DEKALB COUNTY PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND BODY POLITIC ORGANIZED PURSUANT TO THE “PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION ACT.” ILLINOIS REVISED STATUTES 1977 CHAPTER 85, SECTIONS 1031 THROUGH 1054 CHAPTER 85, SECTIONS 1031 THROUGH 1054AND CURRENTLY UNDER ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUTES 50 ILCS 20/1 et seq.

MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009

A regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the DeKalb County Public Building Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) was held Tuesday, November 3, 2009, at 8:30 A.M. in Conference Room East of the DeKalb County Government Administration Building, pursuant to written notice to each Commissioner as required by the By-Laws.

ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hutcheson at 8:30 A.M. Commissioners present were Chairman Hutcheson, Dr. Richard Baker, Mr. Matt Swanson and Mr. Beryl Smith. Mr. George Daugherty was absent. Also present were Mr. Gary Hanson, Treasurer, Mr. Jim Scheffers, Facilities Manager, Mr. Matt Bickel, Mr. Matt Verdun and Mr. Roger Schroepfer all of Wold Architects and Engineers, Mr. Gary Daub of Rockford Structures and Ms. Mary Simons, Secretary.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chairman Hutcheson called for a motion to approve the minutes for the meeting held on Tuesday, September 8, 2009.
Mr. Smith made the motion to approve the minutes and Dr. Baker seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. Smith requested that the agenda be amended to include a discussion regarding the role of the PBC in the proposed addition of the Courthouse. Chairman Hutcheson stated that would be added to the agenda as item 8A. Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by Dr. Baker. The motion carried.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH BUILDING

UPDATE ON PARKING LOT PROBLEM - Mr.Bickel reported that the report from the independent testing company was received which highlighted their analysis and observations of the testing of the cores that were taken in the parking lot. The report was provided to Rockford Structures as well as Engineering Enterprises. Engineering Enterprises responded with a memo to those points as well. Copies of all the reports concerning the parking lot problem were distributed to the members as follows: A copy of the ECS report, copies of the photographs with annotations that go with the ECS report, the memo from Engineering Enterprises and the letter from Wold. (All attached as Exhibit “A”) Mr. Bickel read the summary located on page 8 of the ECS report and also read the recommendations made by ECS. Mr. Bickel stated that there is much more information contained in the report but that the summary is a concise statement of the professional opinion of ECS. The findings and recommendations as cited by ECS are contained in the report. Mr. Bickel stated that based on the information provided by ECS and the review by Engineering Enterprises, Wold sent a letter to Rockford Structures which pointed out the non-conforming work items highlighted in the ECS report. He added that it was communicated to Rockford Structures that it was felt there were several points of work which were non-conforming to the original drawings and specifications and to correct the problem the parking lot needed to be reconstructed. Mr. Bickel stated that copies of the ECS report, as well as the letters from Wold and EEI were sent to Rockford Structures last week. He added that he received a letter yesterday from the Rockford Structures attorneys. (Attached as Exhibit “B”) The letter from the attorney states that they have not had adequate time to review the ECS report, evaluate it and consult with the subcontractors. The letter also suggests that additional meetings be scheduled to find possible alternative solutions. After several questions were asked by the Commissioners, a lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Daub stated that he would like to give the subcontractors who did the work the opportunity to respond to the report. Following further discussion Mr. Swanson asked Mr. Daub how long he thinks it would take for the subcontractors to respond. Mr. Daub stated that since it is late in the year and the work can not be done during the winter months, he felt after negotiating with the subcontractors the problem could be resolved by spring. Mr. Schropfer stated that he feels it is reasonable to expect Rockford

Structures to respond by January 1, 2010. Mr. Daub requested that he be able to give the subcontractors 2 months to work with their attorney and come up with a response to Wolds’ letter. He added that as soon as he receives that response Rockford Structures would have 30 days to accept the response or come up with another alternative resolution. Mr. Swanson made a motion to set the next PBC meeting for Thursday, January 14, 2010 at which time Rockford Structures would provide a report in response to the letter sent to them by Wold Architects and Engineers. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

GENERATOR FENCE - Mr. Scheffers reported that the reconfiguration of the generator fence should begin this week. He added there were delays due to the rainy weather. Mr. Scheffers stated that once the reconfiguration is complete there should be no problem accessing all sides of the generator .

PAY REQUESTS - Mr. Bickel distributed copies of the Pay Requests (attached as Exhibit “C”) Mr. Bickel reported that there are two pay requests this month which wrap up the requests for the project. Mascal Electric presented their final payment request in the amount of $5,082.00 which also reduces their retainage to zero. Dr. Baker recalled that there were some issues with Mascal and asked if they had been resolved. Mr. Bickel responded that the issue related to the storage room where Mascal had presented a change order requesting additional funds due to a labor rate increase. The change order was rejected and renegotiated for the installation of the lights in the storage room. Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the Mascal pay request. Mr. Swanson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Mr. Bickel stated that the second request is from MG Mechanical. Mr. Bickel reminded the members that we had requested that MG Mechanical submit their final pay request. They had previously submitted their operations and maintenance manuals, warranty information and training manuals. Last week they finally submitted their final pay request, however, in conjunction with that request they also submitted a claim for additional costs related to a labor rate increase from June of 2008. Mr. Bickel said that a letter was sent to them stating the reasons those costs were not valid and were rejected. M G Mechanical accepted the rejection and resubmitted their request without that change order and will not pursue the claim. They are asking for the final payment of $22,094.00 which will close out their contract. Mr. Swanson made the motion to approve the M G Mechanical pay request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith. The motion passed.

STATUS OF THE 2009 PBC PROJECTS (Attached as Exhibit “D”)

Mr. Hanson reported that all the projects are at the finishing stages and should be complete by the end of the year. He stated that item #1 relating to the moveable wall for the Gathertorium should be installed by the end of the week. Item #2 involves the reconfiguration in the offices of the Treasurer and Assessor. He stated that the furniture in both offices is in place and the Treasurer’s office is awaiting the installation of the glass. Mr. Scheffers reported that item #3 the PSB generator is tentatively scheduled to be delivered by the end of the week. He added that the concrete pad, the conduit and the transfer switches are all in place and the wiring is almost complete. Mr. Scheffers said the last 25% of the project is the arrival of the generator and completion of the wiring.

GO GREEN INITIATIVE

Mr. Scheffers reported that we have been experimenting with the light in the Courthouse. He explained that the chandelier type lights in the main lobby area contain a full pin florescent bulb with a socket on the end. He added that those bulbs have been problematic because they tend to fall out due to vibration. He explained that the manufacturer has a new type bulb with the ballast and bulb combined. However, we found that we could modify our fixture to get more light using fewer bulbs. After modifying a fixture we consulted with Judge Klein to make sure the amount of light was satisfactory. The judge was pleased with the amount and color of the light. We also found after the modification that we were able to reduce the number of bulbs used from 188 to 133 producing more light and using less wattage. He explained that the 188 bulbs were 54 watts per bulb and the 133 bulbs are running at 25 watts per bulb which is equivalent to a 100 watt bulb. With that reduction, we found the total amps for the old bulbs were 85 amps per hour and the new bulbs are using 57 amps reducing it by 28 amps per hour. This modification of the lights has also reduced the man hours it takes to replace the bulbs because the ballasts do not have to be checked each time a bulb has to be replaced. We also found that the recycling costs have been reduced from approximately 90 cents to 55 cents. Dr. Baker asked if it is known how many kilowatt hours are being saved. Mr. Scheffers said he will research that information and foward it to the members. Mr. Scheffers added that the next step will be to modify all the can lights located in the Courthouse which uses the same type combination bulb. He stated that it takes about 2 hours to replace the ballasts in the can lights, therefore, modification would improve that time tremendously if the combination bulb can be used. Dr. Baker asked if a report explaining this type of improvement is given to the County Board. Mr. Hanson stated that periodically Mr. Scheffers does report on these issues to the Finance Committee and those reports can be forwarded the County Board.

PROPOSED 2010 BUDGET (ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT “E”)

Mr. Hanson distributed copies of the proposed PBC 2010 budget and stated the budget does not need to be approved today but can be done at the next meeting. Mr. Hanson reported there will be only one project funded for the Sycamore Campus as shown on page F-3 which is the replacement of the portico roof on the Courthouse. Mr. Hanson stated that page F-4 for the Health Facility indicated that there are scheduled landscaping improvements and sidewalk/concrete work to be done. Mr. Hanson stated that page F-5 the Public Safety Building has had a lot of work done over the last few years. There are no projects funded for the Public Safety Building in anticipation that financing plans will be in place to expand the jail in the next 3 or 4 years. Mr. Hanson added that the County Board wants to hold up on projects for a while due to the state of the economy and that the Courthouse project will require a tremendous amount of time. Mr. Hanson stated that page F-6 represents the debt service for the bonds we pay off each year for the Health Facility which will be retired in 2016. Mr. Hanson stated that page F-7 is for the Community Outreach Building. He stated that he had hoped this project would be completed this year but circumstances indicate that it will not be until next year adding that there is also an internal loan for the building that we are paying off. Reporting on page F-1, Mr. Hanson noted that the revenues are far below expenses because we will have a balance at the end of this year. He said that this was accomplished by doing some internal billing for overhead costs. Additionally a 5% salary increase for Mary is included because she did not get an increase in 2009. He added that over the two year period this a 2 ½ % increase which is comparable to increases received by other employees. Mr. Hanson said that the Commission is looking to scale down over the next year. He explained that we will be closing out present projects and new projects are not anticipated over the next few years. Mr. Hanson stated that if the Commissioners are comfortable with the budget, they can approve it today or delay approval until the next meeting. Dr. Baker made a motion to hold over the budget until the December meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swanson. The motion carried.

REVERSION OF SYCAMORE PROPERTIES

Mrs. Simons distributed copies of a resolution (attached as Exhibit “F ”) Mr. Hanson explained that the County Board approved a financial plan for both the Courthouse and Public Safety Building projects. He said the board approved the use of the sales tax money generated by the old County Farm property (which is the present Market Square property) to be used for the Courthouse project. He added that hopefully the financing for the jail expansion will be generated by the revenue from the landfill to pay off that bond issue provided that approvals go through for a landfill expansion. Mr. Hanson added for the Courthouse project, using a combination of the federal stimulus package and sales tax revenue offers some incentives. Mr. Hanson explained that Build America bonds provides a 35% rebate on the interest payments. There are also the Economic Recovery Zone bonds which have a 45% rebate. That money is allocated around the nation and our allocation is approximately six million. Therefore, to do the Courthouse which will be approximately 12 million, we would want to do a combination of Build America bonds and the Recovery Zone bonds. We would be able to get those at 3% to 3 ½% interest. The construction costs are presently attractive and we feel this would also be a good time to go out for bid for this project. The reason we are looking at the County doing this instead of the PBC is because to obtain Build American and Recovery Zone bonds the County has to own the buildings. We are anticipating this will happen in 2010. Currently all the properties on the Sycamore campus are being held by the PBC and we need to transfer the properties back to the County. The County is required to have clear title to the properties before we can go forward with the bond issue. Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Hansons’ explanation of the resolution answers his questions and the reason he requested to amend the agenda for the meeting today. Mr. Smith added that he was interested in what role the PBC would play in the Courthouse project and it appears that if the County holds title to the property the County would have the responsibility for the project. Mr. Smith added that the functions of the PBC would then be very limited and if approval of the resolution would reduce the function of the Commission to meeting once a year to approve the bond payment, that would be in order. Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the resolution as presented. Mr. Swanson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

SELECT DATE FOR ELECTION OF OFFICERS

A short discussion was held to consider selecting a date for the election of officers. Since a replacement for Chairman Hutcheson has not been selected it was decided that the officers remain in place as provided in the statutes until a replacement is named and that Chairman Hutcheson remain in office until that time.

NEXT MEETING

Chairman Hutcheson stated that the December meeting will not be held and the next scheduled meeting set as indicated previously today will be held on Thursday, January 14, 2010.

ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Swanson to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 A.M.

Robert Hutcheson, Chairman

Mary G. Simons, Secretary