[{"_1":2,"_96":-5,"_97":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,84],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6235627,"mediaKeyId","3397068-89358fc685888c729fa9b213a55ed36b","parentId",3397068,"title","Will County adopts updated purchasing code but defers local‑preference language after debate","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",8222000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3397068-89358fc685888c729fa9b213a55ed36b&start=8222&end=8222","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3397068-89358fc685888c729fa9b213a55ed36b/thumbnail_8222000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6235627/Will-County/Illinois/Will-County-adopts-updated-purchasing-code-but-defers-localpreference-language-after-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6235627-5df251e62744ae263f5e58bb71c57f30/orig.mp4?Expires=1770501315&Signature=lWgvKNpyJ3mSeWxzyeuXiqlvrqOnu3Cb7QnseI0yuxaiFE3f5fa6tB~aQslYP6Hhzsxv5~DrzURqD8bS8Ka19wNSL-xfqwnI5zAE2mC3B20LNw4VTDkM37PRteOa4t3~YyZkkn5ymawDsxINHq3KEXVof2yDV-sgI6mjdKcNSigaSdHld1I4fKa2Ok4BnRuBPmJUTkuL~PMUL3DpnJ9UdcMI9VphjnExTNo9TfZlYqnxEF38NgnFasTQyP~RlRqmyhdYfnSbrhgRcFKf7QCiS5UKTeB8pQwu5ATykXFS9vZtVqDuDh5EZMFkYn-MWkZVzBnAwohLp4YT0rDtemI6rw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Will County, IL","date","2025-05-20T08:43:56.123Z","article","Will County board members approved an updated purchasing ordinance during the May 15 meeting, adopting new standards to designate responsible bidders and require registration, tax compliance and insurance for contractors. During the same session the board removed proposed local‑preference language and referred that portion back to committee for further drafting.

What changed

The board replaced a 1992 procurement text with an updated ordinance that emphasizes contractor accountability. New provisions require that bidders show proof of legal registration, tax compliance, workers’ compensation coverage, prevailing‑wage compliance where applicable and certain safety and substance‑abuse policies. The updates also include subcontractor‑registration language designed to prevent unauthorized subs from starting work without county approval.

Deferred local‑preference language

Board members had debated a separate local‑preference section (marked in the circulated draft as “blue” text). Several members asked for more time to craft language that (a) would withstand legal review and (b) not disadvantage nonunion or small businesses. “I would like the opportunity for the...state's attorney’s office...to come up with some type, maybe possibly some better and tighter language for the local preference portion,” a sponsor said on the record.

The board approved an amendment to exclude the local‑preference provision from today’s ordinance and referred that section back to the executive committee for further work and legal review. The clerk recorded the referral and committee follow‑up on the record.

Points raised in debate

Several members warned that parts of the draft would make compliance difficult for nonunion contractors and small, veteran‑owned firms. “Only union companies will meet these requirements,” one member said during debate, and others urged careful review to avoid unintentionally excluding competent nonunion bidders.

Supporters of tougher bidder standards said the county had been operating on an outdated 1992 ordinance and needed modern protections to reduce liability and ensure timely, safe completion of public works.

Next steps

The updated purchasing code (excluding the local‑preference section) was approved and will take effect per the ordinance schedule. The local‑preference language will return to committee in June, where staff, the state's attorney’s office and board members will attempt to agree on legally defensible language if any local preference is to be included.

Ending

The action modernizes county procurement practice while preserving an additional opportunity for the board to debate and refine local‑preference policy in a later committee session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Will County Board Meeting May 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The county board approved a long‑overdue revision of the county purchasing code but removed a proposed local‑preference section for further drafting after members and witnesses raised questions about its legal effect and whether certain clauses would exclude nonunion and small contractors.","taxTitle","Will County, Illinois","taxId",2549,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":42,"_43":77,"_45":77,"_46":78,"_48":79,"_50":80,"_52":81,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":82,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":83,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6235631,"Will County Board delays decision on Torres special‑use request for horses after neighborhood protests",6686000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3397068-89358fc685888c729fa9b213a55ed36b&start=6686&end=6686","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3397068-89358fc685888c729fa9b213a55ed36b/thumbnail_6686000.jpg","/articles/6235631/Will-County/Illinois/Will-County-Board-delays-decision-on-Torres-specialuse-request-for-horses-after-neighborhood-protests","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6235631-193792266e4ba67ec9f3bfb64542615e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770501315&Signature=SOpHyQcTZuLaBkfMcpduzTFI1HxiltllfCI0W7TkFyXP2qhlPNoMycqAyCEMJ0Aoxl-SpMMHxniQUkzJsMFTw0wGgOCI6eJPjKn7-i~4b5NUXUdNzql6TgduDYl7BXDOYJV6KJPtiY0fXhi5kXIIF-9WoGaEUSyKPJl3oKPDiP-xj7VfUWaaiTkosvDK7lSE92QWJLg7IQ6kyfDmMnMRhyMULQbpd~ylMvtregU24RB3KSh0zUdtx~DM3McTVJkA7NfwO87NYSxPy-wjkpzEWhBCulDYs99DmSYUNzXuoPJlPnJIn5aRRuUm0w29CjfVzWAKCFMs1jaY-lU8BJhk1g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Will County Board voted May 15 to postpone action on ZC25002, a request from property owner Hernando (Hernando/Hernando Torres) for a special‑use permit to keep horses and variances for accessory building area, animal units and lot frontage.

The applicant told the board he owns about 5.7 acres and currently keeps goats, chickens and a miniature pony; he said he seeks the special use primarily to permit horses. “I have 2 goats, I have a couple chickens. ... I do have a miniature pony as well,” he said during public testimony.

Why it mattered: Neighbors said the property already exceeds permitted animal units and raised complaints about burning of animal waste, odor, stray animals, and insufficient confinement. Supporters said family members, including children with special needs, benefit from animal therapy and requested more time to resolve permitting and variance issues.

Public testimony and concerns

Christina Gomez, who said she was representing the family, asked the board for leeway to allow animals as a therapeutic resource for her daughter. “I have a special needs daughter. She has Down syndrome... I just really I honestly cannot afford that,” Gomez said, urging the board to allow space for safe, affordable animal contact.

Opponents concentrated on nuisance, safety and code compliance. Denise Ross, a neighbor, said she had organized a petition and said the Torres property already exceeded allowed units and engaged in suspected illegal disposal and burning of waste: “He also has an alternative motive for that building. He has put the cart before the horse,” Ross said, asking the board to deny additional animals.

Neighbor Jose Lopez described repeated odor and open‑burning complaints to nearby residents and asked for enforcement and accountability.

Postponement and next steps

County Board Chair Pretzel moved to postpone the ZC25002 matter to the June full board meeting; the motion carried at the May 15 session. The board transcript records that the applicant agreed to a postponement and to permitting staff inspecting the property as needed.

Clarifying details from the record

The application requests variances for accessory building area (from 1,800 sq ft to 4,253 sq ft listed on the agenda), for animal units (from 5 to 13) and for lot frontage (from 65 ft to 1.53 ft per agenda materials). The applicant stated his intent to remain within the allowed five units if horses were approved and that he had sold animals that were previously not permitted.

Ending

The board’s postponement gives staff additional time to verify existing units, confirm compliance steps and allow the applicant to resolve outstanding code and site‑condition concerns before the next full board meeting in June.","The board postponed action on ZC25002, a special‑use and variance request by Hernando Torres to keep horses and expand accessory structures on a 5.7‑acre property, after multiple residents testified and neighbors raised health, odor and nuisance complaints.",{"_33":85,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":86,"_41":87,"_43":88,"_45":89,"_46":90,"_48":91,"_50":92,"_52":93,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":94,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":95,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6235635,"Will County board declines to approve Soltage solar special-use permit after heated public hearing",5739,704000,6443000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3397068-89358fc685888c729fa9b213a55ed36b&start=704&end=6443","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3397068-89358fc685888c729fa9b213a55ed36b/thumbnail_704000.jpg","/articles/6235635/Will-County/Illinois/Will-County-board-declines-to-approve-Soltage-solar-special-use-permit-after-heated-public-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6235635-fbedfc0e5cdcf00a5e8f3f2a362b2a39/orig.mp4?Expires=1770501315&Signature=O-YhMX8SBz4Gv7vpJsh7D1Bv-xfMJpcwVF9sPQWUvuJzNpl8OxTAUHsGCAygLqKWXNk-S-cRR98b6US22qqgeTNX4JF2Z6KALrHQkwhuL85xC5zbyHmkHh3lSZ64RCpFtcKBuRcmFUrLpqQeK4dnV~PrxPaPon-FzPVolyHb-reITvzC9UEKJdvOuvoAbrG99M1hkqRAmLQWlmxhbZqH2fTN96i6M6sy-OSXvJZA0iKi3rlSG3kZiWUCuNT1pmG95wgA46fQKj~rqZf-lV2j540ui813kZo2glyjIsUnXENfdLtGiWVOE4IM4kXRExtBcPIaTYSUHm9IRf-BJC-mKw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A motion to approve a special‑use permit for a commercial solar energy facility known as ZC24117 failed during the Will County Board meeting on May 15, after a public hearing in which residents, municipal officials, first‑responders and the developer debated safety, local planning consistency and economic benefits.

The board considered testimony both for and against the proposed Soltage project on South Gougar Road. Opponents, including Village of New Lenox representatives and nearby residents, said the project conflicts with local and county plans, could lower nearby home values and poses fire‑safety risks. Supporters, including the developer and a union labor representative, said the project would create construction jobs, deliver community benefits and comply with state and county siting rules.

Why it matters: The vote puts on hold a 10‑megawatt commercial solar proposal that the developer said could serve about 2,000 homes and produce long‑term tax revenue, while neighbors said its location next to planned residential growth and schools makes it unsuitable.

Supporters and project details

Stephanie Sinkowski, director of development for Soltage, told the board the company has operated since 2005 and typically owns and operates projects long term. “We are committed to using union laborers that have been well trained in the proper installation of all the electrical equipment needed for the project's construction. This equates to between 60 and 75 contractor jobs,” she said. Sinkowski said Soltage has invested roughly $1,600,000 in site development and proposed mitigation measures including a 20‑foot vegetative buffer, a 22‑foot access road per fire district standards and a decommissioning bond.

Developer witnesses said equipment is UL‑certified, inverters use vegetable oil and emergency shutdown and arc‑fault detection systems are part of design and building‑permit review. Jonathan Roberts, vice president of development at Soltage, framed the project as part of easing projected electricity supply shortfalls: “We are here building generation. Like, we need generation in this country to be built,” he said.

Opposition: planning, schools and safety

Robin Ellis, assistant village administrator and community development director for New Lenox, said the village’s planning bodies unanimously recommended opposing the request. “This case was presented to our plan commission and village board earlier this year and the board, recommended unanimously to object to this request for a number of reasons,” she said, citing inconsistency with New Lenox’s comprehensive plan and concerns that the array would discourage planned residential development on adjacent acreage.

First‑responder concerns were raised by James Brown, fire marshal for the New Lenox Fire District: “We we are not opposed to solar, but we're opposed to where this is going,” he said, adding that his district “currently do[es] not” have specialized equipment to fight large solar‑array fires and that a major nearby hospital and two high schools could be affected by a large fire or smoke event.

Nearby residents cited property‑value and hazard concerns. Ray Stanford, who organized a petition from the Fieldstone subdivision, presented studies and data he said showed declines in nearby home values near some utility‑scale solar fields and criticized the developer’s selection of open farmland instead of industrial rooftops.

Economic and appraisal testimony

Andrew Lines, a real‑estate appraiser with Kone Resnick retained by the project, said his team's review of multiple academic and market studies found no consistent, measurable negative impact on home sale prices near solar farms. “All of the data that I have been able to review does not indicate a consistent and measurable negative impact,” he told the board, and said several national and regional studies show neutral or positive effects in some markets.

Developer legal and procedural arguments

Maria Breece, an attorney for the applicant, told the board the county should evaluate the project under the state siting statute and the county’s solar ordinance. She cited “Illinois Counties Code Section five‑one hundred and twenty‑twenty” and argued the county’s zoning authority and the solar‑siting statute provide a nondiscretionary path when submittal requirements are met.

Vote and procedural outcome

After public testimony and board discussion, a motion to approve the special‑use permit was called and the clerk conducted a roll call. The motion failed; the clerk recorded 16 votes in the negative and announced, “The motion fails.” The transcript does not record any board motion subsequently approving the permit.

What the record shows and what it doesn’t

The hearing record includes extensive technical and policy back‑and‑forth: the developer emphasized UL certification, rapid‑shutdown features and a structured decommissioning bond schedule; the village and neighbors emphasized comprehensive‑plan conflicts, emergency‑response concerns and property‑value studies. The project’s emergency response plan was discussed as part of later building‑permit review rather than a condition of special‑use approval; the New Lenox fire marshal told the board the fire district had not yet received and approved a final emergency plan from the developer.

Next steps

Because the motion to approve failed on May 15, the applicant may choose to revise the application, address outstanding concerns identified in testimony, or seek future action under the county’s normal land‑use timeline. The transcript shows no subsequent board action on ZC24117 during the meeting.

Ending note

Board members repeatedly noted the legal tension between state siting law and local planning goals during debate. Multiple speakers urged careful review of technical emergency‑response details and clearer evidence on local impacts before the county takes a final position.","After a lengthy public hearing that included safety, property-value and planning objections from New Lenox officials and residents and a detailed defense from developer Soltage, a motion to approve the special-use permit for solar project ZC24117 failed during the May 15 Will County Board meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Will County adopts updated purchasing code but defers local‑preference language after debate

Will County Board delays decision on Torres special‑use request for horses after neighborhood protests

Will County board declines to approve Soltage solar special-use permit after heated public hearing