Will County Board votes down motion to stop courthouse demolition

Joliet — After calling a special meeting to consider halting already-started demolition at the old Will County Courthouse in downtown Joliet, the county board voted Tuesday to let the building be knocked down.

The special session was called on Dec. 29 at the urging of the Ad Hoc Old Courthouse Committee, which was formed after the county board voted to approve the demolition contract for the building in November.

The board voted 12 to 4 against the motion to stay demolition.

During Tuesday’s meeting members of the board and committee, including Daniel Butler and Janet Diaz, argued there had been a lack of transparency around the bid process and demolition contract. Butler also claimed that documents about the bids and contract were missing and that he had requested them but was not provided with the information.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Butler argued that the courthouse was never deemed unsafe and that the already initiated demolition — including multiple interior walls being removed and holes in exterior walls— could be used as a steppingstone to renovating and expanding the building instead of demolishing it.

Butler claimed that the demolition would be more expensive than renovation, and that the demolition contract which was approved would end up being more expensive than anticipated.

This claim that the contract was not all-inclusive led to the claims of missing documents, something both County Executive Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant and her chief of staff Mike Mahoney both denied.

“It’s a good conspiracy theory, but there are no missing documents,” said Mahoney. “I’m sorry we’re not spending more on this, but it just is cheap.”

While initial estimates of demolition costs had been millions of dollars, the final cost of the contract that was approved was $1.48 million, which Mahoney explained, includes $80,000 in allowances for unforeseen costs.

“There aren’t going to be any change orders,” Mahoney told the board. “That $80,000 is already in there and has been paid. We already needed to spend $13,000 of it to install a fire hydrant on the property. If nothing else comes up, we will get the remaining $67,000 back.”

According to Mahoney, the county received nine bids on the project, all of which came in under $2.5 million, thanks in part to the large amount of salvageable material in the building, including rebar and piping, which has already been gutted from large portions of the structure.

“It’s a good conspiracy theory, but there are no missing documents. I’m sorry we’re not spending more on this, but it just is cheap.”

—   Mike Mahoney, chief of staff to the Will County executive

Despite Mahoney’s insistence that all the information had been made available in the bid and contract documents publicly available online, Butler claimed the documents citing the allowances were missing, leading Mahoney to pass him a copy across the committee table.

Despite the question about the costs seemingly being resolved, Diaz continued to push for a pause on the demolition, going so far as to suggest an amendment to the initial motion of putting a stay on the construction. She called to have the board instruct the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office to file suit to enjoin Bertino-Tarrant from enforcing the contract and ordering the demolition to go forward.

This request was met with skepticism from attorney Mary Tatroe, chief of the civil division of the state’s attorney’s office.

“Who do you want me to sue? Do you want to sue the county on behalf of the county?” she asked upon hearing the motion.

“The motion requested the state’s attorney’s office to file suit against the executive on behalf of the board to enjoin her from authorizing the demolition, even though they authorized it,” Tatroe explained later. “It’s not possible. The demolition is lawfully moving forward under the board’s direction.”

The amendment failed on a vote of 12 to 4. Had it gone forward, Tatroe noted it is likely the state’s attorney’s office would have remained neutral and both the board and the executive would have needed to hire outside counsel at the expense of the taxpayers.

Before the final vote was taken on whether or not to stay the demolition, Mahoney and Bertino-Tarrant also argued that postponing the work would lead to extra liability for the county, since delays in the work could lead to inflation-related increases in costs and fines from contractors who had additional work delayed or lost due to the extended timeline of the project.

This argument was backed by a letter from Joliet Mayor Terry D’Arcy which stated “as you are aware, demolition has already started, and several areas of the building are exposed and in a dangerous or unsafe condition. Should demolition be delayed at this point, please be aware that the City of Joliet has the ordinances which are necessary to declare the structure a public nuisance and seek to compel the completed demolition and removal of the remaining structure.”

If the city were to invoke this plan, the county would be liable for the demolition costs incurred by Joliet.

Ultimately the board voted 12 to 4 against the motion to stay demolition and the project will go forward as planned. It has not yet been decided what the property will be used for in the long-term, but it will at least temporarily be converted into green space, according to Board Chair Judy Ogalla.

Debate over documents

“I’m sad to see this building go down,” said board member Jacqueline Traynere, after casting her vote to allow demolition. “I believe anything could be overcome and it was left to decay after it was built. I’m sad to see it go, but based on how far it’s gone already, it didn’t feel responsible to vote to stop it anymore.”

“Going forward we need more transparency on the board,” said Ogalla. “I’ve always been in favor of the demolition, but some board members were worried about not getting questions answered and thought there was something going on behind the scenes. They felt this was a last effort to get what they wanted, but this should have been resolved a long time ago.”

Ogalla did not acknowledge that the allegedly missing documents had been provided to the committee members previously, stating that “if he [Butler] had been given them, he would not have kept asking for them.”

According to Mike Theodore, director of communications for the county executive, the document which Mahoney handed Butler during the meeting had been a page in the winning bid packet and had been cross-referenced in the approved contract.

“This publicly available document was provided to Member Butler multiple times and the County Executive sat down with him and our Facilities Department to discuss it,” Theodore said in a statement. “This document was clearly cross-referenced in the contract. Dan Butler has never specified what the ‘missing document’ was before this meeting.”

“Part of the confusion which lead to this meeting was the claims of a missing document, but there was no reason I would have withheld information,” said Bertino-Tarrant. “We’ve always been very open and transparent. I recognize this is frustrating, but the chair has the power to put items on the agenda. This should have been addressed earlier. My personal opinion has never been a part of this decision. The County Board voted for this. It is my job to see it through.”