mr. Tkac stated we are proceeding with Phase III of the County Office Building renovations. Today the new floor slab which essentially defines the new building entrance is moving forward. We did lose a little bit of time due to weather; but we hope to make that up. I am not sure at this juncture whether we will finish as scheduled on the 16th but we will be very close. I would like to thank everybody in this building for their patience. It has been disruptive at times and we apologize. We are beyond that major disruption and now on the road to finishing things up. I think you will like what you see.
Mr. Fricilone said I thought that Capital Improvements Committee would like to have a continuing spread sheet on these projects; to see what has been paid and how much we owe; also if there are any additions. We have talked about this after the courthouse scenario; I think it is good policy. It is up to the Capital Committee if you want that; I would sure like to see it.
Mr. Brooks said Mr. Tkac we talked about that; we need to be proactive in light of what has been happening.
Mr. Tkac stated that is something that we can and will do. I think there are efforts underway to provide that information. I also believe it will be forth coming in the near future. I don’t have an exact date for any of that information; I can tell you that we are working very diligently on that.
Mr. Balich said I would like to give a follow up to what Mr. Fricilone said. I still don’t know or haven’t heard anything about the missing money from the bonding and the $6 million. Now we are talking about buying cameras and spending more money. We don’t even know what we have to spend anymore because of all the money that is missing. It is driving me nuts that we have a Finance Committee Meeting and it is not even being discussed. Is there any idea where the money is; is there any idea why it wasn’t moved forward to the Board; aren’t we supposed to audit the bills? I am going to be voting no to any kind of spending until we know where that money is. This should be a priority; we are in deep trouble here when we can’t account for that much money. You are going to hear about this in every meeting from me until we start getting updates.
Mr. Brooks stated we will get an update; it is coming. Mr. Tkac would you like to comment on that now? I know it is not on the agenda; but I do know an update is coming.
Mr. Tkac said the report that I think everyone is interested in seeing is being compiled. We are working on it and will be prepared to present it in the very near future. That is all I can say.
Ms. Berkowicz said my concern is that the last couple of years everything was on track. The money was there and like the others said all of a sudden we are $6 million over budget for this project. I really think that the County Board needs a firm date as to when you can get this report to us so we can figure out what happened. Are we really $6 million in the hole; and how did this happen literally overnight. We need a time table and it needs to be quick. This is an issue that does put a hold literally on everything moving forward. That is why I am asking you when we can expect that. We need to be prepared to be able to address whatever that report shows us. Perhaps a forensic audit is really the way to go. It would take the pressure off of staff and have it done quickly and independently. I would like us to be able to determine here at this time what the status of this situation is. It does put a shadow on all of the projects we are talking about. Can we have some feedback regarding this and actually getting some comments addressing it?
Mr. Brooks stated I will come back to Mr. Tkac; he has already commented; I have several hands go up. I have a feeling this question is going to come up again. I will take some other comments.
Mr. Moustis stated first let me say there is not money missing; it has been suggested that there is a $6 million in over runs; over the $275 million bond issue. I don’t understand and will bring this up at the Finance Committee. We had a $275 million bond issuance for the Sheriff’s Department, the Health Department and the Will County Courthouse. I am now hearing that it may not be the courthouse; it is all the projects; and they haven’t determined specifically where. There was supposed to be a $15 million cash reserve towards those projects; for a total of $290 million total budget for those three projects. I don’t know if the projects ran over $290 to $296 million. Or if it went from $275 million to $281 million; for sure it wasn’t all from the courthouse. Here is my concern; every one of these projects is bid. The Capital Improvements Committee approved all of bids for those projects; at that point the budget was set. We know how much we were going to spend. There is a contingency for change orders; every project had a significant change order budget. But those change orders have to come back to the Capital Improvements Committee. It appears to me there may have been some expenditures or overages that were not brought to the Capital Improvements Committee. When you add up the budget and all of the change orders that were approved; that’s what the Capital Improvements Committee approved. If you went over that; it was unauthorized; to me it is that simple. We need to get to the bottom of this. You need to tell us exactly on all three projects what was budgeted, what the change orders were, and what the total final budget was. In very case with maybe the exception of the Health Department we were advised that we were coming under budget. I would also like to know did we have a total of all the projects at $290 million or $275 million. The $290 million would be including the $15 million in cash reserve that we were going to use for the projects. I am just putting this out there so Mr. Tkac can answer these questions.
Mrs. Ogalla said it is a great concern to me that we are looking at spending more money when we are $6 million over budget on whatever project it is. In my private life I have been a project manager in IT for over 25 years. Here’s the thing; I always knew exactly where I was on every project, I knew which line item on the project was over, and what I had budgeted. I can’t believe that we don’t know this information. I can’t believe that information isn’t available for us today. I am surprised it isn’t a line item on this particular committee; and it’s not a line item on the Finance Committee. As Ms. Berkowicz said; we need to know a time we can’t just say that information is coming in the near future. What happens while our staff; our paid employees go about their business every day. The rest of us have jobs and responsibilities outside of being County Board Members. Sometimes that information might slip our minds. Then we find that we never discussed it. It should be a line item on somebody's agenda so that it gets addressed. Maybe it is on the Executive Committee agenda; I didn’t look at that yet. Every project that we have; both current and new projects that we are talking about; we should know what the estimated budget is; and the current expenses that we have paid so far. In addition to talking about these three particular projects. I know the ERP Project that is still ongoing; I haven’t gotten an update from the ICT Department. I haven’t heard anything about that; I know they went over budget on that as well. Everything we are doing is going over budget; I don’t know how we’re going to pay for all of these over budget projects. We are going to hit a wall here; it is of great concern to me because I think that our taxpayers deserve to have us doing the best job that we can. I hope we can get a definitive answer as to when that will be available; and that somebody in Leadership will make sure it gets on an agenda in the very near future.
Mr. Tkac stated I would just like to say that a complete accounting; and the actual expenditures for each of the projects is a very important subject. It is also one that we are working very diligently on in terms of summarizing that information; and presenting it to you. However, we want to make sure this information is complete and that it is accurate. That is why it is taking as much time as it is. I do believe that within the next several weeks we will be sitting down and we will be presenting this information. I think that will satisfy a lot of the questions that everyone currently has.
Mr. Moustis asked if that money has already been spent; have we paid off the $6 million.
Mr. Tkac stated it’s been acknowledged that maybe a portion of it has been; but not the full $6 million.
Speaker Cowan said I just wanted to assure everyone that Mr. Palmer has been in frequent communication with the Executive’s Office about this report. Asking when we are going to get it; how it is coming alone; he is definitely staying on top of this. As soon as the Executive’s Office can provide it to us; it will be on the next available agenda absolutely no matter what.
Ms. Berkowicz stated I just wanted to clarify that when I previously indicated that money was missing; I was referring to the unaccounted expenses that created the issue of spending over what was budgeted. That is what I intended on saying. I have a question for Mr. Tkac; out of all of these projects there is a contingency fund which is in the budget. Perhaps you can fill me in if I don’t understand the purpose of that; I believe that fund is to cover expenses that run over or are unexpected. I always viewed that fund as a guideline to the builder that these are your limits. If that is the truth then how did this happen.
Mr. Tkac stated what I would like to say is that while everything that you just said is factually accurate; I think that it makes sense to wait till the report is made available. I think we can look at it within that context; and look at the projects individually and together as well.
Mrs. Ogalla said when I worked on projects our detailed information was in the project management software. What type of software is being used for these projects?
Mr. Tkac replied the tracking software aside from that which is used on a project by project basis; if we are talking about the countywide software system; it was the New World System that accounts for all of the expenditures.
3. Morgue Project Update/Financial Summary
(County Executive's Office)
Mr. Tkac said I would like to talk about the responses to the RFQ that went out for both design and for construction management services. In the upcoming week or two; the Executive’s Office will be releasing a schedule for reviewing the responses, and the outline for the selection and recommendation.
Ms. Berkowicz stated in a previous meeting it was said that materials on the proposals that came in would be distributed to the committee selection members in May; are those available?
Mr. Tkac replied the responses have been received; and yes they are available and will be distributed in the upcoming weeks. With a schedule for review, selection, board action, and moving forward with the project.
Mr. Fricilone asked what that process is; is it going to go to the Capital
Improvements Committee for their selection process. How is this moving forward?
Mr. Tkac stated there is going to be a recommendation for the formation of a selection committee. Then a review process by the selection committee; the recommendations and subsequent board action derived from those recommendations.
Mr. Fricilone asked who is making selections to the committee. Mr. Brooks replied wouldn’t that come from the Executive Committee?
Mr. Fricilone said no; when we did all of our other buildings; if we set up an Ad Hoc Committee to go over bids; the Speaker would set that up. Unless the entire Capital Improvements Committee was going to do that job internally as the Capital Improvements Committee? That is the Speakers decision.
Ms. Mueller stated I am under the impression that the Speaker has already designated that committee. Quit possibly the reason Ms. Berkowicz was asking; is because she is part of that committee. Am I correct Ms. Berkowicz?
Ms. Berkowicz replied you would be Ms. Mueller; that is why I had my hand raised; thank you for bringing that up.
Mr. Palmer stated I just wanted to clarify for those Board Members that were just speaking. In the past you are correct the Speaker has made nominations or selections of committees. The Board has done that with the Executives Office. When we did the Diversity & Inclusion Consultant; the State’s Attorney said we were doing it incorrectly, or we didn’t need to do it that way. That was only two Board Members and the Executive’s Office that did that selection. I think to Mr. Fricilone’s point what the process is going to be; Speaker Cowan had designated a committee; but that was before we were told that wasn’t the way we should be doing it. I guess to Mr. Fricilone’s question how are we going to do that moving forward. That committee that was designated may not be applicable here.
Mr. Moustis asked if that was just on that particular committee; or was that for everything the County Board does. I think the County Board gives direction to the Executive in these matters.
Mrs. Tatroe said the County Executive does have a role in forming the committees. As I indicated in my opinion that goes to all committees. However, I have also indicated in my opinion it must be a collaborative process. County Board has to understand what the qualifications are of what she is bringing forward; this is something that they have to work together on. The opinion applies to all committees; the opinion also stated it has to be a collaborative process; because County Board has to understand the qualifications. They don’t have to accept a recommendation cold. How the County Executive wants to accommodate the needs of the County Board to understand the qualifications is something that I would think would be up to her. If she fails to create a committee where the County Board feels assured that it understands the qualifications; then I suppose arguably they could do parallel tracks. However, I would discourage that; I think it would discourage venders from bidding in Will County if they had to come back twice for interviews. I would look for the County Executive to set up a process; but it has to meet the needs of County Board as well. Does that make sense?
Mr. Moustis said it doesn’t prohibit the County Board from interviewing all of the companies. Can the County Board also set the parameters which the County Executive will negotiate? Not only negotiate but interview; so we set up the parameters for interviewing; in other words by submitting questions of all of the vendors and so forth. Also, being able to review the vendors prior to any interviews; we may say we want this vendor also. The County Executive may exclude some venders that we want interviewed. Can we also direct and say that we want these people interviewed; part of the problem is that even though we have always let the County Executive’s Office do the process; as far as the RFQ’s. The RFQ would come in and go into the Executive’s Office; there could be twenty of them. We could say can we get it down to the best eight. The County Executive’s Office would review and say here are the eight we think should be interviewed. Then also say here are all of the companies that applied; do you think there is another one that you want interviewed. Quite frankly; we went 30 years with this system and it seemed to work very well; because it was what you mentioned a very collaborative process. Now I think we are in a position of we have to reinvent this and then decide how the County Board can assert itself to create this collaborative effort. I think the County Board does have the ability to say okay here is who you interviewed; now we want to interview them. Otherwise how do we get the information? The County Executive says this is who we want; but we the County Board have to vote on it. If things go wrong because of who was selected; the County Board is the one who takes the brunt of having made a mistake. I think we need to step back; I am talking to the County Board now, and the County Board Leadership. You need to step back and decide how we are going to work at a process where it is collaborative; and be within the opinion of the States Attorney; which I don’t necessarily agree with. I think we already had a very collaborative process. It works; now we are going to go to something that is not going to work as well until we work it out. I wouldn’t move one thing forward until we as the County Board decide how we want to go forward. We have already been told how the County Executive wants to go forward; and the State’s Attorney has backed that up. We need to say we are not approving anything; until we work out a process that is inclusive in the County Board in a meaningful way. Not some tokenism of putting two County Board Members on. I don’t want to hear things like we can’t have too many County Board Members because we will be in violation of the Open Meetings Act. I am not in favor of moving these processes into the backroom away from the public. I think the States Attorney’s opinion does exactly that.
Mrs. Tatroe stated let me be clear; I didn’t say it couldn’t be an open meeting, it can be an open meeting. I think the concern of the Executive; and I am at risk of speaking on her behalf; maybe I should let her office speak. I think it was directly related to COVID-19; and the fact that people were participating virtually and couldn’t monitor who was listening in. You could have one vendor listening in on another; which presented a unique problem.
Mr. Moustis stated alright, you made the excuse for them Mrs. Tatroe; very good. I am just putting out there my concerns and I would say to Speaker Cowan, Mr. Fricilone, and Ms. Mueller that you need to sit down and really think about how we move forward. We are the Republican Caucus, we are the Democratic Caucus; but at the end of the day we are the County Board. I mean all of us; united as a County Board. The County Board needs to make sure their authority as a board isn’t diminished. Let’s talk about some meaningful collaboration and how it may work.
Speaker Cowan stated my comment was actually what Mr. Moustis kind of worked his way around to. One of my biggest concerns is that the change in procedure in the last few months has meant that the one process we went through was done in a closed meeting; with only two County Board Members. Whereas we would have previously done it in an open meeting. Where certainly more County Board Members could have been actively involved; and other Board members could have listened so that they understood the process by which the decisions were being made. Therefore, when they had to take a vote as the full County Board to affirm the decisions; they were doing so not as a rubber stamp taking someone else’s opinion; but that they had actually been able to have a chance to hear the information and go through the process. As to the point about COVID-19 we went through two if not three very large online interview processes with the RNG Plant. Frankly, that was not an issue; we asked the other companies not to be on the line and they respected that. If they had been on the line we would have seen that; that certainly would have looked poor on their behalf. These companies put these applications together ahead of time; it is not something that they can change on the fly because they heard the person ten minutes before them did something different. That is just not a realistic concern. What is definitely a concern is that the County Board has buy in to the process; and understands who is being put forward and why. Otherwise there is no point for the County Board even being in the position to offer an authorization. I would have to push back a little bit and say collaboration is great; but so is doing this in an open session because that fosters collaboration. It also allows the public to have a role and to observe what we are doing. That is my perspective on this.
Mr. Tkac said there is absolutely no effort right now to abandon any kind of transparency; nor is there any kind of effort afoot to abandon collaboration with the County Board in terms of the collaborative process needed to review and select. I think there have been some changes; I think that the changes are going to be positive ones. I think that you’ll agree that they will. I would just ask for your patience as we move forward and we will be doing so in the very near future; with the process and the time line for the selection of both the architect and the construction manager for the new Morgue project.
Ms. Berkowicz said I think the committee needs clarification of where the County Board stands with this project. Does these mean with the State’s Attorney’s opinion that the previous Ad-Hoc Committee that was set up is no longer in place. Are we basically going back beyond that point and starting over. It’s a little confusing for us who thought we had a certain procedure. Is that committee still intact or being redone with a new process?
Mrs. Tatroe stated in accordance with my opinion the County Executive would initiate the process of establishing a committee. But she would do so in collaboration with the County Board Leadership.
Speaker Cowan said I just wanted to address Ms. Berkowicz question directly. We are waiting on the County Executive’s Office because we don’t really understand what the process is going to be on this one. I’m not sure why but as soon as we get some direction. To Mr. Moustis’ point; at a certain point maybe we will head off on another direction ourselves. I would say the committee as we formed it, was formed under a different process; and now the process appears to be different.
4. Air Quality Projects Update
(County Executive's Office)
Mr. Tkac said the equipment for the DOT Administrative Building is arriving; it may have already arrived on site today for installation to begin tomorrow. The installation time and the project itself will take about one week’s time. We should be wrapping that up next week; if anyone has any questions about that I will be glad to answer them.
5. 1300 Copperfield Ave. Project (Former Silver Cross Hospital Property) Update/Financial Summary
(County Executive's Office)
Mr. Tkac stated we are finalizing some of the bid packages right now; for what I call the make ready work. That will entail making sure that the building itself is air and water tight, and that it is secure. We can then begin our work on the interior renovations. We should have bid packages ready if not this week, next week for sure.
Mr. Brooks said I will be asking you sometime down the road after pre construction; I would love to take a tour of that facility once we are able to go inside.
Mr. Tkac said it will be our pleasure to accommodate.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for Proposed Radio Tower Located at Will County DOT - Wilmington Site (Tom Murray)
Tom Murray review the memorandum that was provide in the agenda. There was a brief question and answer period.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I understand the importance of this and I understand the reality of the need for this. My question is do we have money available to do this. We are talking about money all of the time and I just need to know do we have the money available to do this type of work.
Mr. Murray stated I had a conversations with Melissa Johannsen off and on prior to COVID-19 starting about a year ago. She indicated that there might be some funds available for it. That is about the best answer I can give for that; I don’t have a specific answer for that question at this time.
Mr. Brooks asked Mr. Tkac if he wanted to comment on that.
Mrs. Adams stated Mr. Brooks I wanted to mention that this is on the Finance Committee agenda next to discuss; just that issue of where the money is going to come from.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I will wait until then.
Ms. Berkowicz said my understanding is that we will forward this to the Finance Committee. I also had a question regarding the risks. Have we ever had the system interrupted; perhaps a contractor go through or sever the fiber or the lines for this system? What is the risk of that happening?
Mr. Murray replied absolutely, I don’t want to get too technical and please stop me if I do. I get pretty passionate about the radio system. We use a combination of point to point to point microwave which are those giant dishes that you see on the radio tower. As well as underground fiber optic cable to insure that we have multiple ways of connecting each of the twelve tower sites. A lot of things like weather phenomenon such as rain, snow, and fog can cause havoc at the microwave link; so we use different kinds of microwaves to make sure it can work around that. Some work differently than others in different kinds of weather. Fiber is our ultimate back up to make sure that if the microwave links for some reason don’t work; then we have the fiber as a backup. A few years ago we had a very bizarre temperature inversion which caused all of the microwaves to stop working; as well as the National Weather Service System and Radar for about 45 minutes. As far as the most recent time when a backhoe accidentally cut fiber. The one item that sticks out in my head is about 5 or 6 years ago there was a contractor doing work in Joliet that cut the connection to the Laraway complex. It cut the perimeter and the backup fiber. It does happen; we hope that the contractors contact JULIE to get the lines marked but accidents do happen. We like to have multiple redundancy to insure when that does happen; that the systems don’t go off line and the officers using the radio system really don’t have any concept that anything has happen to the radio system.
Mr. Moustis stated you are approving or not approving this, it is then pending financing, and then moved through to the County Board. As a project putting financing to the side it is something the committee would support hopefully; I certainly support it. Having been around for a while I have experienced at my tenure at the County; even before I got on to the County Board; where there were disruptions in communication amongst the Emergency Management Services. It has been much improved over the years. I can recall when the tornado went through Plainfield; that was a devastating effect and there was a lot of miscommunication. There has been other times either with storms or microbursts or whatever they may be. Parts of the County certainly have had problems communication emergency management services with each other. I think this is an improvement to that potentially; and maybe it is more than a back-up; maybe it just gives us better overall communication in the system that we hit all of the areas and we don’t have any dead spots. I think we should do anything that we can do to improve the communication system. I don’t think this is a lot of money for what we get. Knowing what we spend on radio equipment; this will be a very modest appropriation to achieve better communications amongst our emergency management services.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Finance Committee MOVER: Julie Berkowicz, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Mueller, Parker, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Gould |
Mr. Moustis stated my question is all of these payments that we are now authorizing are they part of the $6 million overage. My question is these payments that come to the Capital Improvements Committee; because it goes nowhere else. If we have expended all of the authorized money; in other words we go beyond the budget. You don’t have the money to pay these bills; you need an appropriation first. As I see it if this is money that has gone beyond the current appropriation then even though we will have to pay them; but we need an additional appropriation to do so. Mrs. Tatroe can we get clarification on that.
Mrs. Tatroe said correct you can never spend money without an appropriation; but I think what they are looking for is yes this is valid. Yes, the vendor did the work.
Mr. Moustis stated this is to pay it. The Capital Improvements Committee pays the bills.
Mrs. Tatroe said yes you are right; but they cannot issue the money without any appropriations so I would expect that if there is not money in a line item that they can use; then they would be going to the Finance Committee for that appropriation. It wouldn’t be appropriated through this committee. The Committee is saying that it can be paid; that doesn’t negate the need to have a proper appropriation.
Mr. Moustis asked if someone is on the line who pays the bills.
Ms. Howard stated once it is approved here it then moves forward for payment to be made. Once we bring forward a request for an appropriation then these invoices will be processed for payment.
Mr. Moustis asked if you need an additional appropriation.
Ms. Howard stated we will need additional appropriation that will come from the Finance Committee; to do a budget amendment.
Mr. Moustis said it is hard to appropriate money when we don’t have a good understanding. I am going to say until we have an answer from the Executive’s Office how we are over and what projects that we are over on. I don’t think that we should do any additional appropriations until we get all of the answers. Once it is paid; you are not getting the money back if there was some kind of error. I will save this for the Finance Committee to do no additional appropriations for these projects until we get the answers to the overages that may not have been authorized.
Ms. Berkowicz asked if this committee would not be the appropriate committee to determine the appropriation.
Ms. Howard stated that is correct; any budget amendment or budget appropriation would happen at the Finance Committee.
Ms. Berkowicz asked then why would the Capital Improvements Committee approve any invoices until that’s done. I would feel more comfortable that it go to the Finance Committee and that process be completed; and then if we have the ability to pay the invoice it comes back to us. Can we do that today because I really don’t feel that we can have a vote when we haven’t gone through that process of how we are going to pay this?
Mrs. Tatroe stated as I said before; you’re just commenting on the fact that the invoices are in order; it cannot be paid without an appropriation. I suppose if there is a possibility that the appropriation will be made at the Finance Committee; then moved to the County Board where these bills can be paid. Otherwise, these vendors are going to be waiting until next month until they are paid. That is the issue and that’s up to the County Board whatever it decides to do.
Ms. Traynere stated that is kind of where I am at. These vendors have already preformed the duties; I am not sure that we think we have the legal right to hold up the money; unless they haven’t completed the job to our satisfaction. I think it is a little late to stop the horse; it has already left the barn.
Ms. Berkowicz said Mrs. Tatroe mentioned that they were invoices of order or what was the phrase that you used.
Mrs. Tatroe stated that they are in order; the work was done, the work was approved by the County Board, it is a matter of appropriations. Staff cannot pay bills unless there is a valid appropriation; even if you approve them they cannot pay them without a valid appropriation.
Ms. Berkowicz stated I wanted to ask Mr. Tkac, for some of these invoices it is really obvious what they were used for. For example when you get to the Farnsworth invoice. I really don’t know what service that they performed. What are the costs for; I would like to see some sort of detail that would explain that for us. This is a lot of money there are three invoices from Farnsworth and I don’t understand what exactly they did on that invoice. I understand that you got a lot of invoices coming forward. That’s really important if we are going to keep track of these expenses and approve them. I request that we would have that at our committee meetings; is that possible Mr. Tkac.
Mr. Tkac stated any level of detail that you or any member of the committee or that the Board would like to see; we can provide. I believe what you are looking at with this particular invoice; it is one invoice not three invoices. The invoice itself is grouped and is itemized for different tasks for their overall scope of work. As a matter of fact; I think the lion’s share of this invoice for Farnsworth Group is to complete the work in terms of the warrantee information which is one of the final activities that they have for the contract.
Ms. Berkowicz said for example the first invoice say’s FPT and forgive me I haven’t been on this project that long to understand what FPT stands for. I think that’s part of the problem. Sometimes there isn’t enough time to take a look at the agenda, read it all, and then call you. If there was more detail there; that would be very helpful. I think we all need to understand what we are approving.
Mr. Tkac stated understood, I will try and go thorough that and give you a more through explanation or break down of each one of those items. Would it be okay if I shot you an email to explain that?
Ms. Berkowicz said I think it should be provided to the committee; and all of the County Board meetings especially since these are going to go to the Finance Committee.
Ms. Ventura stated I agree with Mr. Moustis. I think what might be appropriate in this situation; is to make a motion to move paying the bills to the Executive Committee. What that allows to do is for us to go through the Finance Committee in the next hour and try to understand what happen. Where our $6 million supposedly is that we are under. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t approve these bills. We need to understand where that money is going to come from. What money supposedly was spent that we are not seeing; and see how that lines up with the vendors that still need to be paid; and what payments still need to come out of the appropriations. Then at that point the Executive Committee can go ahead and pay these bills knowing where that money is going to come from. I think it is appropriate to not necessarily postpone this for a whole month; but to give us a couple of days. At the end of the day it is our responsibility completely as the entire County Board not just this committee; that we appropriate the correct dollars to places and we are understanding how we are spending that money. I would hope that one of the members of this Committee would make that motion, and second it, and allow the Executive Committee to maybe pay this next week. Thank you.
Ms. Mueller stated I have two points. First I wanted to say that when I am looking over our agenda and I have questions about any of these things; whether it is an acronym, a dollar amount or anything else. My first phone call is generally to Mr. Palmer to ask him what that means; he is our resource to help us with these things. I want to encourage everyone to call him he will help us through these things and explain it. My second question was going to be similar to what Ms. Ventura just stated is this something we could do; is it appropriate; and can we do that? What I am saying is to move these payments of these bills; I don’t want to wait another month but I also I think people need a little time to be comfortable.
Mr. Brooks stated that Mrs. Tatroe is nodding her head saying that we can do that.
Ms. Fritz said as far as with what Farnsworth Group does; the people who have been on this committee for a while and since the inception of the courthouse project know that they are an engineering firm that does testing and balancing. My understanding is that probably Joe Van Duyne is the only one on the committee that has extensive knowledge of constriction practices and terminology. I’m quite comfortable that Farnsworth Group was hired because they are very good at what they do in their field. We have to trust that the construction manager which is Gilbane is watching the various vendors. Keeping an eye on them doing what they are supposed to be doing. That is also Mr. Tkac’s job; I trust in our people that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. I think that getting too far into the weeds with these invoices is going to be a dangerous time suck for most of us. We are simply not prepared to wade through all of that information. The other thing is I think we should go ahead and approve these. Again we don’t cut the checks; are job is not to make sure the money is still there; or job is to say yes, this work is done; this bill should be paid and move it forward. I think we should move these forward today.
Mr. Moustis stated what I think we need to know is we get this $6 million overage with no indication where it is coming from. As far as I know was it nothing on the courthouse; was it $5 million on the Health Department; a $1 million on the Sheriff’s Complex? Because for example, if the Health Department construction was significantly over; and if they are making up a majority of that $6 million deficit you are darn right I have some questions from Leopardo on how that happened. So that is why it is important in my opinion that we at least get the basics. Tell us which projects are over; I think you pretty much know Mr. Tkac. You may not have the exact number; but I think you already know which projects are significantly over and which ones are pretty much on budget. To me we need to get at least that basic information before we give any additional appropriations. I understand that we are obligated to pay these; but I think we have a duty to get the answers and see if these companies that we are now paying out did or didn’t do a good job or went over and how did that happen. Did they add on to their fees because of higher construction costs that they caused? There are reasons I believe; that you may want to postpone paying them or even do another appropriation. Here’s the other point I want to make; we are appropriating the money now; but it appears that they paid bills without appropriation. I asked a question if some of the $6 million was paid; the answer was yes there was some paid. That indicates to me there was a payment without an appropriation. They just took the approval of the Capital Improvements Committee and then paid them. If nothing else if the Capital Improvements Committee is going to move these forward; I think they should approve them pending an appropriation for the bill.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I agree with Mr. Moustis. I feel we are at a point where we put trust into the consultants and contractors that we hire. We put trust into our staff; but at the end of the day we are the ones responsible; we are the ones with our heads on the chopping block when it comes for running for office again. Being responsive to the community, answering the questions of our constituents as to say why. They don’t call Mr. Tkac, they don’t call Leonardo, they don’t call White; they don’t call any of those people. The call us, and they ask us. While I do hope we can trust everything that they are doing I know darn well those companies; because the type of companies they are, they do have project management software. They know when they have an overrun our not. That’s the kind of business that they are in. We may not have that software being a County Government; we should utilize software like that, we may not. But they should; I know darn well that they do. There is no way in the world that you can convince me that they don’t. They have a Project Manager and that Project Manager is responsible for everything as I was when I was in IT. If my project went over budget my head was on the block; not my programmers that were working for me. Not the Finance Department, the Payroll Department, or whatever department that I was coding for. It was my head; so just like that we are responsible for here. I think it is something that they need to provide for us; in each one of these different places they need to say; we put in a bid for $500; and this is now going to cost $550. We need to know that and as far as authorizing payment for anything we should say this is the payment #42 and there are still three payments remaining. The cost up to this point is this much and we are within the budget of our bid. I do think we need to oversee this. How is this going awry, it is going awry here and it is insane down in Springfield and other places because the bigger Government the more insane it gets. We are responsible to our constituents and maybe we need to do a little bit more overseeing than what we have done in the past. I agree entirely with Mr. Moustis that we need to determine whether we have the allocation or not. Thank you.
Ms. Parker asked if we do approve these bills; and I do believe we need to approve them because work was done. However, with that being said; all the bills that we approved prior was that money appropriated for or they still sitting there. Did those bills get paid that we approved. If they did how did they get paid for if we didn’t appropriate the money? If we approve these bills; like Mr. Moustis said are they going to just be paid because we approved them or are they still going to be contingent on appropriations being set forth?
Mr. Fricilone said going back to a point I made a couple of weeks ago; if we spent $6 million, $8 million or $10 million more that we were supposed to. Those additions or projects would have had to come to this committee to get approved to get out of contingency or go over budget before you even got to pay the bills. I still don’t understand if things didn’t come to this committee and somebody just went ahead and said keep going; then that is where the fault is going to lie. If you have to go over every single agenda from the last two years to find out all the things we approved. I remember when Jason would come and tell us we have a thing that is going to cost us $40,000 because we have to do this. And this committee agreed; I don’t remember agreeing to $6 million, $8 million or $10 million more. It seems like where that is at; even before the bills get here somebody better look into where did this committee approve this thing that is creating these bills.
Ms. Berkowicz stated my concerns haven’t been addressed regarding getting a set date as to when we are going to get this report; and the information regarding the $6 million over budget. I feel that at this point in time that these expenses were already incurred and vendors have to be paid. I don’t necessarily trust our vendors but I have the confidence that they understand the project. They understand and have agreed to the expenditures. That if the contingency fund does not cover any unexpected cost at that time come directly back to the County and the Board to get everybody on the same page; and to have the permission to send more money than they were allocated. This is my expectations and they have a lot of moving pieces. If for some reason if the project is not going well and it is over budget then it is their responsibility to come back to us and tell us what is going on. Like I said earlier that contingency fund is supposed to address; and I assume prevent anything like this from ever happening. Is it possible to put a hold on any future spending until Mr. Tkac can provide us with this report as to where there financial accounting is skewed; where did these these expenses come from and then at that point we can move forward in a fically responsible way. So my suggestion is that we put these future expenditures we halt them right now.
Mr. Brooks replied Ms. Berkowicz you all have said a lot of things; Mr. Tkac has already commented on some of them. I am going to give Mr. Tkac an opportunity but I do need to go to Mrs. Tatroe with some further direction. Mr. Tkac if you want to answer; go ahead.
Mr. Tkac stated I would suggest this; we will have the information that you are looking for. We want to be completely accurate. We want to provide a level of detail that makes sense. We have been working very hard to put this all together. We are not hiding anything from anyone. This information will be made available in fairly short order. I do not have a date for you at this moment. I can assure you that this report, the transparency, and the itemization that you are looking for will be available for everyone to see. That is all I can say at this juncture.
Mrs. Tatroe said I think you were looking at clarification of what you can do. You can either approve the invoices here. You can move them forward to the Executive Committee; and then the Executive Committee can move it forward to County Board; for them to be approved by County Board. Or you can table them until next month.
Mr. Brooks replied right now we have a motion and a second on #2. If we took a roll call on that. Would that pay the bill?
Mrs. Tatroe said that would be to pay them.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Julie Berkowicz, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Mueller, Parker, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Gould |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Mueller, Parker, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Gould |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Mueller, Parker, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Gould |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Mueller, Parker, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Gould |
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
X. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn @ 12:13 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Vice Chair SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Mueller, Parker, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Gould |
Alerts Sign-up