Item #17 For information

Item #18 – motion passes

Item #19 – motion passes

Item #20: the administration requested that the item be deferred, because of an issue with the RFP. The RFP is going to be re-issued.

Diana Martinez: there was a discrepancy between what went to the public and what was put online.

Collins: I emailed you the entire thing yesterday.

Mazzocchi: I’d still like more explanation.

Martinez: we based the RFP on what we had planned at that time. One of the bidders misunderstood what website updates meant. They underestimated the scope of the project on inventory management as well. I don’t think they thought through all of these things.

Hamilton: so, we have an item that we’re supposed to be considering. The administration would like to withdraw. You’re telling us there are errors. For us to decide anything, right now, we don’t have clarity of thought. We need to see next time. Go back and fix it with Carol Fox. Rather than listen to how it’s wrong, we’ll listen to why it’s right.

Mazzocchi: there were some fundamental issues with the RFP. With only 2 responses, it may be the scope of the proposal was not clear, did not explain the scope of the work. We might resolve these issues with a better RFP.

Martinez: I agree. According to purchasing, because they met the criteria, we’re stuck.

Hamilton: without any objection, I’d like to move on to the next item.

Mazzocchi: we can vote this down, and they can re-issue the RFP.

Hamilton: do we have to vote it down?

Lawyer: you need to vote to reject all bids but the administration wants the opportunity to fix it.

Napolitano: when I go to the website, the RFP is not online, a notification is online. Something this complicated would have required a pre-bid.

Martinez: we offered it.

Napolitano: you could require it in the future. 11 people requested the RFP, only 2 responded.

Mazzocchi: should we just do a motion to table.

Lawyer: there was no motion brought, it can just not be considered.

Bernstein: we’re not considering it then. Is it our intention to consider it at our next meeting?

Hamilton: when she’s ready, she’ll tell us.

Bernstein: I don’t want to send someone away without telling them why. Does Ms Martinez know what she needs to do?

Martinez: the errors were their misunderstandings of the RFP, they own it.

Item #21

Hamilton: for FY16, we have a cost of $30,000, there’s no projection. There’s no detail. So, I think we need to see more details on something like this.

Motion passes. Hamilton abstains.

Item #22

McGuire: are there funds available?

Bruce Schmiedl: at the moment, no. Until the Legislature makes the appropriations, there will be no money allocated. What I’ve heard from my contacts at ICCB, this project has been inching its way up the line. At the end of the year, they’ll report how many projects were approved and how much money was allocated.

Mazzochi how many times have we made this request?

Bruce Schmiedl: since 2006.

Mazzochi: for storm waters, etc., are there any private homes impacted. Have we done any work?

Bruce Schmiedl: our work has been to improve the nature component of the ponds.

Mazzochi: if we were to take this item off the list and we tried to submit it again, would it be treated as new request?

Bruce Schmiedl: it would.

Mazzochi: but it’s unlikely we’ll get it this year. Is there any other way than chemicals to keep the algae under control.

Bruce Schmiedl: chemicals are far less expensive than any type of oxygenation.

Motion passes.

Item #23 – Motion passes

Item #24

Bernstein: why vote if it’s required by law?

Mazzochi: my understanding is that we could do an independent investigation or we can adopt the IL dept of Labor publication.  I’d be interested to hear from someone with institutional memory whether we ever investigated it.

Bruce Schmiedl: I am not aware of anything like that. It would be pretty intensive to try to take a poll to get a fair representation. Our policy has been to accept the policy the county adopted.

Lawyer: we vote to approve the schedule. We’re required by law to pay prevailing wage.

Napolitano: so, this is another unfunded mandate. The mandate is to pay it. They can’t tell us how to vote.

Mazzochi: we are saying we understand we have to abide by the prevailing wages and we are using this schedule rather than conducting our own investigation.

Lawyer: this is not an unfunded mandate. If we did not accept this and came up with our own rates, these rates would be examined. It never occurred to me that this would be an issue.

Mazzochi: not doing this would expose to liability issues.

Motion passes, Napolitano votes no.