Will County Capital Improvements Committee met Feb. 4.
Here is the agenda provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Ray Tuminello called the meeting to order at 11:13 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Chair | Absent | |
| Ray Tuminello | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Mark Ferry | Member | Present | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | Member | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Member | Present |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: P. Mock
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Dunn led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting - Dec 3, 2019 11:00 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mark Ferry, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Update from Courthouse Delivery Teams (Wight, Gilbane & Farnsworth) (Discussion)
Mr. Lesniak reviewed the attached handout. Regarding Wight, I work with Mr. Ill on a daily basis answering RFIs and getting submittals done. They are doing a great job. Farnsworth Group is continuing with the building systems. They were out last week doing a thermos-scan of the roofs. They continue to work with our MEP department. We want to commission the heating system by this winter, the 2.
cooling in the summer and re-verify the heating before we turn the building over. We are at 80% build out of the building; architects are 74%. The contingency has stayed intact. On Friday we receive our bids for the parking lot and maintenance building. On February 20th we will receive the bids for the furniture, which is on the street currently. The last item to go out to bid would be the kitchen area.
Mr. Dwyer stated we are supporting on-site. The furniture procurement is out to bid. There have been a couple of RFIs from that and we have been responding through addendum as needed. That will be a big milestone to get all the furniture procured.
Mr. Wolf stated we are trying to get the heating system verified. We are looking forward to HVAC test and balance down the road. In the near future, we will be testing with the vector mapping on the green roof before that goes on. We will continue with some in wall and above ceiling verification before things are closed out.
Gilbane Monthly Project Status February 4, 2020 (Handout)
2. Update on Animal Control Facility and EMA Building (Wight & Harbour)
Mr. Shawn Thompson reviewed the attached handout. We have a ribbon cutting ceremony set for March 5th. We will give everyone an opportunity to view both facilities. We are finished on-schedule, based on the extended schedule from all the rain we had last summer. We will be finishing all the closing documents this month and doing a final bill at the end of this month. Everything came in on- schedule and on-budget.
Mr. Wolf stated we are working with Harbour to make sure the close out documents are being put into the CMMS system, the maintenance management system, this is a big part of our scope. We verified some training and that will be on-going in the near future.
Mr. Tuminello asked Mr. Van Essen; you already have experience at the Public Safety Complex on how we closed out that building. Do you anticipate any issues as we bring other buildings on-line?
Mr. Van Essen replied no. The process is to take the spreadsheet of information as well as the manuals they will provide electronically and upload them. We provide all the information to the company and they upload accordingly. We will do the same step with the Health Department and Courthouse.
Ms. Ventura asked will they move in before or after the ribbon cutting?
Mr. Van Essen replied it will be before. We are looking toward the end of this week or early next week.
Harbour Presentation February 4, 2020
3. Update from Health Department Team (Kluber, Leopardo & Farnsworth)
Mr. Jeff Montenarri reviewed the attached handout.
Mr. Hanson stated I am happy to report we are down to one last shop drawing for the project. That should be done and reviewed this week. We have completed the interior signage which includes the dedication plaques for the building; they will be coming in soon for final approval. In addition, we have an electronic kiosk sign that will go in the lobby area and that has been finalized on our end. The furniture systems are done, ordered and into the production schedule and we are good on the delivery of those systems. We are just looking for the closeout document to come in from Leopardo. Everything is on track on our end.
Mr. Wolf stated on the commissioning side we are really staying on tight watch and communicating what the final completion and closeout of the systems look like; which we call functional performance test from the commissioning side. We are going to be doing those very soon and running all the systems through their paces.
Ms. Fritz asked what is the current move-in date?
Mr. Van Essen replied we are working with Ms. Olenek on an April date. We have not locked it in yet, but we believe in the middle of April. Once we do all the move, we have a 30 day window to move and get rid of all the current furniture so we can clear out the building. After that, the abatement will begin.
Leopardo-Kluber Monthly Report February 4, 2020
4. Health Department - TB Parking Communication Plan
(Joel Van Essen)
Mr. Van Essen reviewed the PowerPoint in the packet.
Ms. Ventura asked will we have a charging station there?
Mr. Van Essen responded yes; there will be one station, but it is a duel and will have the capability for two slots.
5. Update on Current Courthouse Property
Mr. Mock gave background information on the current courthouse property. The courthouse property is located downtown off Jefferson, was never deeded to the County of Will. It was originally platted as public grounds. Historically, it has been the courthouse grounds. In 1961 they wanted to build the current courthouse and tear down the then current courthouse. To do so, they filed a court case. It was Harold Lloyd vs. the County of Will. The Circuit Court Judge at that time, Judge Bartley, made various rulings and ruled the County merely controls the property, as trustee for the benefit of general public. We are stuck with the fact the courthouse is not the same as the Sears property here, where we have fee simple title and can do whatever we want. The court also made a determination that if anything wants to be done with that property other than using it as public land, you have to petition the court and get the courts permission. That is so the Judge can look at your use and determine whether it is still being used for public use. We went to him when we had the PBC take it over to build the new courthouse. That was the purpose of the court case. In the original court case the City of Joliet was involved. They named 143 property owners downtown who may have had an interest in it. As of right now we are the only ones with an interest, the City no longer does. If we want to do to something with the courthouse property that is not public use, we have to petition the court and have them buy into it. That is something everybody needs to know.
Mr. Tuminello asked we passed a Resolution in April 2019 where it was unanimous to take down the courthouse. Does that mean that can still continue to move forward?
Mr. Mock replied you can still take down the courthouse because the property will still be for public use, because open space is always considered public use. If you wanted to put a parking deck on it, you would probably have to petition the courts to determine whether it is in the interest of the general public to have a parking deck there.
Ms. Ventura asked can they say no?
Mr. Mock answered yes, the courts can say no. We are also in a position whatever use we eventually do with it as long as it is within our powers and duties do to that we could. There is another caveat, we can transfer it to another unit of government. You would still have to petition the court. If the City of Joliet wanted it for some reason, you could petition the courts and the City of Joliet can take it because it is for public use. The City of Joliet is a public entity, like we are public entity. If the Forest Preserve wanted it, you could do the same thing; petition the court and if the court agrees it is for a public purpose you could. Basically, we are in weird situation because there is no actual owner of the property. It is owned by the general public and we are considered the trustee over that. If we transferred it to the City of Joliet, then I think it would make the City of Joliet the owner of the property, then they could do what they want because they are Home Rule. It would no longer be under the Court’s control once it is transferred to a third party, governmental entity. We had the same problem with the parking lot. Before we could transfer that to Joliet, we petitioned the court to be able to transfer the parking lot. We came in and got a Resolution passed to open up Chicago Street, it was the same thing. The reason is because of the way the property was originally platted as public grounds. It was not platted as giving it to the County of Will or any other particular government entity, it was platted as public ground.
Mr. Tuminello stated when it was originally platted as public ground, the County back in the 1960’s needed to do what?
Mr. Mock replied in order for us to tear down the courthouse and build a new courthouse, we had to get authority and ask whether it was something we could do. We had to do that because it was not fee simple ownership.
Ms. Koch asked the permission comes from the court or the State?
Mr. Mock responded the court. The court uses what is called its equitable power to determine what to do with it. It is basically unowned property and they had to determine that someone was in control of it. It was not taxed because it was for public purposes. At that time, the court made this policy and I believe it was appealed with what is called a Friendly Appeal, where both sides don’t really care, but they wanted the Appellate Court to approve what was done. The parties went through the original fight. It was the City of Joliet, County Board and 143 property owners. Anything that touched the edges or within 300 feet of the edge were notified and they had the right to say they had a claim, because they were part of the public. It was not given to the entire County but they got a representative, large sample of people. Most people did not care and were defaulted out because they did not file an answer. It took six to nine months to get through all the paperwork. Most of the older documents are on micro fiche, the later documents are in the court records in the Circuit Clerk’s Office. The courthouse is not like this building, we don’t own it in fee simple. It is only controlled by us in a trustee capacity. It is held in trust for the benefit of the public by us as trustee. That is what the court determined. They had to determine what it was and basically they had to find a way to make it legal for us to take what was there and put a new building on it.
Ms. Koch asked do we have to go through this process to take it down? If we build something new on the property would we have to go through this process?
Mr. Mock replied you do not have to go through the courts to take down the building. If you build something in the exact footprint, you could do that. You could put a park there. You would only need court approval if it goes beyond the current footprint of the building. That is what we are dealing with. The courts will not be unreasonable. In the decision, you cannot just petition the court to do whatever you want to do. The Judge made a decision you have to petition the court to file a petition to do something. That is what we had to do the last time.
Mr. Tuminello asked is this something we could take to the Legislative Committee to have changed?
Mr. Mock replied the State would have to take it by eminent domain and do something with it to get it back.
Ms. Ventura asked could we petition the courts to gift it to Will County?
Mr. Mock answered they were not able to do it the last time.
Ms. Ventura stated the Judges change.
Mr. Mock continued Judges also follow precedence. The precedence is they did not allow it the last time.
Ms. Dunn asked are these issues because it was deeded to the people of Will County?
Mr. Mock replied it was not deeded it was just platted as public grounds. It would have been great had it been platted as County of Will property, if so, it would have been ours.
Mr. Tuminello clarified if we wanted to build a building on that property and we stayed within the footprint we would be fine. If we built a building that mirrored something across the street that was for public use, but outside the footprint, we would still, even if we wanted to use it as a secondary courts building, we would have to petition the courts.
Mr. Mock replied yes. Again, they are not going to be unreasonable. As long as we can say this is for a public purpose they will grant it. That is the process we had to do when we opened up Chicago Street. We petitioned the courts. It was not just the courthouse, it was parcel A and parcel B; the courthouse and the parking lot were platted as public grounds.
6. Discussion Re: Former Silver Cross Hospital Property
(Dave Tkac)
Mr. Tkac stated not much has changed. It is our intent to negotiate the terms and conditions for the transaction and bring them before the Executive Committee or this Committee; within the next 60 days with the hopes of having something for the full Board in May. There is a lot happening with our project, a lot of it critical activity right now. I hope to be able to carve out some time to really put forth the effort that it will take to get this done.
V. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval for Use of Construction Contingency Funds on the New Courthouse Project for Audio Devices Required at Courtroom Benches
Mr. Van Duyne asked for an explanation of items #1 and #2.
Mr. Lesniak stated for the first one, is for all the courtrooms. I will take responsibility for this because it happened with my staff and myself writing the scope of work. All of the devices were in the millwork package and they should have been in the electrical package. When I wrote the package for the millwork I did not include those. I made the assumption they were somewhere else. When we finally got to it, we found that was not the case and they were only in the millwork package and therefore, never bought. These are all the devices that make the courtroom work. They are table top mounted devices that either hook up to computers, speakers or phones. There are probably 16 devices in each courtroom and there are 38 courtrooms.
Mr. Lesniak continued for item #2 after working with all the entities, the communication contractor, electrical contractor, security contractor, elevator contractor there was a disconnect on how all the stuff terminates. In order to correct that, we had several meetings to figure out how the elevators are supposed to work with the security. There was some missing conduit going from the main shaft to the security room that we had to have.
Mr. Van Duyne stated going back to the devices, they were in the millwork package but never ordered.
Mr. Lesniak replied yes, because it is not something you would typically order from the millworker. I take the blame for this because I wrote the millwork scope. I assumed they were in the technology package, but they were not. I had all the power and cabling for the devices, but not the actual devices.
Ms. Fritz asked were all the cutouts included in the package?
Mr. Lesniak replied some were and some were not. There were a couple of new ones added. These were not all missed. Some were added, some changed size and we had to do some reconfiguring.
Ms. Ventura stated I have a question before we continue with new business. I thought we had a five minute presentation scheduled for today.
Mrs. Jakaitis replied according to Speaker Winfrey this will be heard during the public comment portion of the agenda.
Ms. Ventura asked is there a reason it was not on the agenda?
Mrs. Jakaitis replied I will refer to Ms. Winfrey.
Mr. Tuminello stated I agree, Ms. Winfrey can answer that. Mr. Brooks is not here and typically the Chair sets the agenda.
Ms. Ventura stated Mr. Brooks agreed to add this to the agenda. Mr. Tuminello stated let’s hold that until Speaker Winfrey returns.
Ms. Ventura stated we had talked about having Mr. Hollister present to the Board. Chairman Brooks allowed this and we had discussed via e-mails the presentation would be five minutes. It is not on the agenda. I am wondering why this is not the case.
Ms. Winfrey explained the process for adding items to an agenda; any Board Member can request an item be added to an agenda. The process is that person contact staff and staff along with Leadership will say yes we can put it on, there is space and the agenda has not been completed. In this case, Mr. Brooks received a note after the person who wanted to speak had already been contacted and then asked to be put on the agenda. That is not our process. The agenda was already made for this Committee. The only part left was public comments. We do not do presentations during public comments. Public Comments is a time for the public to stand up and make a simple comment for one to three minutes. The other thing is the person wanting to speak today, has already made a presentation at the Modern Housing Solutions Committee.
Ms. Ventura asked could you go through the timeline again. You are circumventing government. We went through the process. We asked Mr. Brooks and he said yes. We set up with staff. The person sent us the presentations and the notes. Now we are blocking him from giving the presentation. Where is the transparency? Why would not allow someone to give a five minutes presentation? It was done at Housing which is why we asked to bring it to Capital Improvements so this Committee could have the same information we had at housing so we can make just laws and policy and decisions.
Mr. Tuminello explained the process he followed for having items put on an agenda when he was Chair.
Ms. Ventura stated we cannot take final action, but we can discuss anything during a Committee. People have taken off work and come here under the assumption this was happening. We have had e-mails going back and forth. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Ms. Winfrey stated the information I received from Mr. Brooks was he was notified after the fact. People had already been approved, not by staff or leadership to speak and the agenda was set. The only option was for public comment. Public comment is just that, it is not the place for presentations. That circumvents our agenda process and it not allowed. If there is a presentation you would like to have shared via e-mail with Board Members that is fine. In public comment we do public comment.
Ms. Ventura stated this is censorship.
Ms. Winfrey stated the beauty of democracy is each person can have their opinion of the way things operate.
Ms. Mueller stated I understand it is frustrating people took off work, but we can have this in our next meeting if our Chairman approves. There is still the opportunity for someone to present.
Ms. Winfrey stated if someone contacts Mr. Brooks and he is agreeable to having the presentation on his agenda it can be added. In the meantime, if you want to share the information please send it to Mrs. Jakaitis and she will send it to the Board Members.
A brief discussion took place regarding the timeline for having items to staff to be included in agendas for the following month.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
2. Approval for Use of Construction Contingency Funds on the New Courthouse Project for Electrical Revisions Necessary for Security Wiring at Elevator Numbers 3-8
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
3. Authorizing Payment to HR Green for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
SECONDER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
4. Authorizing Payment to Wight & Company for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Member
SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
5. Authorizing Payment to Farnsworth Group for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
6. Authorizing Payment to Wight & Company for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
7. Authorizing Payment to Gilbane Building Company for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
8. Authorizing Payment to Rickson Graphic Solutions for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
9. Authorizing Payment to Midwest Environmental Consulting Services Inc., for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
10. Authorizing Payment to Nicor Gas for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
11. Authorizing Payment to ComEd for the Will County Courthouse
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
SECONDER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
12. Authorizing Payment to Leopardo Companies Inc., for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
13. Authorizing Payment to CDW for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
14. Authorizing Payment to Peters & Associates for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
15. Authorizing Payment to Farnsworth Group for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
16. Authorizing Payment to ComEd for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
17. Authorizing Payment to Kluber Architects & Engineers for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
18. Authorizing Payment to Altura Communication Solutions for Will County Health Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
19. Authorizing Payment to Brandenburg Electronic Systems for the Will County Animal Control Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member
SECONDER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
20. Authorizing Payment to Nicor Gas for the Will County Animal Control Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
21. Authorizing Payment to Midwest Office Interiors for the Will County Animal Control Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
22. Authorizing Payment to Farnsworth Group for the Will County Animal Control Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member
SECONDER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
23. Authorizing Payment to Harbour Contractors Inc., for the Will County Animal Control Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
24. Authorizing Payment to Wight & Company for the Will County Animal Control Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
25. Authorizing Payment to Farnsworth Group for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
26. Authorizing Payment to Harbour Contractors Inc., for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
27. Authorizing Payment to Midwest Office Interiors for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member
SECONDER: Gretchen Fritz, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
28. Authorizing Payment to Brandenburg Electronic Systems for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
29. Authorizing Payment to CDW for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member
SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
30. Authorizing Payment to Nicor Gas for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Amanda Koch, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
31. Authorizing Payment to Wight & Company for the Will County EMA Facility
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member
SECONDER: Amanda Koch, Member
AYES: Tuminello, Ferry, Fritz, Koch, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Mueller
ABSENT: Brooks Jr.
VII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3715&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up