Farmers Weekly Review

Mica Freeman

 

By Stephanie Irvine

Just two days after the Christmas holiday, demolition crews began work breaking down the exterior of the former Will County Court Building despite a special County Board committee meeting scheduled for the following day that could’ve stopped demo work.

A steel wrecking ball took aim at the side of the old courthouse on December 27. The first concrete-shattering thuds were met with a couple of hoots and hollers from those there to witness it.

The building had been fenced off for weeks with the anticipation of final demolition and efforts to save it hanging in the balance.

The contentious debate over the old courthouse boiled over when the final effort to save it appeared as the sole item on the agenda of the December 28 special meeting with a Stay of Further Demolition of the Old Will County Courthouse Building.

Enough county board members initially attended to have the meeting and hold the vote. But before the gavel could drop and officially start the meeting, Board Member Mica Freeman, D-Plainfield, left, resulting in a lack of quorum.

Without a quorum, the meeting could not occur, and a vote to stop further demolition of the courthouse could not be held.

“I do not know officially why. I know she was called out in the hall, someone talked to her, and then she left. I can suspect and so can the readers,” said Ad Hoc Committee Chair Janet Diaz, D-Joliet.

“I feel bad for the people of Plainfield. They both represent Plainfield. He (Republican) Mark Revis) didn’t show up and was supposed to be there,” said Diaz.

Freeman, however, didn’t mince words when she responded to Farmers Weekly Review later that day, after the print deadline:

“A special meeting was called this morning while many board members are out of town for the holidays about an issue we already decided. The courthouse is being demolished as I speak. I wanted to attend this morning’s meeting to ensure my constituents and their hard-earned tax dollars were represented.

“When I realized my presence made quorum, and the group wanting to stall the demolition would have their meeting, I left. My decision to leave protects taxpayers, ensuring that the county does not irresponsibly accrue fines and fees from Joliet for having a nuisance property. And that is why I left.”

Prior to the meeting, County Executive Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant issued a statement regarding the issue:“The decision to demolish the courthouse was voted on by the County Board, and the demolition has started. This special meeting is both financially irresponsible and a public safety risk.”

The County Executive’s office provided no comment after learning the meeting did not occur.

Will County Board Chair Judy Ogalla, R-Monee, was contacted, but comments were not available by press deadline.

If a vote is held and approved, the resolution would have to be resolved through legal channels, according to Will County State’s Attorney spokeswoman Carole Cheney. The Will County State’s Attorney’s office represents the County Board in legal matters.

The back-and-forth debate to save the old courthouse or demolish it dates back to 2019, when it was initially slated for demolition through a County Board resolution.

Since then, conflicting opinions on the future of the old court building site have dominated County Board discussions, special meetings, and both public and private attempts to save it.

The debate is not split among party lines, as preservationists and those advocating for the demolition of the old building are from both sides of the aisle. Staunch fiscal Republicans have fought alongside far-left progressives to save the building.

This past November, the ad hoc committee was formed to explore the possibilities and value of saving the old courthouse, which has sat vacant since 2020 when courthouse operations went remote during the COVID pandemic. Courthouse operations resumed in the new 10-story Will County Courthouse building, named the “Will County Judicial Center,” in 2021.
Previous attempts to create a committee had failed.

As to why the special meeting was called, Ad Hoc Committee Vice Chair Sherry Williams said, “The same issues are still present. There are things that we have asked for (from the County Executive’s Office) that we haven’t gotten. We haven’t gotten some of the reports.
“What’s going on? It seems like something is underlying we’re not aware of. We feel it can be repurposed. Why waste the money? We have been raising these questions all along, and we can’t get them to let us see the bidding process.”

Bertino-Tarrant responded to that claim Friday.

“My office has been responsive to every request for materials from Board members. All bid documents, including the contract, have been given to the Ad Hoc Committee. It is irresponsible to attempt to keep an unsafe building in the heart of downtown Joliet based on the unfounded theory that documents are being withheld. I do not know what else can be provided to the committee at this time to alleviate their concerns.”

The County Executive also said her staff sat down with Member Dan Butler and reviewed the bid materials, explaining that there isn’t a “missing document” in the contract.

She aid the bid documents/Award Letter “are publicly available and have been provided. Any member of the public can review them here: https://willcounty.gov/County-Offices/Administration/Purchasing/Current-Bids

Bertino-Tarrant said contracts are not normally shared publicly, “but it is something that is publicly available upon FOIA request.

“This has been sent to the Chair of the Ad-Hoc Committee for review by their members, with no pages removed. The contract has also been fully vetted by the State’s Attorney.”

Built in 1969, the 54-year-old building is an example of Brutalist architecture. For locals, the large building of concrete and prison-like windows was a well-known, yet informal landmark.Though the old county building enjoyed local notoriety, it failed to ever receive official landmark status. The Joliet City Council put the last nail in that coffin in September 2023 by rejecting landmark status with a 7-2 vote. This despite a previous unanimous vote by the Joliet Historic Preservation Commission recommending it be added to the list of Joliet’s historical sites and a nomination to the National Historic Registry.

In late 2022, preservationists held a “World’s Ugliest Courthouse” kegger to raise awareness and funds to save the courthouse, but its efforts were for naught as the Executive Committee voted against a resolution to investigate alternative options for the building.
County Board officials, including Ogalla, had said they considered alternatives before voting on the resolution to demolish in 2019. Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Tatroe also said many times the building could be used only for public purposes, making any commercial development nearly impossible without the state changing trust law.

The County Executive office’s demolition efforts pressed on, and a $1.5M contract was awarded to the lowest bidder, Carol Stream’s American Demolition Corporation, in October 2023. Earlier this month, the building was fenced off as work began inside the building in preparation for the exterior demolition.

Preservationists will continue efforts to save what’s left of the building as long as it’s inhabitable.

“I’m not happy about it. I know that they pulled the outside staircase. We can replace that with a new staircase,” Diaz said. “That’s not a big deal. I’m more concerned about the damage they’re doing when it’s obvious we have board members who have questions.
“We have 10 people calling for the special meeting. We’re only required to have six. Almost half the board are asking questions. It’s a statement.”

“We will do whatever we need to do. Right now, we’re trying to regroup and see what that is. We hate to see them tear down a building unnecessarily. If the report says it’s not inhabitable, then that’s what it is. We can’t resurrect it once it’s gone,” said Williams.
A new special meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, January 2, at 10:45 a.m. to attempt the Stay of Demolition again. This step is required before any legal challenges could be made.

Stephanie Irvine is a freelance reporter.