Will County
Illinois

Will County Action Item

Discussion Re: Animal Control Facility and EMA Building

Information

Department:County Board AdminSponsors:
Category:Misc. Will County

Attachments

  1. 2017-1228_Will County_Animal Control_Proposal

Meeting History

Sep 19, 2017 9:30 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Moustis stated I asked Dr. Schild to come today to discuss Animal Control. They have money in reserves for a building. They generate revenue through fines and tags. Per State statutes the money is held in a special fund and has to be used for the purpose of animal control. For many year it was the intention of County Board to build a facility for them, because they are in rental space. Animal Control paid for the first study done on Laraway Road because the first thing planned to go up on Laraway Road was Animal Control and we used some of their budget to fund the site work. Somehow, it was not part of the final discussion, but it should have been. They are looking for a facility between 4,000 and 4,500 sq. ft. There would be no kennels that is contracted out. There is room on the site and I think it is time. Animal Control has already invested funds into the site. They are currently in a 2,000 sq. ft. facility. Dr. Schild mentioned he has to move if he doesn't get a building. He has found something, but it is only 3,000 sq. ft., which is not adequate for their needs.

Dr. Schild stated we have been at our current facility for 20 years. Approximately 13 years ago we had Wight provide drawings. At that time a site on Cherry Hill Road, south of Highway Department was selected, but it fell off of the radar. At that time, there were a number of County buildings with issues and did not push anything. We were involved in a space needs study several years ago. I found a space that would have been perfect for us. We could have bought it for $600,000 and after the necessary renovation we could have been in for $1.5 million. That did not happen, we did not move quick enough. I have not seen any property come up for sale that would work for our purpose. Our current space is not ADA compliant, it has a gravel parking lot and stairs going into the building. There is one handicap parking space, on gravel with an incline. We need to move into something else. I hate to spend $200,000 to $300,000 on build out of rental space when we have $4 million in reserves that could be used.

Mr. Moustis added Animal Control is an agency that interacts with the public as much as any agency within the County. They provide services to unincorporated Will County and a majority of the municipalities.

Mr. Tuminello stated there is a possibility of property on the campus just south of the DOT property.

Mr. Maher stated now that the site is laid out and built out, it becomes easier to see where we can put a building.

Dr. Schild added when it was well and septic there were issues, but now water and sewer are there. We function well where we are, it is just not what it needs to be. We have outgrown the space.

Mr. Fricilone asked Wight to relook at the programming instead of starting over.

Mr. Moustis stated I suggest the Committee to instruct the Executive's Office to engage with Wight to move Animal Control forward. That includes site selection, preliminary building sketches and potential building plans.

Mr. Moran stated Mr. Damron is here also. EMA has space needs and there is one spot left along Cherry Hill Road on the Public Safety Campus.

Mr. Damron stated EMA has three locations, two we rent. The radio lab is in rental space but moving to the Public Safety Complex. We have a rental on Cherry Hill Road and a garage on the Laraway Complex built 22 years ago, we outgrew about nine years ago. That is when we started renting the Cherry Hill property for storing equipment. The Board has indicated it wishes to get out of leases. For our part it is cumbersome to coordinate equipment in several places when we have an emergency. It would be idea for us to be under one roof. I don't want to derail the Animal Control project, but if there is an opportunity for our garage to ride the coat tails of a project, I would ask the Board to consider. If we address our garage needs and get out of the rental situation, then perhaps our existing garage space in the Public Safety Complex could eliminate a space need Highway has.

Mr. Tuminello stated the Radio Lab will not move, it will stay in the current building.

Mr. Damron added the Radio Lab is unique, most of its customers are inside the Complex. I hope there is an opportunity for us to join Animal Control in a building.

Mr. Tuminello asked Mr. Damron to put together a list of space needs.

Mr. Damron stated there would be no public traffic at this location, it is basically vehicles. There are a couple of fulltime employees and a lot of volunteers based there, but no public traffic.

Ms. Winfrey suggested Mr. Damron and Dr. Schild work together to see how they could manage space.

Dr. Schild asked to look at a plat of the current area to make sure there is enough footage. We do need frontage on Cherry Hill Road for public access.

Mr. Damron stated we do not need public access, so we could be on the backside.

Mr. Moustis clarified Animal Control has their own funding.

Nov 7, 2017 11:00 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Tkac stated this project is not moving as quickly forward as we would like it to. The 2004 plan by Wight, was to include a kennel, a function now outsourced by Animal Control. We believe the design does lend itself to modification to eliminate the kennel from the building. We are asking HR Green to site the building off of Cherry Hill Road, south of the DOT; to leave room on the rear of the building for a potential future kennel and to accommodate parking for the public and employees. We are dealing with approximately 2 acres; if there is enough room, an additional storage building could be added.

Mr. Fricilone asked we are not doing the kennel, but can it be designed so we will not have to redesign the building if we should ever build the kennel?

Mr. Dwyer replied it is a matter of site placement.

Mr. Fricilone continued it would be worth looking at to be prepared in the future.

Mr. Tuminello added we have to site the building as if the kennel were there.

Mr. Moustis asked that a timeline be put together for this project.

Mr. Tkac indicated he would prepare a timeline. Construction should begin in the spring of 2018.

Mr. Brooks left at this juncture.

Dec 5, 2017 10:00 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Dwyer stated several years ago we did a concept for Animal Control at the location, between DOT and the Forest Preserve on Cherry Hill Road. We need to get together again with Dr. Schild and talk through some program details. Mr. Van Essen had a preliminary meeting to talk about overall program and we have a follow up meeting on December 18th. Even if we determine the layout done years ago, is good; I am wondering if the aesthetics portrayed 15 years ago is consistent with the Complex. The Public Safety Complex sets a specific aesthetic; so we need to revisit the plan as a group. We will meet with the Animal Control group and make sure the program and spaces are consistent. The primary objective is to focus on the administrative and enforcement functions of Animal Control; what they have currently in the leased space and hold off on animal housing. They currently outsource that. We want the plan to accommodate some expansion for animal housing. If things change you will not be locked into something with no ability to expand. That is different than the previous design, which did include a concept for office functions and animal housing. The plan is to get together, revisit the programming and move right into design. We would look for a construction start in the second quarter of 2018. There is money available for the project. I have been working with Mr. Tkac and Mr. Van Essen and put together a draft proposal to have all the architecture and engineering as one component. We would use HR Green to do the site engineering. They have an abundance of knowledge of the site. There are some tricky things with flood plain and special management areas. I think their knowledge will be important, with all the work they did to bring sewer and water to the site. We will ask HR Green to be part of the team. Our thought is to get a proposal to you that takes this through completion of construction documents, to get things going. There will be discussions on how best to execute in terms of delivering the construction. This will give us a start on design and construction documents to be in a position to start construction as early as possible next year.

Mr. Tuminello asked how soon could you get something to the Committee?

Mr. Dwyer responded we could get a proposal to the Committee for December 19th. I have a draft, but I think it is appropriate to spend time with Mr. Tkac and Mr. Van Essen to make sure we are synced on scope and we are covering the bases. I don't anticipate a lot of refinement following the meeting on December 18th and we could make those changes quickly. We could possibly e-mail it to everybody that evening or I could get a draft out sooner after I have worked with the Executive's Office.

Mr. Tuminello stated please get a draft out to the Committee a few days in advance of the meeting. As Board Members, we get frustrated when we get something the morning of or the night before and we are expected to have input. I am glad you are communicating with HR Green, they have extensive knowledge of that property and that will save us money in the long run.

Mr. Moustis stated there was a preliminary design, a sketch. I think it is important for this Committee, myself, Mr. Tkac to have a sense of what the scope will be. I agree, HR Green knows the site and can hit the ground running. They have been a very good partner to us and to Wight. I don't want to get bogged down on the design because of a misunderstanding of what is there or what needs to be done. There are a number of things that could possibly affect this site. You mentioned the scope for the entire site and the aesthetics and landscaping. Do you have any real design or a concept? When we talk about design, where are we at? Is there programming? We are not going to have a holding area for animals on site, but we need an opportunity for expansion to hold animals. Exactly where are we? I don't want anyone to think this is basically done, because I don't think that is the case. Where are we currently?

Mr. Dwyer replied I was not involved with the prior work, but I have looked it over. We are roughly around a good schematic design. It did have approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of animal housing in it. It had a layout of preliminary assumptions and structural and mechanical systems. I don't envision major changes to the functions in the buildings; I don't think the operation of Animal Control has changed dramatically in the past 15 years. I worry if you take a floor plan layout done 15 years ago and say what do we need right now, it puts you in a bad position. You might say I don't have a person in this spot and reduce the area. We need to take a step back and talk about what the future might be and make sure we don't undersize the building. We are not talking about a large building. The hope is the adjacencies of planning are still consistent, will work and will be a springboard to move the design forward. The previous design had a residential look to it, which seems out of character at the site. We want to have a discussion with County Board Leadership and Animal Control to determine the right aesthetic for the building. Do we want something that conveys what happens at Animal Control? What is the vision down the road? We will take what we have as a springboard of the initial discussions on systems and build off of that. I hate to take something done 15 years ago and say it is good, if you do that, you will find yourself saying I wish I would have asked that question again or revisited assumptions so we don't put ourselves in a bad position. A lot has changed on the site and the layout will need to change. There is roughly two acres of buildable land in the area. We will know what we need to do after discussions with HR Green on how to expand stormwater detention. EMA still has leased space. Our thought is to take a look at whether there is excess land to accommodate another building. Even if it is not now, we want to plan for that in the way the site is accessed, the way parking would be managed and stormwater detention could be expanded. Down the road, you could build another small building for EMA storage or another similar function, we have given it consideration and preserved the footprint for that. Those are the things we want to look at on the front end.

Mr. Moustis stated I don't want to look at something we did 15 years ago. I believe we should design from scratch, but you do have some basic information. We probably won't need to do much programming; but the design portion is starting from scratch. Where the building is placed, are we going to be able to get some additional buildable property there has to come into play? Certainly, programming is solved. I want to make sure when you bring something to the Committee, everyone understands we don't have something we are going to pull off a shelf, we are starting from the beginning.

Mr. Maher asked didn't we have conversations in the past about land swaps to gain access and grab land in that area? As we look at the layout of this building, we do need to know what else could potentially go on this site. Have we thought about that as it relates to this new project.

Mr. Moustis stated I would like to see if there is some way to move the detention to the Forest Preserve. I thought we had discussions, not just looking at the portion the County owns, but the piece the Forest Preserve owns. If we haven't, we should. We need to have a discussion with the Forest Preserve. I don't think they plan to put up more buildings and some of their property is not buildable, but it could be good for detention from our property.

Mr. Palmer stated there were studies done during the Mikan administration where Kelsey drew up schematics or plans of detention south of our facilities, to detain water. There was also talk about potentially putting a household hazardous waste collection on the site. There are some funds, which could be used to pay for that facility, it is a special fund and could share in some of the site costs. If there was room, it lessens the burden on the Corporate or Capital fund.

Mr. Moustis stated it would be a good use; maybe we could consider that part of the entire site development plan.

Mr. Dwyer stated from a technical perspective, you are locked into a small footprint area between the flood way drainage areas south of the DOT. There are roughly two acres of buildable land and south of that is the Forest Preserve. We did work with the Forest Preserve when they built a building for a garage and maintenance office; they are pretty much built out on their property. I don't recall much available land there. Whether there is a buffer area that could be reorganized; we will take a look. That would be from a technical side. If it is an operations question, it is a different discussion.

Mr. Moustis stated there were areas not buildable; if that is detention could it be expanded? Was it bad soil?

Mr. Dwyer replied I believe there are defined wetlands there also.

Mr. Maher stated that is why I was thinking about a land swap. Is there an ability to swap wetlands?

Mr. Dwyer stated you can buy into wetland banks. Wet land swaps can get expensive. If you are developing on site you have to mitigate at a higher rate. That would be in the County Ordinance.

Mr. Maher stated we could talk to the Forest Preserve about, because that would be part of the naturalization of environment.

Mr. Tuminello asked that HR Green attend the meeting on December 19th.

Mr. Moustis asked Mr. Dwyer to tell them what we are looking at and that should be part of your overall scope.

Mr. Tuminello stated the scope is for Animal Control facility; the portion of the HR Green scope would be for the entire property.

Dec 19, 2017 9:30 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Dwyer stated yesterday Dr. Schild, his team and I had a meeting to kick start the project. We used what was done in 2004 as a baseline. There are some things that could and should change from that plan. There was a good discussion in thinking through the current staffing and building in expansion space within the facility, as it is not a large facility. Looking for an addition to the building for enforcement staff does not make sense. The best thing to do is plan for a little growth in staff over the next 20 years and build the space into the initial building. Currently, animal housing is not a significant component, but we want to plan for the capability if it comes up down the road and we discuss how best to accommodate that. Looking back at the 2004 plan, I think the location of where animal housing would be placed does not make the most sense. It was planned to be built with the initial construction. Now, we think it could happened down the road as an addition. We will revisit the concept planning and shift where the garage component is located. The design we are looking at today, will accommodate a small component of emergency or short term animal housing. We had a good discussion on how best to accommodate that within the facility. I think we have a good start on the program parameters needed to move the design forward. We are ready to get started as soon as you want us to.

Mr. Moustis stated you have a system that works for housing dogs, cats and ferrets; basically you have agreements with various veterinary clinics that house animals. Primarily, you use private sector kennels and it works well; logistically they are closer for the employee who takes the animal. Do you see that continuing as the County grows and the townships get out of animal control? Do you think you can continue this way of housing animal? If you will eventually have to house animals, is it more economically feasible to do it now versus later. Do you think the philosophy of the next Director be different?

Dr. Schild stated I have given a lot of thought to this. Where I have seen change is in the business models of animal hospitals. Now we are seeing the mega animal hospitals in Plainfield, Channahon and Orland Park, they all like adoption programs they run themselves. That gives us an excellent outlet for animals we impound, not claimed within the specified period of time, they will take them into their adoption program. I had a long discussion with the owner of a mega hospital and they could not be more pleased, it is good for them and it is definitely good for us. The animals can be housed in an area close to where they are picked up, making it easier for the owner to reclaim their animal. It gives us the ability to have animals held where veterinary services and care is available to us. The injured animals are evaluated and they contact us as to where to go with them. I hope this never changes, but I cannot predict the future. Fifteen years ago the animal facilities were so busy boarding animals, they did not want anything to do with our animals. At that point, we felt we needed our own holding facilities. It changed. For what we pay for impoundment of animals could not hire one employee for a year. We pay less than $50,000 for outsourcing the housing of animals. It is not something you can do five days per week from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and just leave. It has to be staffed 24/7. I would like to see the building designed so it would be easy to add on a housing facility, if the time comes we need that. I cannot predict what that would entail. You will need a meet and greet, adoption area to go along with the holding facility. It encompasses a lot.

Mr. Tuminello asked could the building be designed in such a way there was an area large enough to be converted versus doing a complete build out at a future date?

Mr. Dwyer replied it is not 100% clear what functions might need to be included with animal housing. How big of a program would you have? Would you want to add educational components and other functions with it? My thought now is to plan for it to be a building addition versus building a shell. I am afraid we may do our best to predict what size we need, but 10 or 15 years down the road something is different and we have either under or over built. We are designing the building to have a location to add on that makes sense as to how the public will enter the building, how the staff connects and the County can do an addition when it is appropriate and size it right for what is needed at the time.

Mr. Maher asked will the puppy mill laws lessen the need for housing?

Dr. Schild replied I don't see that being a major impact. The problem with the animals left at animal shelters is they are not easily and readily adoptable. You are not going to give a large supply of pets to pet stores to be sold. I am a proponent for anything that prevents animal cruelty and abuse. On the other hand, I look at the enforcement aspect of it and it is very, very difficult. Who is going to maintain the licensing? How do you follow through? I'm not saying it can't be done, but I see a lot that is going to have to take place for it to happen. When you build a kennel, it has to be designed with mechanicals in the floor; drainage is one, and just to put up a shell and later adapt into a kennel, you will probably not have what you need, where you need it to properly build it.

Ms. Fritz added a space for housing animals would be hard surfaces, sterilizable drain in the floor, things like that and it is not conducive to office space.

Mr. Tuminello stated I received a draft proposal this morning. We believe HR Green would be an outstanding partner because of their understanding and vast experience with the property. The pricing has not been negotiated yet. If anyone has question about the actual scope of work, get back to us as soon as possible. I would like to get this on the January 2nd agenda and move to the full Board in January.

Mr. Dwyer presented Committee Members with a copy of the attached proposal.

Mr. Moustis asked do dangerous dogs go to the same kennel facilities?

Dr. Schild replied animals that are deemed dangerous are left with the owner. Even if they are deemed vicious, it is how they have to be handled and housed. You are not removing the animals.

Mr. Moustis asked what happens if you get a stray that is considered dangerous and you don't know who the owner is?

Dr. Schild answered when we have dangerous dogs, it is a problem of where we can house them. Most of the facilities have areas where they can easily handle one. If you had a large number, it would be a difficult situation. Those animals cannot be held for a long period of time. Of course, you have to determine whether it is a stray. Where did it come from? Was it an owner give up? How long do you have to hold it until the holding period is up? Is there a known owner?

Mr. Moustis clarified those are situations you handle as they arise.

Dr. Schild stated we have facilities capable of handling those dogs on a minimal basis.

Mr. Tuminello stated if there are any changes you would like to see in the proposal, please get back to Mr. Tkac or myself within the next week to allow us to finalize something. Dr. Schild you have waited a long time for this building. It is important for everyone to know there were user fees collected over the years. We will not be using money from our general fund, bonding or going back to the taxpayers, this will be paid for with user fees already collected in an account. I feel confident this Committee will be giving you a nice facility in the near future.

Dr. Schild indicated he would not be able to attend the January 2nd meeting and would send a representative.

Mr. Moustis asked will this facility handle the future needs of Animal Control for the County? Are there limitations? We have been trying to size things to meet what we think will be the ultimate population of Will County, which is 1.2 million. Did you keep that in mind when you looked at the scope?

Dr. Schild responded I have, we are looking at current staffing needs and anticipating a capacity in the new building to increase our current staffing by 50%. Our staffing has not increased in the last 12 years. The number of complaints and bites we handle, is staying consistent. I give credit to an experienced staff that is good at handling issues and we don't keep getting repeats from the same people and same animals. The spay/neuter program the County has in place, we had spay or neutered over 10,000 animals, this helps cut down on the stray animals. We no longer see stray animals like we did in the past. They still exist, but not to the degree they did in the past.

Jan 2, 2018 11:00 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting
Apr 17, 2018 9:30 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Dwyer stated I have a different project manager assigned to this project. We are moving forward and have been working with Dr. Schild and Animal Control staff to sort out the programming and design. We started with a base program in terms of size for the building, with small growth for the operational components, just to be conservative. It is a small building, just under 7,000 sq. ft. We accounted for a small amount of personnel growth, if you add one or two people it is not efficient to do an addition on a building that small, so we are adding a buffer. The County currently does not house animals, the function is outsourced, but we have looked at the potential to add on if that changes in the future. We have designed the building and site layout to accommodate that if things change down the road. We have also been doing planning work on the site to see whether the site could accommodate an EMA storage building and have found an opportunity to do that. You are suggesting it may be included in the design plan. We have been looking at it as a placeholder since we were not sure if that was something you wanted to move forward with. We are in the design phase, the floor plan is in place. We have been fine tuning trying to find the efficiencies that we can to tighten it up. We are working on the building look and design with a target toward the end of July to have all that wrapped up and move into the a construction phase.

Mr. Tuminello stated I spoke with Mr. Creech regarding the wetlands. Do you feel there is enough room for the detention and the Animal Control facility, with a possible future expansion and the EMA structure?

Mr. Dwyer replied yes; in the initial review we looked at a couple of different sites to accommodate the stormwater detention. One area to the north and the existing stormwater on the site, established with the last project with a potential to expand that. A study is being done to see if all of it can be consolidated into an expansion of the existing stormwater basin and we are close to determining if it is going to work. Even if it did not work, I think we would be able to accommodate the stormwater, it just would have caused more site disruption in a couple of different spots. We feel confident we can accommodate the stormwater we need with the added impervious for the base Animal Control, expansion for animal housing and a small EMA building.

Mr. Tuminello asked since the programming for the Animal Control building is just about complete; at what point do you think we would see something for the entire Committee?

Mr. Dwyer replied we will give you an update on the floor and site plan layout at the next meeting.

Mr. Tuminello stated we thought because Animal Control charges fees and had them in a capital fund for this project, we could use them for the facility. The State’s Attorney has said, even though the money is set aside for that fund, we are unable to take it until it is budgeted. We are looking to loan Animal Control money from our bond proceeds and then at the end of the year, they will pay it back.

Mrs. Tatroe stated a solution is to borrow from the bond funds to get the project started and not use the Animal Control funds until they are appropriated.

Mrs. Dollinger asked what is the budget for this project?

Mr. Tuminello responded the site does pose some challenges and there will be some hefty site work fees that will have to be incorporated. I would say the budget will be around $3 million, but that has not been finalized. Animal Control has over $4 million in their capital fund.

Mr. Dwyer added in our discussions with Animal Control, they were planning to hold some reserves in the fund to be conservative. Our target is to a $3 million number. There are issues with the site; the good news is you are not buying a site, because you own this. There are issues with the stormwater management. We talked about the extension of the sanitary main down Route 52 and bringing it to the site to service the building. Those are costs, not be typical of a small, standalone building like this. As much as we are going to keep fine tuning this to the $3 million, it might be slightly more. Some of that is based on the final details of the stormwater analysis and what is vetted out by utilities. The building is pretty small. We have been working as a team to keep the dollars tight. You have a lot of site costs spread over a very small footage of the building and it drives up the costs.

Mr. Tuminello asked would some of the site costs be spread to EMA?

Mr. Dwyer replied ultimately, with EMA being involved there will be an analysis of the stormwater and some will be for Animal Control and some for EMA. Services, such as sanitary and water, will be split costs. We will look at the total allocations and determining the property allocation between the two buildings since their budgets come from two separate funding sources.

Mr. Tuminello asked where are we with the City of Joliet on the sewer and water?

Mr. Van Essen replied Mr. Creech is working that design. He gave us a schedule and trying to get that through the permitting process. He is trying to accelerate that ahead of design work. We have to coordinate, since it goes in front of the old SWAT area as well.

Mr. Fricilone explained we have bond proceeds continuing to pay for the other buildings we are doing. The money is sitting in the pot. We will use that money and in the 2019 budget we will take the Animal Control cash on hand and appropriate it back into the bond fund.

Mr. Tuminello asked do we have a timeline, if you were to get the design to us next month?

Mr. Dwyer responded our target to wrap up construction documents is the end of July. The only thing we have not evaluated is what you would like to do with EMA and the timing. Do you want to run a parallel track? Would you hold off and let us quickly ramp up and get that done? We could bid it together for some economy of scale. I don’t know your timing. There are efficiencies to building the two together. It is a tight site to build to next to it and can be disruptive if you are out of sequence with the construction. We want to evaluate more to see if there is any scheduling impacts.

Mr. Fricilone stated we are currently month-to-month on the lease.

Mr. Tuminello stated working both on the job site would be beneficial to the taxpayers.

Mr. Dwyer stated there is very little in the way of lay down and construction logistics area and if you are bringing trucks in over newly completed pavement it will mess it up. If it works for you timing wise, it would certainly would be better financially to do it at once.

Mrs. Rice asked from the proposal and the $198,000 what does that include as far as the EMA feasibility aspect? I am clear on what Animal Control includes, but I was unclear on that part.

Mr. Dwyer replied our first proposal, because we were unsure what you wanted to do with EMA, was to look at a site plan and layout of where it could be positioned; how big the building could be and what the implications of the stormwater would be for the impervious service. We have done master site planning in terms of the layout and that is where we stopped with EMA. If you want to move forward and finish the design that is not in the current proposal.

Mrs. Dollinger asked the EMA facility, is that storage for vehicles?

Mr. Van Essen replied yes. It may also have a small training classroom.

Mr. Tom Murray stated the current facility does have office space for two individuals along with a small community room for our volunteers, a modest bathroom and a small kitchen area.

Mr. Tuminello asked what square footage were they anticipating?

Mr. Tkac answered about 10,000 sq. ft. about two-thirds the size of the garage at the Public Safety Complex.

Mr. Fricilone asked how many vehicles would fit in the building?

Mr. Murray replied between our two facilities we store 17 or 18 vehicles indoors. We have the large command vehicle, but the rest are different pickup trucks, generators and tools.

Mr. Tuminello stated we should move forward with both of the projects together. We will get to the point we need to add a construction manager early in the process to make sure we get the same savings and hit the schematic design at the same time. We need to consider a commissioning agent to make sure when the building is turned over we get the same files as with the Public Safety Complex. Our goal with the Facilities Manager to maintain all the County assets, I don’t see why we would treat these two assets differently. At some point Mr. Tkac will need to bring a Resolution back to this Committee to negotiate with a commissioning agent. For the next meeting, do you think you could do budgeting for both buildings?

Mr. Dwyer replied since we have not designed anything on EMA I would not want to go too far for a budget. I would like to give you a design update on Animal Control at the next meeting and work through what a proposal might look like for the EMA scope. The only reason would be to keep us moving in a parallel path. If you feel that is the direction you want to go, we could start before it is officially approved.

Mr. Tuminello stated at the next meeting I would like to see the design of Animal Control and a potential Resolution on what it will cost to move forward. At that time, if the Committee feels they want to direct Wight to do the EMA and feels the contract is sufficient to add to the contract.

Mr. Fricilone stated to move forward we need at least a rough budget.

Mrs. Dollinger asked have we looked at any numbers for the EMA building?

Mr. Fricilone replied no nor where it is coming from.

Mr. Dwyer stated let me see if I can rough something out for the next meeting. I will look to see if I can draw something from the recent details of the SOG building. We have not talked about the materials, but let me work with Mr. Van Essen and Mr. Tkac on something.

May 1, 2018 11:00 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting
May 15, 2018 9:30 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Van Essen stated we had our final 100% DD review with the Animal Control staff yesterday. On Friday we met with EMA to do the initial programming for the EMA facility. Mr. Scott Creech was brought in to look at the site to meet all the requirements. It was a very good meeting and it laid down the programming for the actual building.

Mr. Tuminello asked the site is so tight, you are at 100% with Animal Control, if we pick a CM to work on both projects, because of the constraints; how does EMA get to the point we are with Animal Control?

Mr. Dwyer replied in terms on complexity, Animal Control has a little more stuff going on. We are at 100% DD, but we have to finalize the construction document phase for Animal Control. With EMA we have a good idea what the layout program elements needs to be; it is a more simplified building. We are trying to push forward quickly on that work and get them caught up and align the two projects schedule wise. We talked at the last meeting about the benefits of building the two concurrently for efficiencies and site logistics. That is our objective. We were targeting late July to be done with the construction documents and get them to bid. We continue to fine tune the schedule. And we are now talking a late July or early August timeframe to be ready to go to bid. Then we will work with Ms. Weiss to work the logistics of bidding. Once you decide who the CM will be, we will roll them into the discussions as well. Our plan is to get all the construction documents for both projects done as one primary package. Then it will be up to the CM to decide how to bid. They may decide to do two groupings for efficiency and timing because it is a lot to go through a ton of individual trade packages all at once; that will not impact the schedule; it will be sequencing. They would hit the site and want lead items early. We are in good shape with a goal of having that bid out and trying to target a construction start of late September or early October to get both jobs moving forward in construction.

Mr. Van Essen stated the RFQ to qualify smaller CM companies was released. We had a pre-bid meeting last week; seven companies attended. They proposals are due by the end of the month. We will then do the interviews and bring it to the full Board in July.

Mr. Tuminello asked Mr. Moustis if he was going to bring the applicants before the Interview Committee?

Mr. Moustis replied yes; understand we are just qualifying companies. We are saying these companies are qualified to do county work. We will not be doing a selection to do work, we are qualifying them. When you are ready we will convene the CM Interview Committee to move forward. If you feel there are companies not qualified, don’t bring them forward. We are creating a list of qualified companies who can do the work. We will then interview off of the list.

Mr. Maher asked to see the criteria used to put companies on the list. It will help us understand how you came to that decision.

Mr. Brooks asked is there a system in place to qualify and disqualify companies?

Mr. Tkac replied through the submittal process, part of the RFQ, they have to demonstrate similar project experience with smaller projects and the bonding authority for the projects.

Mr. Moustis added this is not unusual, we do this all the time. We qualify companies and keep a list of companies qualified to do work for the county.

Mr. Tuminello stated it is good practice to periodically review the list as conditions can change within a company.

Jun 5, 2018 11:00 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Dwyer stated the last time we talked we had just gotten a good rundown from EMA trying to get the project accelerated and on track with Animal Control to get the two project going out together. We are making good headway with that. There have been additional follow up meetings with EMA to organize and get approval on floor plan layouts and we are in good shape. Our schedule remains the same; late July or early August to have documents wrapped up. We will be going in earlier for permit submittals to get that out of the way before we go out to bid. We will keep working on the bidding timeframe with Ms. Weiss. You are still working on the CM selection for the project, but we are in good shape to be ready for a September or October construction start, pending the bidding process and your CM selection. We believe we may be ahead of the schedule with the documents.

Mr. Tuminello asked Mr. Tkac for an update on the CM RFQ.

Mr. Tkac replied the submittals for Animal Control and EMA are due today. They will be distributed to the evaluation committee, then to the subcommittee and they will come forward for a recommendation.

Mr. Tuminello asked when will the RFQ go out for the solar?

Mr. Tkac replied as soon as the State’s Attorney’s review is complete.

Mr. Moustis stated our intent was not specific to this job, but to get smaller contractors to qualify for projects at $5 million and under and create a list of qualified CMs. From that list we will select someone for the Animal Control and EMA project. My hope is by lowering that for smaller projects we will get additional minority companies; as they tend to be smaller contractors.

Mr. Tkac stated we won’t know until the responses are submitted, but I believe there is interest from the smaller companies.

Mr. Moustis stated we will take the recommendations from the Executive’s Office, do interviews and develop a list quickly.

Mr. Van Essen stated our next EMA meeting is Friday and we hope to finalize the layout and get a budget back to you.

Mr. Tuminello asked are you working with Mr. Creech on the waterlines?

Mr. Van Essen replied yes.

Jun 19, 2018 9:30 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Dwyer stated we have been working to accelerate the EMA project to align with the Animal Control building. Things are going well and the floor plan pretty well set. Mr. Matt Zolecki is going to give you an update on the EMA project. Schedule wise we are still on track. We are looking at early August to finish the construction documents. We will be going in this week for an early permit package stormwater and advanced items, to keep things moving forward. Depending on your CM selection, we are targeted to get things out to bid and start construction in September or October. No major changes to the schedule.

Mr. Zolecki reviewed the attached presentation. Yesterday we sent in the package for the stormwater, electrical and engineering for the entire site. Once we planned for a potential EMA building on the site, HR Green pushed forward on the engineering plan. I’m going to walk you through some of the early concept designs for the EMA facility. We have been working with staff on the turning radius for the EMA vehicles.

Mr. Tuminello asked how large is this building versus the SWAT building?

Mr. Zolecki replied it is 11,500 sq. ft. and the SWAT building is 14,100 sq. ft.

Mr. Tuminello asked is there is room for growth in the building and are there things that could be stored outside.

Mr. Damron replied the parking is depicted to make sure they would all fit under one roof. The way we would park them may be different. What you see is a fairly even mix of self-propelled vehicles and trailers. Many of the trailers are motorized, several are generator trailers and you hate to park something motorized outside during the winter. There might be a few trailers that could go outside, but for the bulk of them indoor storage is the best.

Mr. Zolecki added in this layout, it was a worst case scenario. Anything with a “T” is a trailer; some of those trailers are not square and they would not be stored as shown in the rendering.

Mr. Damron the simple box overinflates the size of the trailer. Some of the trailers can be parked very close together versus a vehicle where you need walk around room.

Mr. Maher asked as the county continues to grow, do you see a need to add equipment?

Mr. Damron answered over the last few years we have reduced our fleet. I don’t see any major expansion of our resources.

Mr. Zolecki continued with the presentation focusing on the office space. This is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of the total 11,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Brooks asked how many people will occupy the office in the building?

Mr. Damron replied during the normal Monday through Friday; there will be a couple of full time staff members based there. A lot of our operations are volunteer dependent. We have 60 to 70 volunteers, in teams, that will use this as their home. Their meetings are usually in the evenings or weekends. Day to day, you may only see a few people there, other times you may see 20 to 30 people at one time. The training room is multipurpose for their regular business meetings, training events, etc. There could be times when there are two groups there at the same time.

Mr. Maher asked the Sheriff’s facility is on the same property; have you talked about using their training facility for these meetings?

Mr. Damron answered we have not explored that; I would have to talk with the Sheriff to see if it is feasible. The biggest challenge is we would have 60 to 70 people they don’t know using their building. We sponsor external training and have scheduled our first training class in the Sheriff’s training room.

Mr. Maher stated if there was growth in the future, perhaps you could take out the training room and use it for storage and use the Sheriff’s training room.

Mr. Tuminello stated can the other portion of the building be outfitted for an additional overhead door?

Mr. Van Essen stated to the south is the retention area. We would have to flip the building.

Mr. Damron stated our garage at Laraway has been there for 22 years and that has been our designated alternate for the county’s emergency command center should something happen to this facility. That is another purpose for the training room since it would give us access to the county’s computer network and phone system.

Mr. Maher stated the Sheriff’s facility is on the same piece of property. If there was an emergency and you needed to get to a facility, EMA could double up with our 9-1-1 Center, and Sheriff.

Discussion took place regarding issues with flipping the building on the proposed site and best possible ways to build to allow future growth.

Mr. Damron stated if you are thinking the training room could be used for future vehicle storage, it would simply be an alcove for the trailers. Trailers don’t need a separate garage door to use the space.

Mr. Tuminello suggested looking at the stairs and see if they could be moved to allow trailers to be backed into the training area if growth creates a need.

Mrs. Dollinger asked do you have any miscellaneous equipment that needs to be stored? There doesn’t seem to be closets or cabinets for storage.

Mr. Damron stated it is anticipated in some of the floor space and we have some things pallet racked. We have 120,000 sandbags, palletized and on pallet racks on the wall.

Mr. Tuminello asked are there any preliminary budget numbers?

Mr. Dwyer responded we having been looking at this as a project with Animal Control and EMA together since a good amount of site work overlaps. With both projects going at the same time, we have the benefit of getting value from the site work at both projects. On a total project cost basis, we are looking at around $7 million for both. That includes the hard costs for building, and site, $600,000 for contingency. The contingency is probably high, we are just trying to be conservative as we are progressing in design. We had a higher contingency when we started Animal Control, and as we got more and more details we have been bringing the number down. It is important to carry some contingency as we begin construction.

Mr. Tuminello stated we knew there were be high site costs versus buying a new piece of property; we wanted it there. I was anticipating around $5 million. If we took out the site and contingency costs; are we close to the $5 million from a construction point?

Mr. Dwyer answered yes, if you take out the site and contingency we are close to the $5 million or just under. We are where we were predicting all along. You will hire your CM and negotiate with them on fees; our budget does allow for those costs and hopefully we are high and you will find value there. Our objective is to focus the design to be as cost effective as we can. We are looking at a very simple, straight forward building, much like the SWAT building.

Mr. Van Essen stated the site work is approximately $1.2 million and the building is $4.5 million between the two.

Mr. Tuminello stated Mr. Fricilone and I were anticipating $5 million for construction and we knew there would be a tremendous amount of site work. I think there will be some economy of scale when we start looking at the construction costs in the end with the CM, by doing both projects at the same time.

Mr. Dwyer stated we always try to keep a buffer in the contingency for extra furniture or storage.

Mr. Tuminello stated we are interviewing CMs next week and we will come back with a decision on hiring a CM and get this project moving. We want to get those bid docs out on the street in a timely manner.

Jul 10, 2018 9:30 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Tkac stated Mr. Van Essen is on vacation this week and is the hands on person for the project. We are approaching 100% design development for the Animal Control facility. We are a little less than that with the EMA facility. The scope of the design for EMA is not as involved. We expect to have bid documents within 30 days and put this out on the street. Later in the agenda we will be talking about the CM and how that will be decided upon. Things are on track. I have some left over spoils to move from the Public Safety Complex project. We are in the process of relocating them to the Prairieview landfill at no charge.

Aug 7, 2018 11:00 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Van Essen stated Animal Control construction documents have been completed at 100% and we are sending them for permit review. The EMA facility is expected to be completed at 100% by the end of this month.

Mr. Tuminello asked will we still hit our deadline?

Mr. Van Essen replied proceeding that is getting Harbour and Bowa to finalize their contract and give us their proposal. We will review and approved and then get the bids on the street.

Mr. Tuminello asked is there any update on the site work?

Mr. Van Essen responded the soil has been removed and we are working with Harbour to put the sewer line work on the street before the other packages. We are expecting to do one package for all the trades for both buildings.

Mr. Dwyer stated most of the site work is covered in the Animal Control drawings with EMA more focused on the building. We were looking at the site holistically before EMA was added. There was a kickoff meeting with the CMs to go over the project. There is potential for them if they decided it bid it in packages to get it going. They just started getting the information and getting immersed in the project. The permitting is moving forward. The site permitting was submitted to the IEPA approximately one month ago; that can take up to 90 days. The permitting is moving along. There is a lot of good content for the CMs to start working bid strategy to get the project ready for construction.