[Music] Good morning. I will call the Cook County Board of Commissioners special meeting to order on this day, Wednesday, September 3rd, at 8:30 a.m. The reason we have a special meeting every once in a while is because we have some items that we need to discuss and um take care
of before our regular board meeting. So today on our um special meeting agenda, we have the contract for clinical supervision in public health and human services and construction manager contract with Johnson Wilson constructors um for the LEC.
So we'll start with the clinical supervision with administrator Treble. Thank you and good morning everyone. All right. So the service agreement for clinical supervision, this is an agreement not to exceed 6 months. It's providing up to 12 hours of weekly
clinical supervision, training and support for our behavioral health team. It will help us to assess our behavioral health needs and ensure compliance and help us to rebuild that team. We have a number of um vacancies within that team. um one of which is our behavioral health
super behavioral health supervisor position which has been vacant for several weeks. We are not posting that position at this time. Instead, we're asking to move forward with this contract to fill that void. Um the person that we would be contracting with
is a clinical super or clinical psychologist, a licensed marriage and family therapist and a licensed independent clinical social worker. He has over 40 years of experience and is a retired health and human services director of Carlton County. He's also a
member of the Minnesota State Advisory Council on Mental Health. So we feel like this is a good approach to fill that void at this time. Okay, I'll open it up for discussion, questions, comments. Commissioner Gamble.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a question on uh on page one under term, which is item one. It says the agreement may be terminated by either party at least 10 days in advance of such date of early termination. And then if you go to
the third page, it says at the bottom there, provider shall provide 30 days advanced notice whenever he is unable to or reasonably believes he's going to be unable to provide the agreed above quantity or quality of service. Um how
does this differ or is the cons is it consistent with the language as far as the the agreement stating is it 10 days or is it 30 days? Um thank you madam chair. So the the notice that's required under the contract would
be 10 days. However, anything beyond that is always helpful and what this is specifying is that if um if the supervisor clinical supervisor were to enter into another contract or were to be contemplating another agreement or
see a life change that was going to reduce his availability. and he was aware of that within 30 days or more that he shall whenever possible provide that additional notice but the notice required to terminate the contract is 10
days. >> All right. Thank you. Then the other question I just had is on the second page on the the bottom of paragraph 8 is just is that a requirement that is a state requirement. So that in this case David would have to keep the records for
seven years or is that us keeping the records but it says provider. So >> no I believe that's a state requirement >> and so >> so that would be something that he >> David would have to keep those records for seven years then correct. Okay. All
right. Thank you. >> Yep. Any other questions or comments? >> If not, I'll hear a motion. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the contract for clinical supervision in public health human services with Dave Lee.
>> I'll support. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any further comments or questions? Commission. just want everyone to know that I've worked with Dave in in the past on the AHA and um yeah extremely
intelligent extremely patient and compassionate and professional and just very excited for this. So um good think helpful. >> Thank you. >> So ask for a vote. All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes
unanimously. Thank you all for doing that and to administrator Treble. Next, we'll go on to construction manager contract with uh Brady presenting this. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a construction manager contract with
Johnson Wilson Constructors uh LLC. This is for the law enforcement center project. Um actually we approved a form of this contract in December of 2024 using estimated costs and now we have
the revised contract is primarily the final guaranteed maximum price is set by those project bids that were presented and approved at the August 12th 2024 meeting. Um and that price is 8,458212
which you approved on that date and it's include included in also attached here is that guaranteed price amendment just for that price. This could have been on the agenda on the 26th but we missed an email from uh Johnson Wilson. So they're
itching to get going. So they uh they wanted this approval as early as possible and that's why we put it took advantage of this uh meeting today and uh um I see Brooke is here. He may have if if you have any other questions he
may be able to answer those. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll open it up for comments or questions. Brooke, do you have anything to add or ask us? >> Okay. All right. How about here? And as I've stated in the motion that it should
be uh with the final approval of the county attorney, I don't think she's had time to to look at this yet. So, >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there's been some confusion as to when these
motions were were made. And so on our on the report that we have that you provided to us, Brady, relative to this motion, it says that the uh uh construction manager contract was approved December 3rd, 2024.
And then that the um this the projected bids was approved August 12th, 2024. And I think because I had made the motion in 2025 August 12th meeting to approve
>> the uh guaranteed maximum price. So you approved the guaranteed maximum price but this is the actual contract um with that revision. It was approved in August but it was with estimated cost. So that's a so this is a
>> that would have been 2024. >> That was 2024 December 3rd. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And >> just I wanted to state that in case people remembered. I thought we approved that. Well, you did, but it it wasn't the final cost. So, >> and so the August 12th, coincidentally,
because August 12th is when we did approve the maximum the guaranteed maximum price. >> Yeah. You approved the bids and that bid price, but this is the full contract. >> Yeah. And so separating out the the price and then the contract for the the
managing uh which we did with another, you know, property. Um so anyway, just clarifying that for the public that might be confused on like I'm confused on. >> Right. So that contract was dated uh
December. This one will be dated August of 2025. >> Okay. And then when you're looking through that contract, just a a couple things that um the cost to be in re reimbured.
Um if we're looking at the bid, which is the 8 million price, the cost to being re reimbursed when we get a pricing on that, uh this is on page 17 of the handout under cost to be reimbured
article 7. Um if there's unforeseen costs not included in the final, you know, guaranteed price, then we're just saying it's almost like costs that come up that usually are related to uh
chargeable changes, you know, but just clarifying this understanding that cost to be reimbursed usually that is included in the bid. all of these costs when the the the bidder is providing that cost. However, for
unforeseen things that come up, this is an agreement to say that we will cover these costs. And then it goes through and lists all of these different things. And um it says that a reimbursement of 2% of labor for small tools expended on
the project. And unless I'm missing something, I don't see what the contract agreement uh for this individual managing this on our behalf. I don't see that figure.
No, they reference the next document in here. So, they did it as an uh an amendment for the guaranteed price. So, there's two documents in here. And are the two documents related including the packet?
>> Yeah. And they they are one references the other. >> Okay. Well, in looking through it and and just reading those documents, I wasn't seeing anything that that uh clarified for me what that cost is. For
instance, reimburse 2% of labor for small tools. That means if you take the total labor which we have labor prices but we don't have that as I don't see that in the bid total labor unless I miss that and and all I'm bringing this
up simply because knowing what cost is as opposed to verbiage you know or language in a document but actually not knowing what that figure is then I'm making a I'm approving something without knowing cost.
>> Yeah. if there are changes, but you have to agree to those changes going on. >> I I understand that and that's that's good to note. They have to come before us and it has to be in writing. And uh >> I may be able to clarify some for you too, Gary. Is >> Okay. Thank you.
>> A lot of those costs are what Johnson Wilson's costs are if they had their their um labor on site, but they're just our construction manager at risk. So their labor won't be on center. Just be a super superintendent will be the only
one on site. >> Okay. >> For Johnson Wilson. >> All right. I appreciate that. I just understand this because I may read the language. I need to know how does that translate to dollars when it comes to our costs. If we are approving a contract that is a
guaranteed maximum, then we have an understanding of what that what that is. But if there are variables that change that figure that we're not aware of how that translates, then we're really not making an informed decision. So that's that's my reason for bringing it up. The other thing that I I noted when you look
at the scope of the agreement, which is on page 28, it says that um uh insurance and bonds under 14.3.1 that the construction manager shall provide bonds. that's been that's that
was uh strike stroke whatever and it's been deleted. So normally with construction especially in public projects that bonds would be acquired. So Jean or whomever
I'm just wondering when you look at this normal contract here we've taken out that element that that bonds are not being required. If I look at this at face value and my question is because Cook County in a lot of times when we draft documents
the encouragement is always respectfully to make sure that we're negotiating doct do documents that protect us translate protect taxpayers and uh bonding certainly is something that's an expectation when it comes to public projects because of of risk and
expectation and so I just wondering in what would seem to be a model contract. Why we've deleted that requirement? >> I think there's going to be some discussion on who's providing the bonds. Um Johnson Wilson put bonds into their
bid that they would provide them, but there was some some discussion beforehand on who was going to provide the bonds. There will be bonds on the on the project, but who was going to provide them was the question. >> Okay. So, we're agreeing to documents now that are drafted that give us
language to ensure, you know, those elements that we think are protecting us taxpayer dollars and things. But if that's if that is not defined in any of the documents we're we're proving, then it's an assumption without clarification
that is something we can go back to if it's ever challenged. And we've had that experience. That's why I bring it up. I think that's why we were going to go through it with Jean after the fact. It was it was approval on conditional
approval on Jean's approval. >> So, we're going to go enter into a contract with it's not in writing at the moment. it's not solid that the contractor that we're or you know that we're uh contracting
with. They do not have to bond to assure us to to guarantee that should they walk away or something not happen and this is not this happens in construction that we can be left hanging
because it's not in writing specified right now. And why should we as the why should we as the entity that is hiring the contractor have to put up the
bonding also that should be a cost for the contractor and then what is difference if we're now going to have uh a clause where it says you know unforeseen expenses well then that's change orders so what is the difference
between a regular contract that one with anterion and two with a contractor and this guaranteed price because it is not guaranteed unless you can explain to me how it's guaranteed. >> I can't explain to you how it's
guaranteed. I mean there's always things that are run into where we run into below grade and and things like that and that's why we do the contingency funds. But this is a guaranteed price which makes it diff. How does I guess it's how does this type of agreement differ from
a regular agreement? Contingencies you find boulders the size of Volkswagens where there shouldn't be anything. I get that. But what if it's a guaranteed price? Guaranteed price. And I got had
the understanding that someone's going to sign a guaranteed price and no matter what's under the ground, that's our price. So we know that this will be our expense. So can somebody explain that to me, Jeie? >> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so these are, and I I don't want to oversimplify it by saying these are boilerplate, but they are. They're standard um in the industry. And so the guaranteed maximum price is guaranteed maximum price based on the confines as we understand them
right now. So the land as we understand it, the building as we understand it, based on this set of assumptions and knowledge on the information that they have right now, if they were to get into it and see um the ground is made out of sand or the walls have mold in them or
something else that is unforeseen and not within the bounds of the knowledge right now. That's when you would see those change orders come in and approve or deny them. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Gamble.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. I um I think given our responsibility that that we're we're just trying to make sure that and I understand boilerplate. Um and and so that's what I sort of thought. In other
words, if we tailored this, we would remove elements as opposed to having normal customary recommended elements that we would just delete. So, the problem is that we we've experienced is that at the point that we negotiate
contracts, we need to make sure that it's a partnership relationship that protects both the interest of the provider and we as the client. And so, I I would be more comfortable. I mean, we move forward a lot of times. We move forward because we want something. We've
got a timeline. We're trying to get this moving, but we need to do our our due diligence. So, from my standpoint, um the language and and this is why I think the tailoring is important. Knowing what we know in construction up here, the
likelihood we might run into something, let's make sure that the language is reflective of what we know to be true and not generic in nature so that the interpretation is very clear as expectation. And when it comes to the bonding issue, that ensures that we're
protecting the investment of dollars. And if it's normal and recommended and customary practice that in public pro projects that are significant that bonding be required, we shouldn't eliminate it because it's something to be determined yet. It should be something that should be clearly defined
and that's just respectful of our fiduciary responsibility and being clear to the provider as to our expectation. >> Yeah, that definitely needs to be changed. I mean the discussion was had early on on who was providing the bonds and Johnson Wilson is providing them. So
yeah, we need some changes there. >> So what you're saying is that this document because it relates to the person that's managing it and not the guaranteed maximum price relative to the cost of construction. It's covered under
the document that is the the guaranteed maximum price document and not covered under the construction manager document which I understand that's what this is. This is this is approving a document for somebody to manage the project.
>> Am I wrong in that? >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Brady, did you have something? >> I think you're correct. Yeah. just just that the they've listed bond costs when they've given us all the the cost figures at various times. So it's it's included in their cost. So again
differentiating because we we approved the maximum price contract and included that is the issue of document >> and in this case had there been a notation where it says deleted because it's not relevant in this document because it's been covered in the maximum
guaranteed maximum price then we would be covered if in fact that is what is clear. >> You know what I'm saying? >> No. >> Okay. Well let's >> Yeah. Well, I'm not sure. >> So, when it's deleted here, I just need
to say, well, then where is it covered? >> Commissioner Mills, >> can you're saying that the bonds is deleted? Because it what I see is the construction manager shall provide bonds. Full stop. The next thing is scratched out and it
says notice in electronic format pursuant to article one of AIA document A 2011. you know, all that that's deleted. But right before that, it says the construction manager shall provide bonds. >> But when you go down to scope of
agreement, >> okay, >> then um >> that's just exhibit B. >> It says deleted insurance and bonds. >> That's just an exhibit. That's not that. >> Well, the question, you know, raised in
my reading of the document basically is to make sure that the bonds exist in there. >> Okay. And in this discussion, uh, you know, it's the response. You know, Brook said, "Well, we've talked about that to determine who's going to do that." And it left to me it gave the impression
that it's still up in the air. It's a subject we talked about, but we don't know who's going to be responsible for that. >> I just want to clarify and >> yeah, >> I think the construction manager is providing the bonds based on this document, >> administer.
So, I wonder um if we had placed this agenda item on the agenda um pending Jean's the county attorney's uh review of the contract. So, I'm curious based on the discussion
if Gan believes that um we need to make any changes based on the discussion around the bonds um or if we can move forward as is at this point. I am I have a little discomfort in
answering that without having reviewed it and without having had a conversation with um Brooke about this. Um but I do know I guess I I just would like to have a conversation with um facilities director. So, so then my question is if
we um put this on the agenda for next Tuesday and provide our county attorney time to review and have that discussion, how does that impact the project at this time? >> It doesn't impact it at all. We're we're still waiting on the building permit. Um
we approved and signed the document for the uh maximum price. So, they are going to mobilize and start removing some trees and just prepping the site on what they can do. Um, but it won't impact the project at all because we are still
waiting for the first approval of the building permit and then architects and state will go back and forth hopefully not too long before we get final issue of the building permit. We currently only have the plumbing permit. So, I think that sounds like a better
plan to table this until attorney Peterson can >> um mobilize herself and timewise and be ready for next Tuesday. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Commissioner White. >> And it's business things. We should not be assuming anything or going back and
saying, "Well, didn't we?" No, numbers are numbers and they should be stated, and that's for being fiscally responsible. It's for our taxpayers. It's a protection for everybody because they get to some point and we'll say, "Well, we thought you were going to do
that." And they'll say, "Well, we thought you were doing that." And now we have conflict that's unnecessary, >> which which we've had unfortunately. >> Yes. >> Another project. So, >> so maybe we've learned from the past and we need to have it accurate.
>> We don't sign anything until it's >> I mean, there are no questions in it. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. and and just to underscore that that I I I appreciate the convers conversation and and it's it's respectful uh intended
certainly it's not accusatory by any nature it's just a matter of crossing the tees and dotting the eyes and and I appreciate the discussion thank you >> commissioner Mills >> so on that are we um
what I'm what I'm hearing is Commissioner Gamble would like more information on the bonds specifically and from Commissioner White. It sounds like some dollar amounts or what the guaranteed >> the bonding what percentage will be
bonded. Put that number down >> and it will be bonded by not us. >> It's just clarification. >> That's all. >> Yeah. I mean, it's got the bonding amount, what they're what our cost is for the bond that they're providing, but
I don't see an actual, you know, >> Okay. So, any further discussion other than we're tableabling this until next Tuesday? >> But the reason I was bringing that up is I just wanted to make sure that for next Tuesday we're going to have, you know, we know what we're going for. >> The charge. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to uh table the the contract until our Tuesday meeting. >> Support. >> Any further questions or comments? >> All in favor?
>> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously to table this until next Tuesday. There being no other u business, we are adjourned. Well, that was under half an hour.