Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pace Building Negotiations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County board members press staff for details on PACE Building negotiations, Joliet talks and funding
Summary
Committee members pressed staff about the PACE Building’s current use, ongoing negotiations with the city of Joliet, whether an intergovernmental agreement exists or will be required, and how the $4 million–$5 million acquisition/pipeline funding was allocated.
County board members at the Capital Improvements & IT Committee asked staff for clear documentation about the PACE Building—who is using it, whether negotiations with the city of Joliet have advanced toward an intergovernmental agreement (IGA), and how county funds were allocated.
Member Reavis asked Mr. Mahoney whether Joliet was using the PACE Building; Mahoney replied that the county was currently using the building as a temporary operations space for Sunny Hill bed replacement work and that use was expected to wrap the week of the meeting. Committee members asked whether any intergovernmental agreement with Joliet had been finalized; staff answered there was ongoing negotiation but “no intergovernmental agreement” had been executed and reminded the committee that any IGA would require county-board approval.
Several members expressed frustration about the lack of documentation or board-level briefing on the status and terms of any proposed arrangement. Member Julie Berkowitz asked when the county board had been briefed and requested copies of the prior presentation and any materials related to negotiations. Staff said an earlier presentation had been made to an executive committee roughly six months earlier and that they would locate the prior record, circulate that presentation and provide updates to the full board.
A central point of contention at the meeting was funding. Multiple members referenced an original $5 million figure discussed earlier and a later $4 million appropriation. Staff clarified the $4 million figure was an appropriation in the budget and that the funds used were from cash reserves rather than from a property-tax levy. Members repeatedly asked where the remaining $1 million was accounted for; staff said the appropriation request had been reduced from $5 million to $4 million during the budget process and that the $4 million was allocated to the VAC/Copperfield project per the recent budget.
Member Steve and others pressed for written financial detail and asked that the county board be provided documentation showing how the PACE Building acquisition funds were reallocated and how the county’s leased footprint will change once Copperfield and VAC moves occur. Staff committed to sending the documentation and to providing the updated buildings inventory to the full board.
Committee members also asked who on the county board had been engaged in negotiations; staff said a presentation had been made to the executive committee but that wider board feedback had been limited since that time. Members requested the executive committee presentation be located and circulated and asked that the matter be brought back for committee or board consideration once the negotiations or a proposed IGA were sufficiently developed.
