Will County Board advances solar projects near Manhattan, New Lenox
The Will County Board voted Thursday to advance solar energy projects near Manhattan and New Lenox.
Soltage, a renewable energy provider, plans to build two 5-megawatt commercial solar energy facilities on 69 vacant acres at the southeast corner of West Manhattan Road and South Cherry Hill Road in Manhattan.
The company is planning to lease the land, which is the remains of a farmstead, for up to 40 years, according to the county.
One business that neighbors the proposed solar project, Green Glen Nursery, wrote county officials a letter of support, but the Manhattan Village Board unanimously voted to object to the plan.
The proposal is within 1.5 miles from Manhattan's boundaries.
Mayor Mike Adrieansen said in a letter the village doesn't oppose solar energy facilities, but the village wants this particular area to be used for commercial development.
'The proposed solar energy facility will disrupt the natural flow of our development,' Adrieansen wrote.
Manhattan Township did not object to the solar facilities but made several requests, such as planting a buffer of evergreen trees and shrubs along the north and west property lines and adding at least a 6-foot tall chain-link fence for security. The developer agreed to comply with the township's requests, county documents said.
Township officials also requested that Soltage establish a line of credit that could be used if landscaping or fencing falls into disrepair or if the grass becomes overgrown.
The projects would generate enough electricity to provide power to about 2,000 homes, according to company documents. It would also bring about 75 jobs to the area throughout construction.
Native and pollinator grasses approved by the Will County Forest Preserve District will be planted under and around the solar panels to increase biodiversity, reduce erosion and support wildlife populations, company documents state.
The project, which was approved by a 15-6, vote, is expected to begin construction in mid-2025.
The county board also approved a project by ECA Solar and New Lenox Community Energy Initiative to build a commercial solar facility on just under 35 acres south of the Canadian National Railroad Tracks, west of South Spencer Road and north of Brogan Drive near New Lenox.
The New Lenox Village Board did not object to the solar facility, but requested fencing and rows of evergreen trees and shrubs.
The project was approved by an 18-4 vote.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the two energy projects, and the board approved them without discussion.
Board member Judy Ogalla, a Monee Republican, voted against both solar projects saying later legislators in Springfield should not have control over local cases.
Illinois law sets statewide standards for wind and solar farm siting and says local ordinances cannot be more restrictive than the state standards.
Ogalla said there is no other industry in the state that abides by these rules, which takes control out of local officials' hands who best know the area and residents' wants.
'That is bothersome to me,' she said.
She said she is glad that the county can put conditions on the projects before granting a special-use permit and many solar energy developers have agreed to those conditions, include such requests as the number of mowings per year or types of plantings.
Ogalla also said solar energy projects are not compatible with farming.
'Because I am a farmer, I don't support building solar, which is an industrial use on agricultural farmland,' she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump to promote $1,000 ‘Trump Accounts' for newborns at WH event
President Donald Trump is set to host a roundtable at the White House Monday to promote a key feature of the sweeping Republican domestic policy bill – a provision that would provide every American newborn with a $1,000 investment account, a White House official told CNN. The accounts, which the administration has dubbed 'Trump Accounts,' would be established for all newborn US citizen children under a pilot program included in the House-passed legislation. The government's $1,000 contribution would be placed in an index fund tied to the overall stock market and managed by the child's legal guardians. The accounts will start at $1,000 per child and guardians or other private entities can contribute up to $5,000 additional dollars every year throughout the child's life. 'The passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill will literally change the lives of working, middle class families across America by delivering the largest tax cuts in history, increasing the child tax credit, AND by creating this incredible new 'Trump Account' program, which will put the lives of young Americans on the right financial path' said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Monday's event, taking place in the State Dining Room at the White House, will feature top executives from Dell, Uber, Altimeter Capital, ARM Corp, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Robinhood and Goldman Sachs. According to the White House official, the CEOs are expected to pledge billions of dollars in investments into Trump Accounts for the children of their employees. 'The creation of investment accounts for every child will compound into substantial nest eggs providing support for education, home ownership, and starting families. Dell Technologies will proudly match dollar for dollar the government's seed investment into these accounts for all the children born to Dell team members. This bold move to an ownership society for all included in the Reconciliation Bill will have profound and far-reaching benefits for the country,' said Dell Technologies CEO Micheal Dell, who will attend the roundtable Monday. The roundtable comes as the Trump administration intensifies its push to secure Senate passage of the president's domestic policy package ahead of the Fourth of July. NBC News was first to report.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Elite universities offer to spend more endowment cash to stave off tax hit after Trump attacks ‘woke' policies: report
Some of the richest universities in the US are proposing a deal with the federal government that would allow them to spend more of their own money in exchange for a reprieve on a proposed tax on their endowments, according to a report. Nearly two dozen elite schools — including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke and the University of Chicago — are backing a plan that would commit them to distributing at least 5% of their endowment value each year. In return, they're asking Congress to scale back a proposed 21% tax on their investment income, a massive jump from the current 1.4% rate, the Wall Street Journal reported. Advertisement 4 Students walk on the Stanford University campus in this 2019 file photo. AP The White House has framed the tax hike as a way to hold 'woke, elitist universities' accountable. President Trump has launched an aggressive campaign against elite universities, accusing them of hoarding tax-advantaged wealth, embracing 'woke' politics and defying federal law. His administration has moved to revoke their tax-exempt status, block access to federal research grants, and restrict international student enrollment — turning once-reliable sources of funding into pressure points. Advertisement The schools, which are part of a group called the Learn Alliance, circulated a proposal on Capitol Hill that outlines a compromise. They'll increase annual spending on things like financial aid and research, and in exchange, they're asking lawmakers to scrap the House-passed tiered tax system in favor of a much lower flat rate — either 2.4% or 3.4% on investment income. 'What I hear from Republican members of Congress is a desire to ensure that colleges are using their charitable endowments to support today's students and researchers rather than saving too much for the future,' Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber told the Journal. Advertisement 4 Nearly two dozen elite schools — including Harvard — are backing a plan that would commit them to distributing at least 5% of their endowment value each year. AP 'Those are valid concerns, and this proposal directly addresses them.' Eisgruber argued the plan would free up billions of dollars for student-focused spending and local economic development, while a steep tax hike would have the opposite effect — discouraging schools from using their endowments. The Learn Alliance says its plan would generate at least $30 billion in additional spending over a decade. Advertisement That far exceeds the $6.7 billion in federal revenue the current House-endorsed tax is expected to raise during the same time period, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. If adopted, the proposed 5% distribution rule would mark a major shift. Private foundations already follow a 5% payout rule, but colleges and universities have long resisted such mandates, arguing they need flexibility to manage for the long term. The new House bill would also increase the tax on private foundation investment income to 10%, up from the current 1.39%. 'This would be a significant shift in national policy,' Liz Clark, vice president of policy and research at the National Association of College and University Business Officers, told the Journal. 4 The schools, which are part of a group called the Learn Alliance, circulated a proposal on Capitol Hill that outlines a compromise. Yale is one of the members of the alliance. Shutterstock She added that schools are under unusual pressure in the current political climate to show they're putting their money to work. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee and frequent critic of large endowments, said Thursday that lawmakers were only beginning to dig into the endowment tax issue. Advertisement 'I've heard from small colleges in Iowa who say these tax increases would hit them hard,' he said. According to a recent analysis by higher education research group Ithaka S+R, most schools that would fall under the proposed 21% tax rate currently distribute less than 5% of their endowments annually. 4 The image above shows Blair Hall on the campus of Princeton University in Princeton, NJ. LightRocket via Getty Images Over a five-year period ending in June 2023, the report found that several top universities failed to meet the 5% mark in most years. Advertisement 'Even small percentage increases in spending would translate to a significant jump in dollar terms because the endowments are so large,' said Catharine Bond Hill, an economist at Ithaka. Not all schools are taking the same approach. A group of smaller colleges is lobbying Congress to cap the investment tax at 1.4% for institutions with fewer than 5,000 full-time students. These schools, which lack the diversified funding sources of larger institutions, say the higher rates would hit them disproportionately hard. Meanwhile, another coalition — including Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis — is pushing for a system that rewards schools with tax breaks if they meet certain benchmarks, like enrolling a higher percentage of low-income students.
