Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates consolidating county offices and options for new building
Summary
The committee reviewed a five-year capital plan, discussed reducing 65,000 sq ft of rental space through consolidation, weighing building on the old courthouse site against alternate sites, and asked consultants for cost-per-square-foot and financing scenarios.
The Will County Capital Improvements Committee reviewed a five-year facilities plan and spent the bulk of its time considering how to reduce the county’s reliance on scattered rental space through consolidation or new construction.
White & Company’s materials (presented to the committee) identified county-owned and rented properties, noting that the state’s attorney’s offices and public defender space are priorities because some existing elevators are obsolete and parts are hard to source. Committee members said consolidating functions (such as public defender, probation, specialty court and land-use services) under one roof would improve public access and could reduce long-term operating costs.
Mr. Butler told the committee the county currently uses about 65,000 square feet of rental space and pays roughly $1.22 million annually for those rentals, and he cited previous analysis that the old courthouse had about 140,000 square feet and had been valued at an estimated $200 million replacement value in past studies. He urged the committee to weigh whether restoring or rebuilding on that site made sense. “We used 65,000 square feet of rental space and we paid 1.22 million for rental,” Butler said.
Members debated funding options. Several asked whether consolidation would rely on reissuing existing bonds or require new general obligation bond issues; staff said the committee would need more information and that the 2020 bond package was cited in prior debt presentations. Member Trainer warned against raising property taxes and recommended starting with a smaller, expandable building on the old courthouse site. Other members cautioned about limestone below the old courthouse site that complicates deep parking structures and suggested seeking a consultant return visit with cost-per-square-foot and parking scenarios.
No formal decisions or votes were taken on a site or financing approach. The committee asked staff to obtain detailed cost estimates (cost per square foot, estimated parking needs, total square footage required for priority offices) and to invite White & Company or another consultant back to present financing and phasing options that would limit short-term tax impact. Committee members also suggested exploring shared facilities with other local governments as a way to spread cost.
The committee recessed and later adjourned after approving the meeting minutes earlier in the session.
