5 ILCS 120/2(c)(6)
OMASetting a sale/lease price for public body's own property
Setting a sale/lease price for public body's own property
Read the full statute text on /statutes →
1 upheld (no violation found) · 4 rejected (violation found), out of 5 documents.
Not legal advice, and not a per-exemption ruling — this reflects each document's overall disposition. See the FAQ disclaimer.
How the Public Access Counselor has treated 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(6)
Section 2(c)(6) allows a public body to meet in closed session to set a price for the sale or lease of property it owns. The decisions treat this as a narrow exception limited to price-setting, not a general authorization to discuss real-estate policy, strategy, or transactions in private.
The Public Access Counselor has found violations where boards discussed whether to sell property, discussed the sale of a different property than the one cited, took up an intergovernmental agreement under property exceptions, or went beyond lease price into other lease terms. It found no violation where a board discussed factors directly tied to keeping or changing a previously set sale price, even if that involved a related third-party financial matter.
At a glance: 5 documents from 2017 to 2023(1 binding opinion, 4 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5) (Purchase or lease of real property) (2); 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11) (Pending, probable, or imminent litigation) (1).
Recurring issues
- Boards discussed whether to sell district-owned property rather than limiting closed discussion to setting the sale price. (Closed-session discussion of property sale or lease pricing, Closed-session discussion of a property sale)
- A board cited one property purchase to enter closed session but then discussed the sale of a separate property. (Closed-session discussion of a property sale)
- A school board invoked property-related exceptions to discuss an intergovernmental agreement with a city in closed session. (Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreement)
- A village board went beyond the lease-price topic to discuss other aspects of a cell tower lease in closed session. (Closed-session discussion of a cell tower lease proposal)
- A school board discussed sale-price factors in closed session after a price had allegedly already been set through a sealed-bid process. (A school board's closed-session discussion of a property sale price)
Practical points
- A public body should confine closed-session discussion under this exception to setting the sale or lease price and handle decisions about whether to sell, other transactions, or related agreements in open session.
- A public body should make sure the property actually discussed in closed session matches the property and purpose cited for entering closed session.
- Discussion of factors directly bearing on maintaining or adjusting a previously set sale price may still fall within the exception, even if a related third-party financial circumstance is mentioned.
Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.
All 5 documents citing 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(6)
- Closed-session discussion of property sale or lease pricingBinding opinionViolation found
Violation found
- Closed-session discussion of a property saleDetermination letterViolation found
No violation found
- Closed session discussion of an intergovernmental agreementDetermination letterViolation found
Violation found
- A school board's closed-session discussion of a property sale priceDetermination letterNo violation
No violation found
- Closed-session discussion of a cell tower lease proposalDetermination letterViolation found
Violation found