Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Composting And Organics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Will County officials discuss state bills to study and restrict food waste; no vote taken
Summary
Will County staff and board members discussed two Illinois bills — a composting study (1397) and a proposed food-waste ban (1398) — focusing on infrastructure limits, potential costs, and market demand. No formal county vote or mandate was recorded; board members asked staff to work with lobbyists on language and possible county positions.
Will County Solid Waste staff and county board members spent more than an hour discussing two state-level proposals on food-scrap composting and a potential ban on sending food waste to landfills, focusing on infrastructure, cost, and market questions.
The county’s Solid Waste presenter, Dave Hartke, told the committee the proposals align with goals in the county’s solid waste plan and emphasized that “there’s not enough infrastructure in the state for us to say we could ban food scraps,” while describing one bill (No. 1397) as a study to examine how to use compost more effectively and the other (No. 1398) as a draft ban on food waste to landfills that would include phased distance and time goals.
Why it matters: county staff said the two-county compost infrastructure now in Will County cannot immediately absorb curbside or universal food-scrap collection. Board members pressed staff on who would pay collection costs and how programs would affect multi‑family housing, townships and unincorporated areas. Committee members also raised market concerns — compost sites regularly report leftover product at season’s end, which keeps prices and program costs high.
Key details and staff answers
- Bill numbers: staff identified the study bill as 1397 and the draft ban as 1398; staff said they were still reviewing 1398’s language. Both items were described as state proposals and not county ordinances.
- Phasing and coverage: staff said the draft ban includes distance and timing goals — for example, a 10‑mile and a 25‑mile radius threshold were discussed as part of phased implementation — and a 10‑year planning horizon was referenced, but staff said the precise trigger language and exemptions were still being unpacked.
- Local infrastructure: Will County currently has two compost sites, staff said; Romeoville’s Willow Creek site is licensed to accept some commercial food scraps (including from Lewis University and some grocery stores) but would charge a premium for broader service. Several speakers said more drop‑off sites or city/township collection programs would be needed before any ban could be enforced countywide.
- Costs and incentives: staff noted a separate cost to pick up food waste and said some municipalities use volume‑based garbage pricing or different cart sizes to create an incentive to divert organics. Board members suggested potential incentives such as reduced collection fees for participants and discussed the possibility of partnerships with private companies or farmers to expand markets for finished compost.
- Examples and pilot projects: staff cited Oak Park and parts of Chicago as existing models for commercial and some residential food-scrap collection; Joliet Junior College (JJC) was referenced as having an anaerobic digester sized to accept roughly 300 pounds of food scraps a day (the digester was reported as not currently operating because a maintenance vendor left the market). County staff also mentioned Green Era in Cook County as a commercial anaerobic digester operation to consider touring.
What the committee asked staff to do
Committee members asked staff to: (1) continue reviewing the exact statutory language in 1398 for mandates and exemptions; (2) provide cost estimates for collection, processing, and any impacts on the county’s RNG (renewable natural gas) facility or landfill gas capture; (3) discuss options for staged rollouts (drop‑off sites, partnerships with municipalities and townships, and backyard‑compost exemptions); and (4) coordinate with the county’s lobbyists on suggested amendments and formal positions.
No formal motion or vote on a county position took place during this meeting. Chair Ortiz and other members asked staff to collect more detail and submit suggested talking points and amendments to the county’s state lobbyists.
Ending note: staff and several board members expressed support for the study component (bill 1397) while urging caution on any immediate, enforceable ban (1398) until infrastructure, markets and cost responsibilities are clearer.
