Will County Capital Improvements Committee met June 7.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Coleman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Joe VanDuyne called the meeting to order at 10:15 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Chair | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Julie Berkowicz | Member | Present | |
| Natalie Coleman | Member | Present | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Absent | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present |
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting - Mar 1, 2022 10:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Donald Gould, Member SECONDER: Natalie Coleman, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Traynere ABSENT: Parker |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Donald Gould, Member SECONDER: Natalie Coleman, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Traynere ABSENT: Parker |
1. RNG Facility Construction Update/Financial Summary (Christina Snitko)
Mr. Kozak gave an update on the construction, reviewing the PowerPoint slides attached.
Mr. Moustis asked when can we expect this project to be completed.
Mr. Kozak responded we have the testing commission agreement, mechanical testing, pipeline commission, etc. of the plant. We have all those agreements that have to be fulfilled.
Mr. Hartke replied SCS has a completion date for the plant as the third week of August 20, when it’s supposed to be completed. The pipeline is in construction right now and the completion date for that is the end of July. The interconnect is the third component, and they have about a six-week construction window to be completed about mid-July. You have those three things that should be tied in at the right time. We have utilities and we’re working on the electrical switch over and that’s scheduled for the end of June. We’re working with ComEd to get that scheduled. Natural gas line is proving to be the challenge. Getting them installed and connected and timing is a little concerning and we did send out an RFP last Friday for an alternate natural gas source. The natural gas part has been very challenging and frustrating but we’re working on moving it along. We are working with AT&T and should be done by the end of July or the first week in August. We have a few items that’s coming together. We’re also working on the maintenance road around the back side of the plant and that was not originally part of the agreement.
Mr. Brooks asked are those state or federal permission you’re waiting on the reason it’s taking so long.
Mr. Hartke answered we do have the USCPA involved in the air permitting part of it. We’ve had to submit a packet of documents for Title 5 Clean Air Act Permit. It’s a federal law but the state actually has delegated to the state, and they review that and issue that for the Fed’s.
Mr. Fricilone noted you mentioned the gravel road. Where is that going?
Mr. Hartke replied it’s actually going to be a loop to the backside of the plant from one side to the other.
Mr. Fricilone asked what about the spare parts; where are they going to go when they come in.
Mr. Hartke answered the spare parts are going into a room in the plant in the northwest corner that does have room for the spare parts.
Mr. Fricilone commented so we don’t need the electric generation plant for storage. We have to decide what we’re doing with that since we haven’t talked about that.
Mr. Hartke stated we did send notice to Waste Management Renewable Group who currently owns and operates that plant, that they will have to be ready to turn off that plant mid-June. The County Board has a certain amount of time to let them know if they want to keep the building or not.
Mr. Fricilone asked if the building is in good shape.
Mr. Hartke answered the building is in great shape.
Ms. Mueller asked what has been your experience with how quickly they have been getting back to the bureau of land? Have they been faster than the 90 days so far with the other things that you’ve had to do this with?
Mr. Hartke answered with the other items they have been responding rather quickly, more of a 30-day turnaround.
Ms. Snitko stated pipeline construction is ongoing, however, because of all the rain we’ve been getting, and IDNR property is pretty much wetland we’ve been getting a lot of water, so we need additional wood matting. That’s something that’s going to be coming forth and I wanted everyone to keep that in mind. Wood matting is essentially this stuff that the trucks go on, so they don’t sink. That’s kind of the progress on the RNG pipeline as of right now. For the RNG interconnect they are planning to mobilize either this week or next week. They also have accepted an amendment change because additionally the language was not fully correct, and they will be coming forth to Executive this Thursday. Due to the amendment changes we are anticipating a change order from MGT. The reason being is the original proposed location that we had we experienced some issues with tree mitigation cost. The location that we wanted there were a bunch of older oaks that DNR consider very valuable; they do a lot of ecological benefits for the earth, however, they are very expensive, so they wanted $736,000 just for tree mitigation cost. In addition, that location was very hard to access for the maintenance folks in case there was an issue and we decided to be creative and move our interconnect location to a new spot. Due to the new spot, we have incurred some costs because of that, so that change order is also coming forth this Thursday. I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that. I’ve attached the budget to the agenda.
Mr. Hartke commented the major change for what we have for June 1, is that the paid to date is different from what’s there.
Mr. Fricilone stated that’s not as important as the bottom-line. We need to get that number up here because that hasn’t changed.
Mr. Hartke indicated the plan was to have that at the Finance Committee in July for the Board.
Mr. Fricilone stated we know there’s extra cost, but can we add them in as we go? We need to get a running update. We need to get these numbers in here.
Ms. Traynere asked where is the contingency. Where did we start and where are we at now? That would be helpful to have that on there as well.
Ms. Coleman noted you mentioned the mitigation for the trees it was $736,000 but there’s another option that’s coming before that. Do you have that cost?
Ms. Snitko replied yes, it’s $1.1 million.
Ms. Coleman asked it’s more than what it cost to mitigate the trees.
Ms. Snitko responded I don’t want to use an all-in or a not to exceed amount. We’re kind of cushioning a little bit with mark-up and contingency within that estimate and we’re hoping it doesn’t come to that $1.1. It’s because we had to reroute the construction and we also planning for in case we hit bedrock because we have hit bedrock already.
Ms. Coleman questioned when it was decided to go against the trees, it costs more because long-term is better for the environment.
Ms. Snitko replied no. We’re not cutting those trees down so that’s one of the things, we don’t have to pay that cost. Two, the access to the new location is better than the previous one.
Ms. Coleman asked but neither one of these costs was in the original budget.
Ms. Snitko answered no. Because that wasn’t anticipated.
Mr. Hartke stated I wanted to point out to the interconnect change number that’s before the Board on Thursday. If the interconnect wasn’t installing that pipeline section, the pipeline company would have been installing it anyway. The only thing is we’re just moving the valving section from the interstate pipeline 1600 ft. to the east. When you think about it the pipeline length is staying the same, we’re just moving the valve to another location.
Mr. Fricilone asked if there is any way we can get closer to an estimate by the County Board Meeting? You have a whole week; at least give us a rough number.
Mr. Hartke answered we should be able to do that. The rough number that we provided last Thursday was close, but we have a couple change orders here.
Ms. Bertino-Tarrant stated I want to stress that I know we’ve had meetings with Leader Fricilone and Leader Mueller, as well as Speaker Cowan and we’re reminded that this is an extremely complex project. We probably started by bonding a little lower than what was recommended, so were behind there already by quite a bit. These changes are part of this process. We’re one of two people in the state doing this. It’s a wonderful project and it’s a great thing that the County Board decided to do but it fluctuates, and we really have to be understanding that things are going to change daily. They are doing a fabulous job; we’re going to try to get you as much information as we can. We open the meetings to leadership, and I think sometimes they come, so we try to be as transparent and get you as much information. I don’t know if it trickles down, but rest assured that they are trying to keep you as updated as best as possible.
Mr. Fricilone commented you already know that if you keep a running list that helps to see the numbers on paper.
Ms. Ogalla stated I would like to know what are the projects you’re working on because this is the most costly project and it should be the #1 project because it just keeps adding more money to this budget on the regular basis. What other projects will be taken away from this from being able to provide us with the information we need?
Mr. Moustis commented the committee that really needs this information is the Finance Committee.
2. Morgue Project Update/Financial Summary (Dave Tkac)
Mr. Tkac stated joining me today is Matt Zolecki from Wright & Company who is the lead architect on this project. Our design is 100% complete. Bid package #1 including various trades was awarded as you know at the May County Board Meeting. Bid package #2 will have some other awards recommendations on your agenda next Thursday. Bid package #3 which is the bulk of the trades will be issued for bid on the 27th of this month. We’re tracking on schedule for a late July, early August start and we’re tracking on budget
Mr. Moustis noted I was a little confused on FF&E. They talked about furniture they currently have or equipment they currently have, and we weren’t going to get new, and we were going to save all this money by doing this. Is that what we’re doing?
Mr. Zolecki responded yes. We went ahead and had the existing furniture inventoried, took all the parts and pieces that would fit reasonably and we’re reusing that furniture. So, it’s going to be a mix of new and used furniture. I believe the reason why we’re saving some of the furniture and not buying all new was at the request of the Coroner. To be fiscally responsible.
Ms. Berkowicz noted for those of us who have gone to the coroner’s and toured it personally I found it shocking. I have friends and neighbors who have had to go there, and I found it shocking and to think that they had to go there and be in that environment is just horrendous. I would like us to have the opportunity to see what the new facility is going to look like and have the assurances that we are going to be able to accommodate residents or people who go there properly, safely, in an appropriate environment. Is there a way for you to update us with that?
Mr. Brooks answered we will with the drawings.
Mr. Fricilone stated let me remind this committee that this project and the RNG project are not like the courthouse, the sheriff’s department. This committee ran those projects and everything that happened had to come through here. Both projects have been given to the Executive’s Office. It’s up to them to build the project under $9.2 million dollars. Now, if they needed another million because something else they need to add or cost overrun, they have to come back and get the money from us. However, I would ask that the Executive’s Office, Mr. Tkac who you are a part of, that this committee and Finance have the same sheet that you did when we did the projects when this committee was in charge. It just shows the initial budget and then when changes happen and don’t happen that this committee gets to see these changes. Just want to be aware of any changes to the budget in hard copy to both committees Finance and Capital Committees.
Mr. Zolecki stated thus far due to the fact that were in the preconstruction phrase we spent monies on two items, design fees and preconstruction phrase services from the construction manager. In total that’s about $375,000.00, give or take. As we get closer to breaking ground and move into the construction phrase, we will be able to provide you with exact information in terms of what the outlays are on a month-by-month basis based on the monthly billings. If the committee requires additional details or more details than that currently, there’s not a lot more available, but I’ll be glad to provide you with anything that we have.
Mr. Moustis asked regarding the equipment. Is it a supply chain issue?
Mr. Zolecki replied a lot of these bid packages got pushed forward and we kind of accelerated a lot of these things, more and more because they do involve in change. You may have heard roofing is a very extremely time, so we pulled it and accelerated documentation the package to include the roofing. The generator another extremely one time we pushed that ahead. Steel as everyone has heard.
3. Status of Former Courthouse, 14 W. Jefferson St. (Dave Tkac)
Mr. Tkac stated we are pleased to report that we will obtain and have bid documents for the abatement process available on the 17th of this month, so 10 days from today. We will put them out to bid with a planned start for abatement as soon as we can get going.
Mr. Brooks asked what about the ComEd substation. Anything new on that?
Mr. Tkac answered they are looking for a drop-dead date when they have their equipment removed and that’s as far as it’s gone. They want to know when the building is going to be demolished so they want to know their last available date before they need to relocate their equipment.
Mr. Brooks asked what parameters guidelines do we have to hold their feet in, or we give them a date.
Mr. Tkac answered we have not given them a date yet, but they have to understand that if that building starts coming down and their equipment is still in there and that equipment is tied into other services to other properties then that’s going to be a problem for them.
Ms. Mueller noted I thought we would have had the bid out by now. Can you tell us when that’s going to happen?
Mr. Tkac answered we’re running a little bit late. They’ll be available to us, and we’ll put them out for bid through the County procurement process after the 17th. So, we’ll have those documents from the consultant on the 17th of this month.
Ms. Traynere stated I read what it said, and I asked, if there were any research done to find out if there were any other opinions or options after that could change that ruling? I read the old ruling, but I know a lot of changes every day there’s new decisions every day. I read the original opinion and things change.
Ms. Tatroe stated our opinion stands. Our opinion was based on litigation that involved that parcel not overall generalities. The other things I would say, while you Ms. Traynere have expressed your specific interest State’s Attorney’s has gotten no direction from County Board or any committee to do any further research. If they want us to, we have always responded when we’ve been asked for an opinion from a committee or County Board. We do not issue opinions for individual County Board members.
Ms. Traynere commented I’ll be asking in Finance as the Chair.
Ms. Coleman stated I’ve been on the Board about two years now and there’s always been some hang-up about the Courthouse. I think its symbolic, but it represents where Joliet has been as the County seat, and I think about where we need to go. Maybe, three years ago it was mentioned about building an innovative hub, so moving beyond should the Courthouse be torn down or what would we put there. I think what we will put there is just as important and we’re not simultaneously working towards that vision. What I mean is there’s a lot of states making a lot of different laws compared to IL. I see people maybe moving here. Joliet is the 3rd, 4th, 5th, depends on the day the largest city in the state. When I think about growing up here for42 years, I don’t come downtown to do much. I mean I’m on the Board, I’ve been to the Rialto a few times. Let them work on getting the proposal for should it be torn down or not but look at, if it’s torn down then what. Because then we’ll have an empty space nobody’s coming to sit there with nothing to do. People don’t come downtown now. You have the Courthouse, you have the County Building, you have a couple of nice restaurants, you have the library, but if you look at Naperville, Bolingbrook, Oak Brook, Aurora they have places where multiple things for families to do. My question is if the building or when the building is torn down what the next step is and if we’re waiting for the building to be torn down to make that decision, we’re already behind the 8 ball. I need to know if the building is torn down who gets to decide what goes there and why don’t we have a multi governmental agreement with the City of Joliet who also receives federal funding to make something happen. There are tons of examples across the U.S. I just saw it in Savannah, GA and I’ve also seen it in Atlanta, GA, and the place was a former Courthouse. I know it’s another state with different laws, but I want us to go beyond Courthouse and say, no. Downtown Joliet should be a place where people can come with their families to do multiple of things. That’s just one of the spaces that can be used. So, the question is if the building is torn down who owns the land and who gets to decide what goes there?
Ms. Tatroe answered the property is public space. It is basically held in Trust by the County of Will. Judge Bartley decision says, the County of Will holds it in Trust for the benefit of the people, so it has to be used for a public purpose. Whether it’s a public purpose it has to be taken to the courts so when the County Board decides how they want to use it we have to petition the courts and get approval that the court agrees that it is a public purpose. Every single time that we’ve done anything with the parking lots or anything like that there has been a petition filed in court to allow us to do those things.
Ms. Coleman asked do we have the ability to sell the land to a private entity?
Ms. Tatroe answered under the Judge Bartley decision we do not have the ability to transfer to a private entity. We can transfer it to another government entity.
Mr. Brooks noted you stated Mary the direction will come from this committee as Ms. Coleman mentioned simultaneously why are we looking at demolition and something else. That something else will come by way of this committee. Is that right?
Ms. Tatroe replied you can explore the different options but if you then came with a recommendation that will have to go to the full County Board.
Ms. Mueller questioned can we change that trust in any way?
Ms. Tatroe responded you can go to the State Legislature and change laws. That’s a possibility. We are dealing with the general proposition the general legal basis of what is called the Doctrine. Generally, when a party leaves property to the public as public space or for any other reason as long as that specific purpose can be carried out it must be carried out and you can’t change it. Basically, a doctrine that says, if it is no longer able to anyway, shape, or form to carry out that purpose then you can do something different. The question before the County is there, is it impossible for us to use that property as a public space. I don’t think we are there yet. I would say, you need to use it for a public purpose.
Mr. Gould commented the Board made a decision a few years ago and that decision has never been rescinded. If I’m correct when the Board made that decision it basically put it in the hands of the Executive’s Office. Is that correct?
Mr. Brooks stated April 2019, is when we passed the Resolution to demolish. Now, that goes to the Executive’s Office for bidding. Is that right?
Mr. Zolekci answered, yes. That’s my understanding.
Mr. Gould commented I think m. Coleman makes a good point after that though because it is a public use, and I don’t recall the City of Joliet coming to this committee or to the County Board saying this is our vision for what this property would be, and this is the County seat our City Hall is a block away from this property. What is the City of Joliet view of this parcel? This is a court decision from 1961 that was for this specific parcel. Take it a step further and maybe we need to hear from the city. Assuming it is demolished what does the City of Joliet foresee?
Ms. Berkowicz commented we have a very vibrant and motivated group that came before the Board. I was simply blown away by what they want to accomplish here, so my concern is the fact that Will County would operate and be in charge of a public space. I don’t know that Will County has any other public spaces of this type let’s say, it is made into a park, and we tear the building down we may turn it into a park. I don’t know a lot of people who really have a desire to lounge in a park in the middle of downtown; everyone works and leaves. I don’t know what we would accomplish if we were to do that. However, if we were to get the legislation or whatever needs to be done to allow us to have that property developed without any County money. Release that property into something that can bring life, economic gain to the downtown that would be a big benefit, but my concern is the operation and our responsibility of a public space. Right now, do we have any of those?
Ms. Tatroe answered we had this property since the court decided that it was the County of Will in 1961 and so that’s the old Courthouse and parking lot to the east of it to Scott St. It’s all public ground. The government maintains public ground that’s what we do.
Ms. Berkowicz noted but a public park is different than a parking spot. When you have people congregating there will be certain events and issues, whose responsibility will that be then and how do we address that.
Ms. Tatroe replied the County of Will is trustee for that ground no matter what you choose. I’m not sure there’s been any decisions made. There are a lot of leads but that’s up to County Board for what you would build or use it for; it will be just as long as it is public use.
Ms. Traynere stated this committee is different than the committee in 2019. In 2019 and even the time prior to that the whole time I’ve been on the board when this whole rebuilding the infrastructure was first discussed there has never been any attempt by this body to find out if there would be any other use for this building. We have not publicly gone out with anything. We just made the decision. I think we need additional research on what can be done with that property based on lawsuits and decisions in the courts that has come forward.
Ms. Mueller asked so, the City of Joliet can come up with some ideas or the Executive’s Office that’s something they can drive as well. Am I correct in that or is that something we solely come up with? Those are other options are they not?
Ms. Tatroe answered absolutely.
Ms. Mueller commented I hear what everyone is saying about we can change these laws, it’s a new committee. We made the choices, the votes we did with the information that we had at the time. We did the best we could with the information we had then. We are dealing with some ComEd delays, so that buys a little more time to talk about this further. I just wanted to make it clear and public that these choices were made with the information we had at the time. We did not willy nilly make these choices. We were very careful with them and when we were told we couldn’t sell the property or profit from it, that was why we stopped talking about what we can do with outside developers or whoever. I’ve heard a lot of great ideas for this Courthouse. We’re here to talk about them.
Ms. Ventura stated I too was on the committee when this was decided, and I want to first talk about the many uses. This land is on the route for historical Route 66. So, to say that people don’t come to Joliet is just false. We could make a lot of money having some type of property there whether it’s revenue for the County to lower taxes, but we can have photography things there, we can have little cutouts, you can have an information thing there, the possibilities are endless. People who work and eat here might enjoy going downtown taking their lunch outside. I’ve lived in a lot of other cities; this is what those cities really have including Naperville, including places that are redoing their downtown like Lockport. Emphasizing having an open space. We have memorials there; we also have festivals and farmers market in Joliet. On June 4, we had Star War Days that bring 10,000 people to this town. Instead of crowding them into the concert parking lot across the Rialto we could enjoy the rest of Joliet and have some green space. I just want to make sure we’re not short sighted about what Joliet offers and yes, we need a vision. It’s unfortunate that our City of Joliet leaders have not come forward with a vision for this but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in Joliet who don’t have a vision for what Joliet can become. That being said, I’m going to play devil’s advocate a little bit. It is problematic when our committee or Board does not vote when we discuss things, and we think they are happening, but they don’t happen. When I was on this Board with Ray Tomanello, we both discussed and advocated for a public space for some of the same reasons that I discussed. At that time, we made the decision because of the cost and the legal reasons it did seem like the best foot forward. Since then, we had a group come forward and present some of the legal and that’s when we first found out about some of the legal restrictions on the land. However, that delay at that time my understanding is that Wright & Company wanted to build a new County Building. They also came and presented their new County Building. Ray and I, both agreed that the County Building looks great, be nice to have a campus but that would not prevent us from having a park on that parking area because the parking area right next to it would have also served well for a County Building. At that point we probably should have taken a vote. We didn’t. A lot of people liked the idea of getting the funds. This is all before COVID and ARPA money and CARES money and all those influxes of monies we recognized that we didn’t have the money and we didn’t want to go to bond for a building anytime soon. So, we were looking at a possible 10 year down the road project, but it wouldn’t have prevented having open space between the current Courthouse and possibly a new County Building. That delay has brought us to where we are today which now means there are a lot of different possibilities. Needs change, laws change, Board change, everything. Since then, I’ve had constituents in my area come forth and say, they want transitional housing. We talked about that in several communities they want a mental health hospital, some of them still want an open space and of course the group before us has also presented several ideas. At this point both our Executive and our Speaker have put out a joint statement saying, possibilities could happen, but nobody is taking on their RFP. In my opinion and I strongly encourage this committee to push forward. You could put out an RFP that ask for both of those things. If somebody wants to demo it and put a park, there they can put in their bid. If someone wants to rehab the building and make it public use, they can put in that bid. If the City of Joliet wants to work with the County to put in something there that would help the people, they can put in that bid. So, really at this point it does seem the best course of action is to the County Board to direct the Executive to put out an RFP asking for the potential uses of this land and if that includes demolition that needs to include in the bid and then we can truly take in all the data and make the best choice possible.
Mr. Balich commented I’ve been on the board a long time not as long as Jim but if you go back when we decided to build the Court House that most of you weren’t even on the Board then. Think about this, one of the things that we said at that time was that remember when the second floor fell to the first floor. Remember all the leaks and all the problems with water coming in that was 10 years ago, 12 years ago. How much mold is in that building? Are the floors still ruined? They fixed the part that fell but is the rest of the floor safe, are the windows leaking? We’re going to go on and on, nothing has been done since we got out of there. Right? Now you have to ask yourself do you want to put someone in there? If you sell something to someone and you don’t disclose that the floor could be faulty, that the windows may be leaking, and there may be mold in the walls, the roof leaks, and there maybe mold in the floor of the basement. You know what that means? That means they can sue us if we don’t say that. We voted back 2019 we said, we we’re going to demolish it and make a parking lot because parking was needed in Joliet, period. Now, all of a sudden everyone’s talking about selling the building and making a nice place to live, art place, whatever. Are we crazy? None of us are dumb enough to buy something like that for $1.00 even. Would you want to buy it for $1.00 and have to get all that garbage removed? That’s why I think we need to stick to the initial thing when you go back in time when the Board looked at everything. Not all the new stuff no one realizes what happened before.
Mr. Moustis stated we did ask the Executive’s Office and they waited to talk to Joliet to see what their vision was. Evidently that was never accomplished but absolutely we should be talking to Joliet to see their vision. There’s a lot to be said about public open space where you can do a lot of things and Ms. Ventura went through some of them. Who’s goes downtown Chicago on Kris Kringle Day’s and it’s packed, small concerts, high school students do a public performance, etc. So, I do think there’s a lot but what it comes down to selling that building you have to get fair market value. You get a lot of people coming forward say they are interested if the building is free, so they can make profit off a public asset. You get fair market value. Do they want to pay $15 million, $20 million for the building? These so-called private developers we’re going to save the Courthouse is really there to make a profit. See if they’re really interested if they have to pay for it. I don’t think so. In all the areas in downtown Joliet that can be redeveloped by private developers they should look elsewhere if they are truly interested in redeveloping parts of downtown Joliet. I actually talked to Joliet and Joliet at one time said, maybe we should redevelop it as a city development. Then the City would have part of the building and the County would have part of the building. What I thought was a pretty good idea. If you want to talk about selling it to a private sector they have to pay, and I think Mary that they pay fair market value for that property and the idea that you’re going to give it to them. Rethink that.
Mr. Fricilone noted this comes down a couple of simple things. We did our due diligence on that building; that’s why we built a new Courthouse because if that building was renovatable at a reasonable cost we would have kept the Courthouse there and made an addition but that’s why we didn’t do it. The second key issue is we need to provide for the County’s future. We know this building going to have a useful life which isn’t much longer because some renovation here to get through a little longer. We need to provide for the County’s future. There was a vision. Leadership changed and the vision didn’t go through, but the thought was to build a new County Courthouse maybe with the city, maybe without, maybe with some mixed use on the first floor so we can get some people down there to shop. Take the parking lot and make the old County Courthouse green space in between the two buildings. I don’t see anything wrong with that vision. I think we should reexplore that vision. There may be some possibilities with the RNG Plant and what it’s going to generate that we may be able to do that in the future in the short term. The reason we weren’t ready to do that then because our bonding was kind of done, but now we may have another revenue source that will be able to do that, but that’s the vision we have to work towards because at some point we have to replace this building. That was the most logical place to put a new building that would handle all of this and maybe some other departments if we needed to move a Land Use or something maybe get in bed with the Village and with the City of Joliet and do that, so we had that vision. We just need to remember it, but the first part of the vision was we need to knock that building down. We have to get that building down and I don’t care what it takes, we have to get it down. That is not a Class A Building. Class A Building is a type of building you can renovate into anything. You can’t renovate that into anything. You can’t make it housing. There are too many impediments in there that’s going to stop them there. So, let’s get back to the original vision and the first part of the vision is knock the building down and start moving forward.
Mr. Van Duyne stated I agree with Mr. Fricilone the liability that goes along with it all the cleanup and everything to restore it and in some ways keeping that is an impediment to having open space or other ideas that you’re talking about morning. I haven’t changed my mind and I still see it as a money pit.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Tour of County Clerk's Lower Level Space (Tour)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Coleman, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Traynere ABSENT: Parker |
Mr. Hollister stated thank you for allowing me to address the status of the 1969 Courthouse Building. Last month our preservation group had engaged council to perform a legal review that pertain to the site and the impact of the state. We’ve provided a copy of the legal opinion to everyone on the committee, their work is now complete. The preservation group is going to move forward to nominate the courthouse for a listing on the National Register of Historic Places. We don’t want to stand in the way of demolition if it will lead to something better. If the County does have a plan for this site that will lead to a more vibrant more active Joliet downtown, we want to know. If there’s a plan for this site beyond a blank space let’s hear it. We also don’t intend to stand in the way of demolition if there’s truly no viable way of saving this building for adaptive reuse. We are very eager to sit down with the County staff to discuss ways to do that. We have reached out to the County numerous times and look forward to sitting down to discuss this.
Ms. Coleman commented I don’t know if we can legally allow this RFP that’s going out on the 17th to be more inclusive, but if we could I think we really should. We’re talking about long-term making an impact in this community, in this city to draw more people here for a variety of things. So, if we only have an RFP for removal of asbestos and tearing the building down that’s really not due diligence of this Board because we did not look at all our opportunities.
Ms. Tatroe stated the RFP is just for asbestos.
Ms. Coleman asked if we can have an RFP that asks for what would you do with building. Can you afford to tear the building down and build something else? Why can’t we put that out there? I would like to see this on the agenda.
Ms. Tatroe answered when the idea come forward then the State’s Attorney’s Office could look at the idea and hen determine whether or not they are legally plausible. I will say, I’m not sure and I’m speculating a little bit that people are going to be willing to come. It’s a lot of money to do an interview to respond to an RFP.
Mr. Moustis commented before we do that though, let’s do our plan first. I think we should do our plan first and then after we do our plan the public will give us information or maybe the developers will say, hey we think that’s a great plan we’re not as interested because if you’re interested in preservation and we can create something that will hold better for, so I think we need to come with our plan in conjunction with the City because it is the City of Joliet and they have to give input. I really think we need to do the concept of our plan and then move forward. So, we’re not competing.
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
X. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
Mover Mr. Van Duyne
Seconder Mrs. Traynere
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4317&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up