Will County committee debates five‑year capital plan, Joliet partnership and bond financing

The Will County Capital Improvements Committee on Tuesday reviewed a five‑year capital plan that lays out multiple options for renovating, expanding or replacing county office space and discussed whether to partner with the City of Joliet on a joint facility.

Chair Freeman opened the discussion and asked county staff to present the plan and accompanying handouts. Staff described several options — from retrofitting the old courthouse to building new square footage or acquiring a 34‑acre parcel on Joliet’s west side — and cited wide-ranging preliminary estimates for construction and retrofit work.

Why this matters: committee members flagged the project’s scale and cost as central questions. Member Evans said he favored including the City of Joliet in the same building, arguing an integrated campus would “look” better to residents and could reduce duplication. “I would like them to be underneath the same roof as us,” Evans said. Chair Freeman pushed back on taxpayer equity: “My taxpayers do not want to subsidize or pay for Joliet services, and they shouldn’t,” Freeman said, underscoring the need for detailed cost‑sharing proposals.

County staff described the 34‑acre parcel near River Valley off McDonough Street as an option but cautioned that the site is zoned agricultural and that rezoning or off‑market purchases would affect price and feasibility. Staff gave a rough market frame — discussing a potential commercial valuation near $1,000,000 per acre if rezoned — and highlighted operational complications such as parking, proximity to courthouse functions and secure storage for clerk’s office equipment.

Committee members repeatedly asked for more detailed, comparable cost analyses tied to each location option. Member Brooks urged staff to return with tailored analyses for sites inside and outside Joliet so the committee could make an informed location decision rather than evaluate a single listing.

On funding and procedure, committee members asked whether a public referendum would be required. A county financial representative advised the committee that, based on current estimates and prior guidance from bond advisors, a referendum is not required and that county general‑obligation bonds (reissuance under current debt thresholds) are a likely funding vehicle. Members requested written confirmation of that opinion and a formal financing explanation for the record.

The committee also sought a facility needs assessment that outlines departmental square‑footage needs and growth assumptions; staff said a master plan and attachments had been provided in prior materials but agreed to re‑distribute the fuller needs assessment.

Next steps: the committee agreed on a two‑part homework plan — caucuses will discuss whether they favor Joliet inclusion, and staff will seek a written expression of interest from the City of Joliet confirming its potential participation and understanding of cost sharing. Chair Freeman set a target for the committee to identify “who and where” by the next meeting. The committee voted to cancel July’s meeting and reconvene on Aug. 4.

The committee also heard a facilities update (new grease trap at Sunny Hill Nursing Home; rooftop HVAC scaffolding at the VAC center; over 500 work orders completed in May) and approved the meeting minutes by roll call earlier in the session.