Will County

Will County Information Item

Update from Health Department Team (Kluber)


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


  1. 1124 WCHD Final Presentation 010218

Meeting History

Oct 17, 2017 9:30 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Van Essen introduced Mr. Mike Elliott and Mr. Chris Hanson of Kluber and Ms. Olenek and Ms. Bilotta from the Health Department.

Mr. Hanson and Mr. Elliott reviewed the attached handout.

Mr. Maher asked is this plan taking into account what they are doing currently and what it would take to replace the existing activities.

Mr. Elliott replied yes.

Mr. Maher asked as we build buildings we take into account the future growth of the county, how do you see the new design working in the future for the Health Department?

Ms. Olenek replied we have discussed this several times with Kluber; there is not enough space in this design for growth. Basically, we are replacing what we have now and decreasing the total square footage. With a growing county, there will be an additional need for health services. I would like to see a growth factor put in the plan. Many health departments have a strategic position, it is a vital position that we don't that. This position will allow us the ability to be more strategic and proactive. Looking at this plan, there is no place to put this person. They would have to go into another division. I would like to see a growth factor included in the building.

Mr. Fricilone stated do you know the square footage of each of these departments are currently? For example you are designating 7,096 square feet for Administration; do you know what they have now?

Mr. Hanson responded we will provide that in future updates. As you look at the titles, Administration is not only the director's office, but finance, HR, IT, vital records, receiving facilities, media service and AP all fall within that lead title. This program does have a little additional space for very targeted groups. The excess space is less than 5% of the building total at this time.

Mr. Fricilone stated based on these breakouts could you give us the total square footage of the current space?

Mr. Tuminello asked is WIC part of the clinic's duties at the existing location?

Ms. Olenek stated there is no health center programming in this plan. This is all what is located at 501 Ella Avenue. WIC is the Women, Infants and Children Clinic, housed at 501 Ella now.

Mr. Maher asked do you see clients in this building?

Ms. Olenek answered yes in the behavioral health area.

Mr. Maher asked have you done any projections for future services? Have you identified where the programming might be going? That will impact size and scope of the project.

Mr. Hansen stated we have done numerous county health department facilities in northern Illinois. One area we are seeing the largest growth is behavioral health services. We have been working with the Lake County Health Department for 16 years, we are adding that program element to all of their remote clinics at this time. At a facility we designed, with services for roughly the same population as Will County we are looking to reconfiguration to add additional counseling services. We see the biggest growth is behavioral health, based on our experience. We have worked with Kendall and McHenry Counties and all are reporting basically the same statistical data. We believe the need is there for the underprivileged that frequent these county facilities for those services. We do anticipate growth over time.

Ms. Olenek added one thing we had in mind was to keep the second floor as limited access to the general public. Our current building is open and we are trying to secure privacy and have security for the building itself. The top level will mostly be employees, staff and contractors. The departments on the first floor see clients and have people coming in and out.

Mr. Van Essen stated there is flexibility in the stacking design to add space in the future on the second floor.

Mr. Hansen stated at the Lake County facility, we noticed on the second floor there was an open area of unprogrammed spaced set aside for anticipated growth. We designed the building in 2009 and they moved in 2010. That particular area of the building has changed seven times; with programs that came online due to grant funded opportunities or that went off line because the grant was not refunded. The key was we had flexible use space, primarily open cubical space, to allow the programs to adapt to the need as it occurs. In this particular design we have approximately 10% flexibility built into the program. We would like to see the number higher to anticipate the growth, but I think, we have enough information to move toward the site selection. We are not talking about adding twice the square footage, we are talking about 10,000 square feet to meet the changing needs over time for a 20 year plan. Usually 10% of the square footage of the building is flexible use space and is number we should be considering as part of this project; we currently have 3,000 square feet built in, which is 5%. We would recommend additional space.

Mr. Moustis asked how many square feet is the Community Health Center? If we wanted to look at the option of bringing the clinic to this location; I am curious what we would be adding.

Mr. Van Essen stated it is 32,800 square feet.

Mr. Tuminello stated 32,000 square feet would fit into the floor plan footprint of one floor.

Mr. Moustis stated I am only suggesting it as an option and at some point we would have clinic services in this building. Certainly, that would be an expensive building.

Mr. Hansen stated we are looking at the stacking based on the highest public use being accessed at the main level. If you consider incorporating a clinic type facility, normally clinics would be located on the first floor, which would create a larger first floor footprint and there would be additional parking requirements.

Mr. Moustis stated I am looking at how we best serve the public. Where do people have the most access with public transportation? I am not saying this is what we will do, but I would like to see the option of the potential cost to do that. I would look as an alternate to the plan.

Mr. Hansen stated at this early stage we are looking at the program requirements and test fitting that square footage to site. It is easy to do the math for the additional square footage at a unit rate we will use for the building.

Mr. Moustis added the site selection is key to what we may or may not develop and determine whether we would want to move some services.

Mr. Tuminello asked of the 32,800 square feet you have; how much is utilized and occupied?

Ms. Olenek responded there may be two cubicles in the basement not being used; otherwise the entire building is being used and they could use more space.

Mrs. Dollinger asked is it customary to have behavioral health on the second floor?

Mr. Hansen responded we are trying to look at stacking a more equal footprint to get better efficiency, which means less cost per square foot for construction. One challenge given to the Health Department was, if you could live with specific programs that have to be on the second floor, how would we provide those services and what would they be? The results was behavioral health, because they are a large programmatic element. However, usually one, two or three people at the most coming in at one time for a particular therapy sessions. In that case, allowing them to go to the second floor would help aid in the efficiency of the building footprint. That again, allows us more flexibility on the number of sites we are looking at. That was identified as a possibility. If we do that, the second floor will then need a reception area to receive the people, before they are disbursed into the behavioral health department; that is planned into the program.

Jan 16, 2018 9:30 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Van Essen introduced the team: Ms. Sue Olenek, Ms. Elizabeth Bilotta, Mr. Pat Thorn, Mr. Scott Creech, Mr. Mike Elliott, Mr. Chris Hansen and Mr. Dave Tkac.

Ms. Olenek introduced Board of Health Members, Mr. Jim Zelko, Mr. John Cicero, Chief Dan Forsythe, Dr. Billie Terrell and Mr. Don Gould.

Mr. Van Essen stated our goal today is to look at the site selection and determine where to place this project.

Mr. Hansen reviewed page one of presentation attached to the agenda.

Ms. Fritz arrived at this juncture.

Mr. Elliott reviewed page two of the presentation. We were asked to look at three different sites. Site A is the current Health Department; Site B is the current courthouse and Site C is the County Office Building. We looked at each site to determine how we would apply the required components; building footprint, parking and other aspects of the buildings.

Mr. Elliott reviewed the current Health Department site. I am going to describe the base of the building and the layout. Mr. Creech will describe some of the civil engineering aspects. At the current building site, we have positioned a 40,000 square foot footprint of a two story building, plus an additional 350 parking spaces, plus additional parking to cover the clinic area. The clinic takes some of the parking.

Mr. Creech stated we provided the civil engineering assessment of all three sites. We looked at all utilities for the three sites. We worked with the City of Joliet, Nicor, ComEd, Verizon and Comcast and determined all three sites have sufficient utilities for the proposed development. The City of Joliet mentioned in 2015 they put in a new water main at Doris and Richards. In 2019 and 2020 they are upsizing the sanitary sewer on Richards with a lift station. That brings the capacity of sewer and water to a sufficient level to serve this building. We reviewed the City Ordinances. Some people thought if you are working in an existing property, you don't need to add stormwater management, there is a grandfather clause; that is not the case. All three site will require stormwater management with new detention for any of the areas developed. In all three sites we depict a basin. The current site is a concept, so there could be a wet or dry pond. Generally, the topography runs from the northwest to the southeast. It makes logical sense to put the basin at the bottom of the hill. This can be reconfigured, but is what we think is a good layout for this particular site. The building in the middle, allowing for stage construction while the existing Health Department operates. We wanted to maintain the ring road or provide a new ring road in the same location, a new road is part of the price component. Regarding the site pricing, we were conservative, but I think they are good budgetary numbers. With regard to the parking, we looked at what is being provided at the existing site. Presently, the Health Department has 173 staff parking spaces; 108 public parking spaces with four spaces that are vehicle parking and storage. That is a total of 284 spaces. That was our base number. You will see in all three exhibits, we are looking at 350 parking spaces. That is on the high end, we were conservative and wanted to make sure we had enough spaces; that is a 20% growth rate. Ultimately, you are going to need between 300 and 350 for parking requirements for the facility. We picked the high end and that is what we are showing. The clinic has 100 spaces and we provided 40 spaces to allow their existing 60 to meet what they have today. Sunny Hill has 200 spaces, mostly toward the west. Those spaces are maintained in this development.

Mr. Tuminello asked how many employees work at the Health Department?

Ms. Olenek replied we have 275 in the department, approximately 235 work at this site, the remaining employees are at the branch offices. There are approximately 140 employees at the Health Clinic.

Mr. Tuminello stated I thought the public went to the clinic and not to the Health Department.

Ms. Olenek replied we have a case load in WIC of 8,000 families and everybody goes to both buildings. We probably service more people at the Health Department than the Health Center daily. The Health Department has behavioral health, WIC, HIV/STD, immunizations, environmental health and vital records.

Mr. Maher asked with the number of staff and volume are the parking spaces adequate?

Ms. Olenek responded I believe between 300 and 350 would be adequate for daily parking. WIC, vital records, environmental health are in and out. There are people there all day, but don’t need a lot of spaces.

Mr. Creech continued we looked at other environmental components, such flood plains and wetlands. In this case, we looked at National Wetland Inventory Map, because that is all we had available. There are no issues with flood plain or wetland in any of the three spaces. At the current site, you will have to take down some trees with this configuration.

Mr. Elliott continued with a review of the current courthouse site. In this design we have put the building on the current parking lot area. With this diagram as well we are extending through Chicago Street. In the area where the courthouse sits, we have an area for stormwater and above we have shown an area for a parking deck. With approximately 300 spaces, with an elevated bridge going from the second floor of the deck into the building to aid with the pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Creech stated at one point we were talking about the City lot. We realize there are a number of directions you can lay the site plan out. We chose the detention basin for the basement of the existing courthouse, just to avoid extra rock excavation. That could be an open basin, but more than likely it would be underground detention with a plaza on top or surface parking. I know there is an agreement to open up Chicago Street and exchange parking. There are 191 spaces in the County parking lot and 111 spots in the City of Joliet lot, or approximately 300 spots.

Mr. Elliott stated the final site we looked at was the COB. We are proposing to demolish the current building, build on the exact spot and in the current parking area create a parking deck. In options B and C, we looked at if the decision was to move the Health Clinic as well, we would go to a three story building. An alternative would be to build a third story to the building.

Mr. Creech stated in site C we would position the underground detention on the northeast quadrant. The existing parking at the COB is around 220 spaces, well short of the 300 or 350 we were looking for. All utilities, from an engineering standpoint, are sufficient at both of the downtown sites.

Mr. Hansen reviewed the Site Evaluation Form in the packet. Alt 1 includes moving the Health Clinic. The criteria specifically spells out why we are evaluating the site for that particular component. The ranking came from numerous team meetings.

Mr. Tuminello stated to me some of the rankings are skewed to show Site A is actually the best location. As an example; community access - 10 points for Site A, but Site B and C are zero, unless you throw in the Clinic. The statement reads "access to the services for the community available at a single site location". There is no way any other site would qualify. If you are located next to Sunny Hill or the current area, you get a 10. The list shows only the current location will qualify.

Mr. Hanson stated what we were trying to present to you, was what we heard as a result of the collective group's thoughts on how services would be delivered and whether or not it was more efficient as an organization for the Health Department to function with adjacent services on a site versus moving those to different sites.

Mr. Tuminello stated I am not disagreeing with you or the group. I feel this list was put together to accelerate that finding versus something more independent and outside the box.

Mr. Fricilone asked who was the group?

Mr. Hansen replied Health Department Administration, representatives from Kluber, Mr. Van Essen, Mr. Tkac, representatives from HR Green, plus the presentations to the Capital Committee. At the presentation you asked would it work better if we were to consider relocating the Community Health Center.

Mr. Fricilone stated when you have site safety and public transportation as a component, I cannot understand how the downtown site next to the new Metra station with all the buses, could have a lesser score than something in a neighborhood?

Ms. Olenek stated the difference is in the statement which reads "community access, access to the services for the community is available at a single site location".

Mr. Fricilone stated when you add that, it gives one site all the points and none to the others.

Mr. Tuminello stated the same with the speed to opening. Site A is the only site that will get points, because everything else is dependent on something else getting done. I am not saying Site A is the wrong site, what I am saying is the numbers are skewed because some of the items in there makes me feel uncomfortable.

Mr. Moustis asked where did you get direction that these are the only sites to be looked at? I don't believe it was ever the Committee's direction. I want to know when you ever heard from this Committee that only these three sites should be looked at. Certainly, we wanted to look at County owned sites, but we were open to looking at sites outside these three, and I think we still are. We talked about relocating near the Silver Cross or St. Joe's Hospital campuses. The fact that only these three sites were evaluated is problematic for me. These were not the only three sites we said we would consider. I don't know how this happened. I will say, I don't believe that was ever the direction of this Committee. Would it matter to this Committee, I don't know. How you got this notion, I don't know. We were always open to multiple sites, County owned and non-County owned sites. When we look at these evaluations, it is a very narrow perspective, when you only look at County owned property.

Mr. Fricilone asked how did we determine a two story, 40,000 square foot footprint? That skews the way it sits, the parking and everything. Why not a four story, 20,000 square foot footprint?

Mr. Hansen stated we did work with the user groups to determine the best ways to stack or do a stacking arrangement for the building as it related to programs. The heavily used, public access functions are primarily designated for the first level of the building. Example the WIC Clinic with moms and strollers makes it more convenient to be on the first floor. The other goal and objective was to get a footprint that would reasonably stack as close as we could to an equal floor square footage for ease and constructability and keep the actual construction costs down. Based on the way the programmatic elements, were stacking in terms of the footprint and the understanding, we are trying to have less management of each floor from a safety check in and security perspective. The group felt a two story solution could work and fortunately the programmatic elements we came up with were relatively close to 40,000 square foot per level. It was based on a programmatic need, but the primary driver was based on the usage of the facility and the reduction of check in points that would be possible in a multi-level structure.

Mr. Tuminello stated you are estimating 79,000 square foot. If it stayed on the current location, would the square footage for future expansion need to be programmed into the building in advance? Could the building be built without the future growth, but built in a way it could be added in the future? You have off-site storage listed. We have off-site storage at that location now.

Ms. Olenek stated there is off-site storage on Cherry Hill Road. Only a portion of that was included in the storage here.

Mr. Hansen stated 1716 square feet of off-site was included.

Mr. Van Essen stated part of the off-site currently is going to be storage for their vehicle when the SOG Building is completed.

Mr. Tuminello stated can the building be expanded at a later date?

Mr. Hansen replied we would look at reducing the relative footprints. Each of the sites actually gives us a little latitude in likely building to the size of the structure. We would likely not commit to going up, it could be done, but you have to vacate when you build up, unless it is in the initial shell. Each of the sites could accommodate the future square footage as an addition to the side of the facilities if that was the decision of the Committee. That would reduce the initial cost for the construction.

Mr. Hansen continued with a review of the presentation rankings and budgets for each site.

Mr. Tuminello asked Mr. Fricilone if a budget had been discussed for the Health Department.

Mr. Fricilone responded between $16 and $20 million.

Mr. Maher asked have you come up with any scenarios of ground level parking allowing the City of Joliet to accommodate the parking in the downtown area? In most cases, the City of Joliet would be responsible for providing parking.

Mr. Hansen stated the last internal meeting we understood there have been on-going negotiations for a land swap between the County and City of Joliet for this parcel. At this time, we chose not to look at that option. One of the primary drivers of a development was the concern regarding the service to the clients and making sure there was adequate parking to service the Health Department clients as the major driving factor. The other component is convenient access for moms with children coming to the WIC clinic. There are larger programs scheduled for groups of 40 or 50 people, we wanted to make sure the parking total included enough latitude to allow a shift between programs to occur. When we looked at the parking numbers on the surface lot at the current Health Department site, the reason the number of 350 was chosen was to allow flex turnover space between program areas so people are not looking for parking.

Mr. Moustis asked what is the current number of parking spots at the Health Department?

Mr. Tuminello replied 173 staff, 108 public and 4 vehicles a total of 285. There is an additional 105 for the Health Clinic or a total of 390.

Mr. Tuminello stated one good thing is the numbers from Kluber for demolition of the courthouse were in line with the numbers from Wight.

Mr. Hansen stated our AE community is very adept at knowing the dollars per square foot for not only new, but demolition. Of course, we inquired once we produced the number to make sure it was in the range and knew we were in the ballpark. We felt comfortable with the numbers. The cost per square foot numbers for new construction is based on numerous county health departments’ facilities we have under construction along with the vast number of projects we have done for this particular building type.

Mr. Van Essen stated at every site we will have demolition allocated.

Mr. Fricilone stated the problem is the bottom lines. When you add parking, your furniture costs go up; that does not make sense. I know you are using percentages, but you are not buying more furniture for one building or the other. The GC Bond and insurance goes up also based on a parking deck. The numbers start getting skewed when you are doing these overalls.

Mr. Hansen stated we recognize and agree with that statement. At this particular level of development, without any further analysis of the building, we believe these numbers will come down and not go up. We were taking a very conservative approach for this first pass, especially for you to see the magnitude. From there we will pare it down. It is no different than the question earlier, could we build the future build out space or the shell now. Absolutely it could be done. We were asked to include this as part of this initially. We wanted to give you an all-in look with growth.

Mr. Tuminello stated if we were going to build downtown, in the existing courthouse area, I would want to build the entire shell there because it would be very disruptive to add it later. If we are at Site A, we will not be disruptive to the downtown area.

Mr. Hansen replied the complexity between the sites was factored into the numbers, based on a more open site with free layout area versus a confined downtown site. That was factored into these buildings.

Mr. Fricilone stated I don't think we explored enough here. We are looking at three specific sites owned by the County. You did not take into consideration anything not owned by us. You did not look at any green space or anything next to the new Silver Cross mental health facility. It came down to these three and that is it. I could have told you a year ago, if you pick from these three sites, it will cost less to build at the current location.

Mr. Moustis stated we never restricted the site. We are not doing our due diligence if we restrict our decision to these three sites and base our decision on just these three sites. I could have told you it would cost more to build on an urban site versus an open site. I know there is a synergy between the Health Department and the Community Health Center. I see them as separate entities. I know the Health Department over the years as really tried to have oversight of the Health Center. This is not the first time this has come up. This was a controversial thing some time ago between the two Boards, who controls the Community Health Center. Obviously, the Health Department Board prevailed. I don't see them as the same. The Health Care Center has a separate governing board and could run independent of the Health Department even with some commonality between the client base. I don't put as much of a marriage between the two as I think others do. Ms. Olenek will make an argument why they need to stay together, you will not convince me otherwise. They are separate entities. I understanding how funding flows. Ten years from now I believe it will be a completely independent operation away from the Health Department or we may ask someone else to operate it. I don't know the future of the Health Clinics and the Health Department.

Mr. Tuminello stated we can look at a number of sites, if we continue to come back to the belief there is a synergy, I would like Ms. Olenek to respond.

Ms. Olenek stated as we were working with Kluber it was our understanding and I do recall the Capital Improvements Committee meetings, Kluber was going to be asked to look at three sites. It was in their contract to do three sites. Within this discussion, Kluber received direction from someone as to what the three sites would be.

Mr. Moustis stated it did not come from the County Board.

Mr. Tuminello stated I spoke with Mr. Tkac and when we asked which County sites we were going to look at; I did confirm these would be the three County owned sites we would look at. I did not say we were not going to look at non-County owned sites.

Ms. Olenek stated they were only contracted to look at three sites. It is not just synergy between the Community Health Center and the Health Department. The Health Center is a division, part of the Health Department. The CEO reports to me, they receive their budget from us, and they follow all of our policies and procedures. They work with our Finance Department and IT. They are a part of the Health Department. They have a separate governing board, which is required by their 330 federal grant. That governing board has a function and it is for operational policy. They don't develop a budget, they don't do anything other than policy and operation within that department.

Mr. Moustis stated if the Health Department was not there, the federal funding would still go to them. It does not come from the Health Department, it comes from the federal government.

Ms. Olenek stated they would not be able to operate, if they were not part of the Health Department. They would not survive if it was not for the Health Department.

Mr. Moustis asked what would happen if they became part of Aunt Martha's?

Ms. Olenek continued the Health Department built that building several years ago, with no money from the County. They saw a need and Mr. Cicero and Mr. Zelko saved, almost $6 million to build that building.

Mr. Moustis asked was that not taxpayers’ money? It was taxpayer dollars.

Ms. Olenek stated the Health Department, it was not from the County. It was money from the taxpayers.

Mr. Cicero stated for clarification the majority of health centers in the U.S. are run as independent, sole standing entities. However, the model developed in Will County is called the co-applicant model. The Board of Health made application to get into the business of developing a Health Center and the governing council is the co-applicant. It is a legal entity and there are probably less than 5% in country. That is the model we work under with a cooperative, legal document developed through the State's Attorney's Office on who is responsible for what and what each Board is responsible for. Our model is joint; that is the way it exists today. There are some limitations with respect to who does what. It is a model, different from a stand-alone.

Mr. Tuminello clarified across the United States 95% are stand alone. Why did Will County take the 5% method?

Mr. Cicero stated because the Board of Health recognized a community need for primary care and developed this model. Lake County has the exact same model. They were a few years ahead of us. Their Executive Director was a sounding board, we looked at their model and we said if there is going to be local tax dollars involved, the Board of Health has to have some say in the matter. That is why this model was developed.

Mr. Tuminello stated of this 5% located throughout the country; how many have their clinic and health department side by side?

Ms. Olenek and Mr. Cicero indicated they did not know.

Mr. Moustis asked did we have a primary health care center prior?

Ms. Olenek stated we ran some clinics.

Mr. Cicero stated there were clinics that ran a couple of afternoons each week, but it was not comprehensive coverage. It was not a medical whole model. Our previous Director, Jim Zelko said if we are going to do this, it has to be a one stop shop. It is on the campus, people can get referred back and forth, whether it is the maternal and child health services or mental health or behavioral health services. It is a beautiful model, when it works and it is working at this point.

Mr. Tuminello asked how many clients are like clients?

Ms. Olenek stated I don't know the number. We have at least ten programs where both the Health Department staff and the Community Health Center staff work with the same patient. It is not a WIC mom might be referred to Family Planning, they are referred and they work together. If a mom at the Community Health Center needs an immunization the Health Center does not have, she walks across the parking lot and is served in the Health Department. We have a prep clinic, a new clinic we started this year, it is prophylactic for people partnering with HIV positive people. We have case management, therapy, training and education at the Health Department and the actual clinical care is at the Community Health Center. We have an injection clinic, psychiatric and therapy. You have probably heard of the 115 waiver coming through in behavioral health. That waiver specifically recommends and in the future wants to require Illinois integrated care with behavioral health clients. They don’t just see a behavioral health psychiatrist and therapist, they have to see and follow up on primary care as well. Behavioral health is going to integrated care. It will be difficult for us to do that if we have one service on one site and the other service on another site.

Mr. Moran stated I am looking at the three different sites and one recommendation was to replace the COB for these two services. We are not looking at the big picture. If we are going to do something with the COB, the Health Department, Public Health Center and parking decks, why do the estimates not include adding the County administrative offices on upper floors? Why would we build a building downtown with just two stories? It does not seem like a good use of the land. It would seem to me, if we were going to replace the Courthouse we would put up a four or six story building and include all the County admin offices. You could still have the Health Department and the County Health Clinic on the first floor. The Health Department Clinic on Mills Road, might make a nice place for Land Use.

Mr. Tuminello stated I brought this up months ago. The new courthouse will be two stories for clerks and ten stories for courtrooms. If we could mirror that on the other side of the street with the two story building for the Health Department and the County offices would be in the taller building behind it. It would mirror the courthouse and everything would be centrally located in downtown.

Mr. Moustis stated I agree. There is a higher and better use for the overall site than just a stand-alone Health Department.

Mr. Tuminello stated the reason behind updating the Wight Study was to put like services together. The smaller portion of the building is what we are discussing.

Mr. Fricilone stated I understand there might be programming issues with multi-story buildings. We have children and single parents coming into the courthouse; they have elevators and escalators. You can move people around.

Mr. Moran stated you could still situate the Health Department on the lower floors and put the County admin on the upper floors.

Mr. Tuminello stated that is what led to the Wight Study to determine which operations we want to put into the building.

Mr. Maher stated we have talked about campuses in the downtown area with the courthouse an anchor for a campus area. We cannot look at this in isolation, everything we have talked about today needs to be taken a look at. It is the reason we brought Wight in ten years ago to go do the study. This has to be a comprehensive look to the County. I am glad Mr. Moran brought this up. The idea of making this a campus location and how we will bring everything together changes these numbers. You have to bring Joliet into the conversation about parking; where employees park versus where people park when visiting downtown. Parking will always be an issue. If Joliet is going to grow, Joliet has to be part of the solution and it is not all on us and the people we represent. We have talked about how this would be part of a potential green space, if we were looking at just a campus. Silver Cross and St. Joe’s have services and resources clients who come to the County could use. Taking a look at potential spots in those areas, if we are talking one stop shops, administratively versus service sometimes can be separate. You don’t have to have your administrators in the same building as services are provided. If this was closer to Silver Cross or St. Joe’s would there be synergy working with that part of the health world.

Ms. Olenek stated we could not consider moving the Community Health Center out of the 60432 or 60433 zip code area. Our HIPSA score designates where our Health Center has to be. It does not have to be at the same location, it has to be in 60432 or 60433 zip code, if not, our funding would be in jeopardy. Taking the Health Center to 60451 would not work. Additionally, a majority of our clients at the Health Department are not from New Lenox; they are from Joliet, Romeoville and Bolingbrook.

Mr. Maher stated having the downtown campus presence, that was inclusive, could potentially change the numbers and make it more conducive to the citizens of Joliet and Will County.

Ms. Olenek stated that would be more feasible for our clients than 60451. We want to do the right thing for our patients and clients.

Mr. Brooks stated when you first came on board, we discussed how the zip codes tied to the federal grants and where your clients come from. I do remember we talked about green sites and I thought the reason we looked at these three sites, because those two zip codes were where your clients come. I thought if these sites came in very high, then we should look at green sites. I think a building that houses the County administrative offices upstairs is a good idea.

Mr. Moustis asked is part of your client base due to location? Is it is inconvenient for someone from outside that area to come to you, because they have no access to public transportation to get there? Does the actual site dictate the client base? How much of the client base does it dictate?

Ms. Olenek replied many of our clients are Medicaid patients. They have to meet eligibility requirements, whether for a Medicaid or WIC. Much of that has to do with income levels. That is driven by the area.

Mr. Moustis stated I never thought the site should be outside of Joliet. Should we look around the St. Joe’s campus? Is that more centralized site for public transportation? Is it in the center of the client base? It seems to me it would be. It would have better access to all of Joliet, Romeoville and Bolingbrook and may have some Medicaid. I understand Joliet would probably have the largest population.

Ms. Olenek stated we have clients from all over the county. A majority of our clients are from Joliet.

Mr. Moustis asked is the current site the best site to give the maximum number of people the opportunity to get access? I don’t think it is, but it is not the worst site either. Is there something more centralized in Joliet? Would that give more opportunity, to more people, to get there? Are there places with main bus routes? Are there places with a denser population so people could walk? That is what I am talking about. The way the population has grown overtime is something to take that into consideration. It does not seem to me we are taking it into consideration. Where is the best spot to reach the most clients that qualify? That is what I was hoping; even if it was a third site, where would be the best location to hit the most rooftops. I want to make sure we are putting it in the right place to reach to benefit the most people.

Ms. Winfrey stated a majority of people using the Center are from Joliet and the majority of the zip codes are 60432 and 60433, which would be closest to where it is currently. People from all over the city use the Center. Looking at Medicare and Medicaid those are probably the two highest concentrations based on need and use. The Center is on the bus line, people do walk as well as getting dropped off. That is a big portion of your decision to keep that as the primary site.

Ms. Olenek stated Pace added routes a couple of routes four years ago, doubling the number of routes coming to our facility. We added another bike rack as we have people who ride their bikes to the Clinic and people walk. They use the services of the Health Department many time in the same day. It is a barrier to ask people to go to one site, then make an appointment and take another day off and go to another site on another day.

Mr. Tuminello stated that is what Mr. Moustis is saying. Because it is located there, they can bike, walk and take the bus. If it was somewhere else would we have a large population from those zip codes using the services?

Ms. Olenek stated as the Administrator there is the increased costs of maintaining two major sites. The integrated programs we have working together, on program days staff would leave one site and drive to the other, causing us to pay mileage and have people away. It does present logistic issues that we would solve, but there will be increased costs to our agency.

Ms. Freitag stated the Kluber contract states three sites would be looked at. One being the current site and two other sites. It does not designate which sites.

Mr. Palmer asked did you look at the current users of the site? Are they mostly car or transit arrivals? This issue came up with Workforce Services; they were on Plainfield Road, a bus route, not a good one; they began surveying their clients, similar in demographics as your clients, they found most people are driving not take the bus to the site. Workforce moved to the west side of Joliet which has transit and parking because many of their clients are being dropped off or driving. That may be something you want to look at. We are looking at 300 plus parking spots and planning for people to drive to the site. Transit is important and we want people to take buses so there is less traffic on the roads, but it is not the only way people are getting there. We are looking at different sites and how to deal with parking, but all of them have transit.

Ms. Olenek stated we see cars in and out all day, we can certainly look at that.

Mr. Tuminello stated there are only 140 parking spots for employees the rest are for clients.

Ms. Olenek stated some days are busier; but a minimum of 300 people per day visit our site.

Mr. Palmer stated one thing we can do now with Sunny Hill, Health Department and Community Health, is better wayfinding. Our office has been talking about contacting IDOT for signs on the highways that would give better wayfinding to the site. I have heard people talk about the visibility and others say it is there, but not everybody knows it is there. Better visibility with wayfinding it would be helpful.

Mr. Maher stated I think there needs to be discussion about what Mr. Moran said regarding the administrative campus. We are going to build it and they will come to the area where we put it. People will find a way to get there. As we start allocating and getting a vision for the future County campus, do we want to have a separate campus down there? You could talk about one stop shopping being not only the Health Department; but all County services. If you are bringing 300 plus people into the downtown area on a daily basis, that will impact the economy, even if they are spending a little bit or becoming aware of what is available in Joliet. We need to have a discussion about how this would look in a bigger, more comprehensive building package.

Mr. Tuminello stated that is the reason Wight is updating the study. An example was given of someone who building a project in the County. They came to the COB and saw the County Executive, he directed them to Land Use. After meeting with Land Use, he needed a sign off from the Health Department and then a final Land Use signoff. He kept driving around. When we look at consolidating and combining of services, could we put a synergy of all those services in one building and that is how the Health Department came into the picture. If we did a mirror of the courthouse, it would be a separate building, but in the same location for the ease of the residents. We have to be careful we don’t create a synergy from one part of the county and disrupt the synergy from the other end. That is why these questions are being asked.

Mr. Maher asked what would it take to move the clinic as well, so everything is in one spot?

Mr. Moustis stated today we are here for site selection. Whether I agree with the three sites assessed or not, or whether something else should have been looked at, these were the sites assessed. Time is a factor and we could not immediately start at the downtown sites. We are working on the IGA with Joliet and Chicago Street could impact this causing a significant time lapse or delays in building downtown versus the current site. Out of these three, there is only one choice, the current site; unless we are going to start over. I think there are other sites that could work better, but if we are making a decision based on these three sites, then the Committee should recommend the current site and move forward. I thought we could do better, but maybe not.

Mr. Tuminello stated it was mentioned at Finance, using a County owned site saves us the upfront cost of buying another location. That is a current asset, on the books of the County.

Mr. Moustis stated we have quite a bit of land there along with detention. I don’t think they will know how much rock they will hit.

Mr. Tuminello stated I still believe the questions asked unfairly make one site more advantageous. None of these questions are to say we don’t want you to go there or you are not going there. At the end of the day, I want to know we asked those questions and I am happy where it is going versus saying we should have been tougher.

Mr. Moustis stated our projects are budget driven. We did not set a budget, as today was about site selection and the difference of constructing on those sites, I believe the estimates for construction are very conservative. I do think they would be less. We talked about a $20 million budget, now the project becomes budget driven. Like we did with the courthouse, we have a $20 million budget, how are we going to accomplish it? Maybe we don’t build storage, because it is too expensive and we could build less expensive storage. We went through an exercise at the courthouse where we eliminated and reduced things, we did increase the budget because long term it was the most economical thing to do. I think that is the next step, take this site and start having a budget driven process.

Ms. Olenek stated I respect the need to do your due diligence. You have to fully vet this and answer to the taxpayers and those of us who work for the County. I understand and respect that position. If any of you have questions as to how we arrived at the standards, about what a certain program does, who is in a program or how do we deliver the program, I would be happy to have you come out for a separate meeting. If you want a meeting with multiple County Board Members could sit and discuss this, I would be happy to be present. Some of you have not been to our site, you are welcome anytime and we will give you a tour of our leaky roof, our upheaved floors and cracked foundation.

Mr. Fricilone stated the original budget for the Public Safety Complex was $62 million. We sat down, did our due diligence, had everyone participate and got it down to half of that number. This building is more than adequate and everyone is happy here. That needs to be our next step.

Mr. Maher stated I have been in your building, and there is a need to make this move forward in a timely matter. When you take a look at the budget and potential multi-uses of a downtown location that budget changes. The demolition comes out, because it will be demolished. You have to look at the services that can be provided and what it costs to build that location for the services, not for the entire site. Looking at this from a budget standpoint, we are going to do a disservice to our citizens if we do not look at a multi-use of the downtown administrative area. I cannot vote to go forward with that current site, because I don’t think we have done our due diligence.

Mr. Moran stated I feel the same way. If we are going to build a new County administrative building, then we need to look at that with the same scope as this project. To not do so, is not doing our due diligence. We should take a look at it and if possible consolidate some of the construction costs, and reduce costs for both projects by doing it that way, it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Moustis stated you would not take care of the Health Department needs five or six years. I think there is a higher and better use of the courthouse site with private business on the ground level that would benefit Will County and Joliet much more than putting the Health Department at that site. I don’t know the Health Department hours; maybe they have some evening hours. Maybe it is not just an 8:00 to 4:00 operation. If you bring them into that building, and have to stay open until 7:00 p.m. the operational costs could be more. There are a lot of things to consider and the biggest is you are kicking the Health Department building down five to six years.

Ms. Olenek stated we have hours until 7:30 p.m. and Saturday hours in behavioral health, family health services and the Community Health Center. We are a six day per week operation.

Mr. Maher stated you could lock off the remaining parts of the building during those times.

Mr. Tuminello asked on the existing courthouse site, is there enough room to build a building that would mirror the new courthouse, with a couple of story building for the Health Department before the current courthouse is torn down? I am referring to the area on the northeast corner of the courthouse. Could we attempt to build the Health Department building, while the courthouse is still up or is that a non-issue?

Mr. Van Essen responded it could be done, but it would be more costly. You will be dealing with a very tight space and people walking around a construction site.

Mr. Tuminello clarified the timeline of Mr. Moustis would most likely be accurate, because that would be the highest and best use for the dollars spent.

Mr. Fricilone stated we did say if there was any way to get this building going even before we finish the courthouse we wanted to do that, based on the issues at the existing building. There are synergies, there might be better use for the courthouse site, and we will not have the courthouse down until 2021. Even if we started then, it would be 2023 before the Health Department could move into the building. With all these factors being considered, I think we move forward with this.

Mr. Moustis stated Mrs. Tatroe made me aware our IGA with Joliet has restrictions on the property.

Mrs. Tatroe stated regarding the IGA on Thursday’s agenda, in the agreement is a provision you agree to keep the parking open and free for anyone using the lot after 4:00 p.m. on holidays and weekends for 20 years. I don’t think you can build on one side of the parking lot, if you agreed to give the public the use of the parking lot for 20 years.

Mr. Tuminello stated I would like to have further discussion with our Finance Committee and the Health Department to drill down the numbers, similar to the way we did at the Public Safety Complex.

Mr. Moustis stated they went down to the very basics and then built up.

Mr. Tuminello stated I think the numbers in the proposal were very conservative and we will be able to build a very nice building.

Feb 6, 2018 11:00 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Van Essen stated we talked with Kluber this week and they are providing their proposal, by the end of the week, for efforts through the construction document phase.

Mr. Moustis asked what are they giving us?

Mr. Van Essen replied a proposal for engineering services for the design phases, only through the construction document phase. They will also have a breakout for the construction phase.

Mr. Moustis stated to clarify, we have only contracted with Kluber to do programming and site selection. We have not talked about design, engineering or construction. This will require an additional amendment to the contract; or the Committee and Board could decide to go out for a proposal on design and engineering. Unofficially, we have never given anybody the design, engineering and then give them the building, we always separate it. If it is all yours who is going to push back on the construction side? Are we going to move forward with a proposal from Kluber on design, engineering or do you want to look at other firms?

Mr. Tuminello stated I don't have an issue going out for an RFP or RFQ, but we need to drill down a budget. We could hire a company to design the project but they need to know whether to design a $15 million or a $30 million building, we have to give them direction. The Finance Committee will have to come up with an actual budget. I did give Mr. Tkac some direction last week, if they are interested in building the building, they should not come out for the design portion. It does not serve the taxpayers well when the company designing it, is building it.

Mr. Moustis stated when we started talking about the Health Department we threw out a $15 million budget, primarily based on resources available. We had the same situation with the last two projects, give us the entire wish list, and with the courthouse they came back with $250 to 260 million. We said show us what we can get for $150 million. The Kluber programming estimated between $32 and $35 million. That is more than we initially put out. It is all the programming you could possibly put in. At the Public Safety Complex, we had the same thing and we took it back. Originally, they had 120,000 sq. ft., we brought it down to 60,000 sq. ft. I think there will be a similar process here. We need to get an engineering firm on board. The $20 million range is a budget we could handle without additional borrowing. It could be a target. I think Finance will need to look at this, but I don't think there will be a $35 million budget, unless the Board wants to do additional borrowing. If we do additional borrowing, it could take us over the $275 million that has been established and you would have to expand that. If everything can fall into the $275 million, and you would have to do an analysis on, because we pulled money from the RTA for the Public Safety Complex and we had some reserves for the Public Safety Complex. We need a summary of where we are on the financial side, so we can see what is available before we move too far. I think there is $20 million, but I am not certain.

Mr. Fricilone indicated Mrs. Johannsen is putting together the numbers on what has been spent and what we have. We are working on the numbers to see where we are at, but will need another both component for the courthouse. We need to establish the budget in the near term, so we can give direction. When we get into the weeds things will change.

Mrs. Johannsen added Ms. Howard and Ms. Hennessy have already started a list which is being updated.

Mr. Moustis stated we received a premium for our bonds which gave us additional dollars we put into the courthouse. You may need to ask Mr. Victor Chang to come in; I think there is a strong possibility of upward movement on interest rates and we may want to do this sooner than later. I think you need to look at going out quick. I was surprised the feds did not raise the interest rates the last time. I think in the next move you will see a 50 bases points move.

Mr. Fricilone stated we are going to move forward on that and should be able to look at the numbers and establish where we can go and where we should. That will give us direction on putting out an RFP.

Mr. Moustis added as we get into the courthouse we will go through that money quickly.

Mr. Fricilone stated I don't think we should hold up on the RFP too long. I think we can establish a range.

Mrs. Johannsen added you can establish a not to exceed, including the contingency.

Mr. Fricilone stated to get proposals we can establish a range of the size and budget and their proposal is based on that range.

Mr. Tuminello asked Mr. Tkac how long it would take to draft an RFQ.

Mr. Tkac responded one could be drafted by the end of the week. We can include the program documents and the deliverable from Kluber as an exhibit. Has the project delivery method been determined by this Committee? Usually that is a good thing to add to an RFQ/RFP if we are going to put this the street. When it comes to actually entering the construction phase are we going to put it out as a traditional bid to a general contractor, CM at agency or CM at Risk?

Mr. Moustis stated most likely we will look at CM or CM at Risk. The CM at Risk does not benefit us much, so I would think a CM. If this was a private sector project, I would look at a contractor; however, because of all the considerations we take in, which includes how labor is used, who comes in, union labor, it gives us more say in how they move forward. I think most likely I would say CM.

Mr. Tuminello stated I would rather see the CM, not the CM at Risk. There is no benefit. We are here to protect the taxpayers and a CM for this project is the best way to protect them.

Mar 6, 2018 11:00 AM  WC Capital Improvements Committee Regular Meeting

Mr. Tuminello stated there will be a discussion at the Finance Committee Meeting in April to set the budget for the Health Department moving forward.

Mr. Tkac stated Kluber gave a presentation to this Committee on the program for the facility. This Committee provided direction to issue an RFQ for the design phase of the work. The RFQ is prepared and we are ready to proceed.

Mr. Mike Elliott stated we enjoyed the opportunity to work with the group to put together the initial work. We look forward to the opportunity to continue that work and refine the building through the design process.

Mr. Tuminello stated we look forward to getting the RFQ on the street and you will be considered for the design portion. It is important to get the RFQ on the street and listen to the proposals so we can make an educated decision based on who will design the Health Department. I want to thank Kluber, you have done an outstanding job.

Mr. Moustis stated this was about site selection, we don’t put restrictions on the programming. It becomes a big wish list for everything that could possibly be put in. We basically let the users drive the process. They put everything in they could possibly wish for. The Board process is very budget driven. Many times Mr. Dwyer told us we could not built the courthouse for that, but we did. We told them the budget and they showed us what we could get. We like to put what we think is not only a reasonable number, but a number we feel comes within the county’s finances. We have not done this for this building, other than throwing out some number. There was an estimate of budget numbers in Kluber’s work, based on the wish list. Those estimates tend to be fairly conservative. Going forward we need to say this is the budget we are looking at. Any design team selected, will have a real understanding we go from the programming stage to driving it down to a budget and then what stays within that programming. There will be advocates on both sides of why something has to stay and why something may have to come out. There will be a lot of debate. We have to come up with a budget based on the county’s finances and ability to pay. We still have some bonding ability, some was factored into our overall process when we did the bonding that we could pay for the bond. We have to see if the revenue streams identified are holding up. Some may be falling short, others doing better. Are there are additional bonding sources that can come through a Health Department revenue stream? We need to re-exam our whole financial situation, including how our revenue streams are holding up and our ability to do additional bonding, if we need to.

Mr. Fricilone stated in the early stages of the Public Safety Complex; the building was supposed to be a 120,000 sq. ft. building in the programming and the budget was between $50 and $60 million. The building is 65,000 sq. ft. at a cost of less than $32 million. We have to look at areas we can make even more efficient, and see if some operations we don’t need in that building. That is what we will do as we sit with the Health Department. The programming was done between Kluber and the Health Department. No one here had any input, which is good. Now the money factor comes in, are we going to have a $50 million or $20 million building? We will build what we can build to adequately support the Health Department.

Ms. Olenek asked what is the due date on the RFQ?

Mr. Tkac stated before the RFQ hits the street, I wanted to include the project budget amount, set by the Committee.

Mr. Tuminello stated the RFQ will be released after the April Finance Committee. From there, we will review the packets submitted and a Committee will be put together with representatives from the Health Department, County Board and Executive’s Office. We will listen to the presentations and make a decision. Once it is awarded we will grant the Executive’s Office the ability to negotiate a contract with the design team.

Ms. Olenek clarified the RFQ will hit the street in Mid-April with a 30 day response time.

Mr. Tuminello added we will have a meeting to drill down the candidates; then a final interview process on the ones selected.

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

Mr. Tuminello stated we had a phenomenal kick off meeting with the Health Department, Kluber and the Executive's Office. It set the tone for how we will move forward in the future.

Mr. Chris Hanson stated we decided to meet as a group on the first and third Thursday of the month from 1:30 to 3:30. Our meetings will be held here on the first Thursday and at the Health Department on the third Thursday. At our last meeting the major overviews were to look at the goals and objectives previously established by the Health Department and planning team; to review the site planning concepts initially developed for additional input and we reviewed the various departmental areas. It was an eye opening experience for those that attended. There were quite a few areas where people did not grasp the magnitude of the project size. Based on that it was a fantastic initial meeting to kick off the project. Other logistical items discussed at that meeting; the soil boring for the site have been ordered and will be drilled tomorrow morning. We requested to engage Midwest Environmental Services to prepare a proposal for the environmental analysis of the existing Health Department building scheduled for demolition. When we do a demolition project that information is necessary and a report has not been filed previously. That proposal will be at the County by the end of the week for review, consideration and execution. In addition, HR Green has been on the site several times to perform to topographical survey and most of the work along the tree line was done before the trees leafed out. The speediness by which you made your decision helped the project. We talked about a high level overview of the proposed project schedule. We intend to complete the SD around June 18th. The overall goal and objective is to have the construction drawings completed in mid to late November with the intent to bid in January, 2019 to take advantage of the preferred bidding climate, with a Board award in February, 2019. Decisions are being made very timely and things are rolling along nicely. If we continue there is no reason we cannot hit those established deadlines. We have another meeting here on Thursday at 1:30 p.m. I understand one or two members of the Committee will be attending. The primary focus of that meeting is to begin looking at preliminary floor plan layouts we are developing and have further conversation on how that building will be sitting on the site as it relates to access to the site, about the site, through the site and connecting to the Community Health Center areas of the site.

Mr. Tuminello stated Mr. Fricilone and I will attend the first meeting in May and Ms. Winfrey to be at the second meeting.

Mr. Fricilone asked how many boring are we doing?

Mr. Hanson replied Wight & Company did a few borings and we are having 17 or 18 being performed at various locations at the site. The primary focus is in and around the building area. Fortunately, in the area we chose the building to be sited, some of those were done by Wight. The ones we are looking at now are primarily in pavement areas, areas near where the building will be demolished and the grade releveled for the future parking lot areas. We are taking a few in the wetland area east of the property, to see what the soil percolation rates are and to understand what type of soils we are dealing with and whether it is clean construction debris or not in those areas. All of that will be provided.

Mr. Fricilone stated this demo will be different from the demo at the Sheriff’s Department; do you have a transition plan for how we will get into the building, then it knock down and have a parking lot done?

Mr. Hanson replied we have talked very briefly about that. We understand a site logistics plan is critical and why I am thankful you are going to have a construction manager come on board in the next 30 to 45 days. The proximity of the current building to the new building does pose some interesting site flow logistics, but more importantly for the users, parking for the public will be somewhat limited. Keep in mind the large area we are building to the back of the building is where all the staff parks. We believe we can accommodate quite a few of the parking requirements, both near the Community Health Center as a portion of the existing lot is scheduled to remain. We will likely need to use some overflow on the ring road north of the property, by Sunny Hill and portions of the Sunny Hill Nursing Home parking lot to enable this project to move forward.

Mr. Tuminello stated knowing the age of the Health Department building and what could potentially be there in terms of asbestos, we want to know the remediation cost going into the project, so we will be prepared and not surprised at a later date.

Mr. Moustis stated I would ask the Committee to establish a demolition budget outside the construction budget. The remediation needed is an unknown. I am trying to keep the $25 million budget strictly to the Health Department brick and mortar and soft costs. I believe we should establish a budget. We were told demolition would be approximately $500,000.

Ms. Winfrey asked would that include abatement of asbestos.

Mr. Moustis replied no.

Mr. Tuminello stated the proper way is to establish a budget outside the construction budget, once we get the proposal on the cost? How long do you think it will be before we get the proposal back for the abatement and demolition?

Mr. Van Essen replied the full scope of the abatement is due this week.

Mr. Tuminello stated at the next meeting we should have a better understanding of the cost for demolition and abatement.

Mr. Hansen clarified they will need approximately 30 days to complete their testing onsite and have the report prepared. We will then have a better understanding of exactly what we are dealing with. I asked them to include an estimate for remediation and we will pass that information along to the CM as part of the budgeting process. It will be approximately 45 to 60 days before we have a final numbers.

Mr. Moustis stated we have discussed the CM a couple of times and how crucial it is to bring them on as quickly as possible. We do have qualified CMs that are on board and do not need to go through the entire process. I spoke with Mrs. Tatroe and asked if we could select from one of our current, qualified CM and she said it would be fine. I suggest we move forward. I have created an Interview Committee, most members are from the Capital Committee. I have selected: Mr. Tuminello, Mr. Fricilone, Mrs. Dollinger, Mr. Moran, Ms. Winfrey, Mr. Brooks and myself as voting members and Mr. Tkac as the Executive’s Office representative and Ms. Olenek from the Health Department as non-voting members. I am going to suggest we talk with Leopardo and Gilbane who are currently doing work for us. Both are capable companies and both can handle this job. These two will give us a good choice, one is a midsized company the other is a large sized company.

Discussion took place regarding a date for the interviews and the format of 20 minute presentation, 20 minute Q&A, 5 minute wrap up and time for second company to come in.

Mr. Moustis asked to have the decision of the Interview Committee placed on the Executive Committee agenda to move forward to the May County Board Meeting. The Resolution will give the County Executive’s Office the ability to negotiation. After that it will come back for approval.

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

Mr. Hanson stated we have concluded the schematic design internal meetings with staff to further refine the floor plans. Thursday we will have our team meeting and review the initial plans for the layout of the buildings. Previously, you saw individual components areas of the buildings as part of our discussion group. Thursday we will be presenting a combined floor plan for the two floors and begin to talk about some of the exterior massing of the building and the exterior materials of the building. We are beginning to look at and develop engineering concepts for the building. Now that we are fine tuning a floor plan we are discussing HVAC, electrical, fire suppression and plumbing systems for the building and the access points for those utility to service the building. The site development topographical survey has been completed. It was delayed slightly by weather. We understand HR Green will have that to us this week. We are waiting on the soil borings to be finalized in the report; because they will lock in the actual soil boring depths from actual topographic points on the site. That means we will have more accurate data on what we need to do on the soils at the very specific points on the project site. The initial soil borings came back with fairly good soils; minimum undercuts needed at a few areas of the site, primarily existing parking lot areas. We are waiting on the construction debris and disposal report as part of that report to determine whether there is anything special we need to do with the soils coming off the site. The soil borings, at this time, look decent for the proposed areas where the building will be constructed. We had a kick off meeting this morning. Leopardo is now a part of our team and they will begin to join us every other Thursday at our meetings.

Mr. Tkac stated we have not completed our negotiations with Leopardo, but they have agreed to start early. A Resolution was approved to allow us to negotiate, they have been completed and the official Resolution will be forthcoming.

Mr. Tuminello asked for an update regarding the asbestos.

Mr. Hanson stated the asbestos testing is on-going; they are there today and tomorrow to continue the sampling in those areas. We received a preliminary report on other items such as light fixtures, ballast, lamps and lead paint. We will have more information in a few weeks. Our next steps are to complete the SD programming package. Thursday’s highlights will be are we going in the right direction? Is this what we want for a building? Are the layouts going to work the way the department wishes? Once completed, our next internal team meeting on June 21st is where we will look at a more refined plan based on the comments from this Thursday’s meeting. We would then like to turn the package over to Leopardo for them to begin looking at the development of the costs for the actual proposed designed. Everything is moving along according to the current schedule. The user have been very good about making time available to answer our questions.

Mr. Tuminello stated we will continue to have the Health Department updates monthly until the ground breaking and then twice a month until the end of the project.

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

Ms. Nicole McElroy reviewed the attached Monthly Report dated July 10, 2019. Our report will be more toward the design portion for a few months.

Mr. Chris Hanson stated we delivered the SD package to Leopardo for pricing on June 23rd. We are working very well together to fine tune information contained in the package as it relates to them putting together the project budget. We are working with Leopardo on the scope and quality items. Many of those items were identified in the SD package. However, we do know the estimators have a few more detailed questions that we will be working with them on in the next couple of days. We met with ComEd on site to review the power routing for the facility and strategies are currently being developed. We wanted to bring them on very early in the project. We are evaluating the excess capacity on the existing generator currently servicing the Health Department and Sunny Hill Nursing Home. There is some excess capacity and those calculations are being run to see how much we can off load to our new building in an effort to save money in the budget. Last week we received the existing building’s draft environmental report. There are some hazardous materials in the building, which is to be expected due to the age of the building. This afternoon we will be forwarding that information to Leopardo for their review and to the hazardous materials company, who created an initial budget estimate for the removal of those materials. We are moving along nicely.

Mr. Moustis clarified there may be hazardous materials in the building, but our employees are not exposed to them; they are encased in brick. Everything else has been mitigated as far as exposure to employees.

Mr. Hanson continued we are beginning to layout the structural grid and structural framing systems for the building. We have had several internal meetings to look at the economics of how we are going to construct the building and will be consulting with Leopardo on those systems. From there we will continue to develop the floor plans for the interior fit out of the building. The next steps are to schedule internal meetings with the Health Department staff to go over more mundane items such as cabinet layouts for built-in case work within specific workrooms and labs. We will be working with HR Green to confirm utility routings for the site development package.

Mr. Moustis stated at this point we have completed the programming and agreed on the programming and the preliminary space. Is Leopardo taking on the entire task of pricing? Generally, although the CMs have worked with the design firms on costs the design firms have been more involved in the pricing. Is this different this time?

Mr. Tkac responded we will have a collaborative effort, but essentially the responsibility for the initial estimated, based on the SD is in the hand of the CM, with input, clarification and direction, as needed, from the design team.

Mr. Moustis stated if the CM comes back and says the costs are coming in too high, then it goes back to the design team to trim something? I am trying to get a handle on the process you are going to be using to get to a budget. If cost estimates come back and are exceeding the $25 million budget, we can raise the budget or we go back and trim costs; that falls back to the design team.

Ms. McElroy replied it falls back on Leopardo and Kluber collectively to make sure we work as a team. That is why it was stressed getting a CM on board early. It is not just we are over budget, good luck Kluber, it will be a collaborative team effort to get in within budget.

Mr. Moustis stated ultimately, you will say we are over budget and the design team takes on the task of making it work; they can use different materials, or shrink the size.

Ms. McElroy stated we will offer suggestions. We won’t just say you have to cut a certain amount, we will give suggestions on what we see. Based on past work, there are a lot of times we know the areas that typically go up; so let’s have a plan A, B and C moving forward. That is what we have been doing behind the scenes.

Mr. Moustis stated we did have a slight issue with the courthouse on this subject. I like a clear cut determination of who is responsible. If Mr. Tuminello has to get involved, it should be clear cut and he can say Kluber this is your responsibility. I will look at the contract to see whether pricing is part of their responsibility. It is great that you are working collaboratively and working it out. In the end, we have to have some methodology on how we are going to move forward and make changes.

Ms. McElroy stated we had the exact challenge at the Public Safety Complex. We got through it by taking a step back, sitting with a handful of individuals and we collectively did it. It will be the exact same approach in this case.

Mr. Moustis stated I want to make sure there is a plan. We have a tight timeframe and budget and if something has to be cut, the Health Department staff needs to understand why we are cutting back. There was pushback from the Sheriff at the Public Safety Complex and you will get the same pushback from the Health Department. You will have to tell them, this is the budget.

Ms. Winfrey stated we will count on Leopardo and Kluber to involve the Health Department in the process and make sure they know what and where the cuts need to be. It could be as simple as substitution of materials that will drop the price to give them the space and setup they need, but it may not be as fancy.

Ms. McElroy added it is not one or the other; we will collectively involve everyone to make the final decision from a scope, program, cost and schedule standpoint. We have that built into the schedule, because it happens on every project to make sure we have the time to make decisions and keep moving forward. Leopardo is working on the actual budget for the 100% SD. There are three stages to the design process; schematic design, design development and construction documents. Kluber has created the first milestone, the SD. That gives us the layout narratives of what we think the system materials will be in a few sections. The next milestone is 50% DD budget on August 24, 2018. Right now Leopardo is working on the SD budget and we are planning on going through the budget with Mr. Tkac on July 25th. Prior to that meeting, Leopardo and Kluber will sit and collectively work through and ensure we are on the same page before we present to anyone else. If all goes well on the 25th; we will move into the next phase; the design development. Kluber is already working on the DD.

Mr. Moustis asked what is the goal for getting the bid documents together?

Mr. Tkac replied that will be at the 100% DD. We are looking at earlier releases for a civil package and a structural package. The civil would be at the end of September and the next issue for structural would be at the end of October and 100% at the end of November.

Ms. McElroy added our goal is to get a shovel into the ground in November.

Mr. Moustis asked is there anything other than structural that will need lead time?

Ms. McElroy responded it will be structural and enclosure, which will be part of two; MEP system and finishes will be package three. We are fine tuning it, but this is what we have noticed from a lead time or getting a shovel into the ground. Once bid package #1, the civil package comes up, we will do exactly what we did on the Public Safety Complex, a pre-bid meeting to get anyone locally involved along with the small businesses. This will give them time to look at it, partner with other firms or not; we will do everything we can to make sure everyone is getting a chance to look at this. We will work with Ms. Weiss to make sure we have enough time to get it in the papers and on the website. The bid package #1 is set for September 24th Kluber will give it to Leopardo and we will have roughly five weeks from start to finish to get all of that situated. I am confident we will be able to get a shovel in the ground in November.

Mr. Tuminello stated I am happy with the timeline. We are on a fast timeline.

Mrs. Dollinger stated I am concerned about the water and sewer in the area. Have we looked at the infrastructure to make sure it is strong enough and consistent enough for what we need for this type of building?

Mr. Hanson stated the initial contact was made during the site selection and programming process. We have pulled the City of Joliet into the mix. We are aware they will be doing a water main project in the area about the same time we are doing our project. We are happy to report they have turned over the flow test data so we can design our fire suppression system very early on in the project. The current water mains work for the project without any issues, which is good news and it will only be better when they improve the system. We have reached out to the City to make them aware of the project and we have agreed to get together when more detail is developed in the design development. All of the check boxes have been made for this project.

Mr. Tuminello stated the upgrade by the City of Joliet will coincide with the finish date of the Health Department. When we go live with the Health Department, we should be on the new system, not the existing system. However, the existing system is sufficient for our needs.

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

Mr. Mike Elliott reviewed that attached handout. The SD phase has been completed and was passed to Leopardo to begin developing their initial cost estimates. Kluber is pushing through our design development phase to keep the project moving forward to our anticipated schedule.

Mr. Van Essen stated we had our initial meeting yesterday with the low voltage designer, Mr. David Noel of Meade Electrical, who worked on the Public Safety Complex.

Mr. Tuminello asked is there any update on the generator?

Mr. Van Essen replied we have determined the generator at the site could be utilized for the project and take care of Sunny Hill.

Ms. McElroy stated we will be receiving bid issues for bid package #1, site improvements from Kluber on September 21. We will begin working with Ms. Weiss and Mr. Van Essen on community outreach and pre-bid meetings to make sure we give ample opportunity for the community.