
Will County Board rejects solar facilities in near New Lenox, Wilmington
The Will County Board voted 16-5 vote Thursday to reject plans for a solar facility in New Lenox Township that was opposed by New Lenox village officials and nearby homeowners.
Soltage proposed two 5-megawatt commercial solar energy facilities on about 75 acres southeast of Haven Avenue and Gougar Road. The village of New Lenox abuts the property to the west and north and objected to the plan.
More than 80 residents of the nearby Fieldstone Subdivision signed a petition stating the commercial solar energy facility would negatively impact their property values. They also said the height of the vegetation and the minimal times it would be mowed would be an eyesore and create problems with mosquitoes and rodents.
'This proposed solar farm will be extraordinarily close to our homes,' Sandy Wheeler said. 'I was involved in preparing the signatures in opposition to this proposed solar farm. Not one resident that I asked to sign the petition denied it.'
Ray Stanford said residents in the Fieldstone Subdivision believed it would depreciate their property values, saying he researched the impact of property values next to solar farms in states that have had such facilities long before they became popular in Illinois. He said he learned the value of homes about a half mile from the solar farms go down in value.
That claim was denied by Soltage representatives.
New Lenox is recommending a medium density, single-family residential development as part of its comprehensive plan for that land, said Robin Ellis, the assistant village administrator and community development director.
The village has been very deliberate in its planning and has intentionally kept industrial development west of Gougar Road, Ellis said.
The county could generate more in property taxes from a future residential development than a solar plant, Ellis said in a letter to the county, noting the developer estimated the solar facility would generate about $73,000 annually in property taxes whereas a modest residential development could generate $1.6 million annually.
The land owner last talked to the village about building a residential development in 2008, Ellis said. Since then, the village has taken steps to encourage residential development east of Gougar Road by investing nearly $4.5 million in road improvements. The village is also investing in a new wastewater treatment facility to prep the area for residential development, she said.
Board member Frankie Pretzel, the chair of the County Board's Land Use and Development Committee, said this is the wrong location for a solar project.
'I drive by this property regularly,' Pretzel, a New Lenox Republican, said. 'It's just a matter of time that we see homes.'
He said the site is in a highly desired area in the heart of town.
New Lenox Mayor Tim Baldermann said homes are located to the west and north with Lincoln Way West High School to the south. If a solar facility is built, nearby vacant land would not be developed for homes, and an industrial use would likely be proposed.
'It doesn't fit the area,' Baldermann said. 'We are not anti-solar, it just doesn't make sense on this piece of property.'
Baldermann said he believed the solar project would be a tremendous loss of revenue for the area taxing bodies.
Union School District 81 would receive $660,000 a year in property tax revenue if the land were developed as homes as the village wants, said Baldermann, who is also the district's superintendent. As a solar facility, the district would receive $22,000 a year, he said.
The district is also highly sought after and would welcome more students, Baldermann said.
James Brown, fire marshal for the New Lenox Fire District, said he had concerns due to its proximity to schools and Silver Cross Hospital.
Stephanie Sienkowski, director of development at Soltage, said the project would bring about 60 to 75 union contractor jobs during construction, and the solar facility could provide solar energy to about 2,000 homes, helping meet a growing demand for electricity.
She said the company also planned to offer college scholarships to students and gift the New Lenox Fire District with an ATV. She tried to assuage concerns about fire hazards and said the company has an emergency response plan in place.
Andrew Lines, a real estate appraiser for Soltage, said data shows solar energy facilities don't have issues on property values throughout the country including in coveted and scenic areas of Hawaii, California or Colorado.
Soltage attorney Maria Bries said the property is located in unincorporated Will County, which should supersede New Lenox's planning authority. New Lenox's comprehensive plan is only advisory, she said.
Commercial solar facilities are allowed to be located on agricultural land, and the Soltage project meets the requirements for a special use permit, she said. The company has invested $1.6 million in the project thus far, she said.
Bries said the Will County Board cannot be more restrictive than state law in denying an application.
'Decisions by counties based on local resistance rather than objective standards … are yielding arbitrary outcomes detrimental to ComEd's future power supply and the state of Illinois' pressing energy needs,' she said.
State laws governing solar projects have frustrated many county lawmakers, who feel the state is taking the control over local projects out of their hands.
'I strongly believe that the state legislature got this wrong and shame on them for putting us in this position month after month after month,' Pretzel said, adding he would like to put a halt on solar cases.
'The only reason they are called solar farms is because we are putting them on farm land,' said Republican Leader Jim Richmond, of Mokena. 'Really, they are solar utility plants, and we are putting them in close proximity to houses not because this board wants them there but because Springfield has pushed this upon us.'
Democrat Sherry Newquist of Steger, who voted against the project, said she was on the fence. She said on one hand it was a textbook case of a municipality using its future planning area to decide how it wants to grow. But she conceded denying the project would ultimately lead to a lawsuit.
'And how well is that serving the taxpayers,' she said.
The County Board also voted 16-5 to reject a commercial solar energy facility proposed by Nexamp Solar LLC that would have been located on about 34 acres on Wilmington-Peotone Road in Wilmington.
County Board Speaker Joe VanDuyne, a Democrat from Wilmington, said the planned location is next to the community's welcome sign and would be a bad location for a solar farm.
The city of Wilmington objected to the request because it was too close to existing residents and could be annexed to the city for a future residential use. City officials said the solar energy facility would be an eyesore and potentially create glare or contamination concerns, county documents said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

an hour ago
Trump signs measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that blocks California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The state quickly announced it was challenging the move in court, with California's attorney general holding a news conference to discuss the lawsuit before Trump's signing ceremony ended at the White House. The resolution was approved by Congress last month and aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. Trump also signed measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Trump called California's regulations 'crazy' at a White House ceremony where he signed the resolutions. 'It's been a disaster for this country,' he said. It comes as the Republican president is mired in a clash with California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, over Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests. It's the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over issues including tariffs, the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and funding for electric vehicle chargers. The state is already involved in more than two-dozen lawsuits challenging Trump administration actions, and the state's Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the latest one at a news conference in California. Ten other states, all with Democratic attorneys general, joined the lawsuit filed Thursday. 'The federal government's actions are not only unlawful; they're irrational and wildly partisan,' Bonta said. 'They come at the direct expense of the health and the well-being of our people.' The three resolutions Trump signed will block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and end the sale of new ones by 2035. They will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. In his remarks at the White House, Trump expressed doubts about the performance and reliability of electric vehicles, though he had some notably positive comments about the company owned by Elon Musk, despite their fractured relationship. 'I like Tesla,' Trump said. In remarks that often meandered away from the subject at hand, Trump used the East Room ceremony to also muse on windmills, which he claimed 'are killing our country,' the prospect of getting electrocuted by an electric-powered boat if it sank and whether he'd risk a shark attack by jumping as the boat went down. 'I'll take electrocution every single day," the president said. When it comes to cars, Trump said he likes combustion engines but for those that prefer otherwise, 'If you want to buy electric, you can buy electric.' 'What this does is it gives us freedom,' said Bill Kent, the owner of Kent Kwik convenience stores. Kent, speaking at the White House, said that the California rules would have forced him to install 'infrastructure that frankly, is extremely expensive and doesn't give you any return.' The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major car makers, applauded Trump's action. 'Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,' John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, and California officials contend that what the federal government is doing is illegal and said the state plans to sue. Newsom said Trump's action was a continuation of his 'all-out assault' on California. 'And this time he's destroying our clean air and America's global competitiveness in the process,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.' The signings come as Trump has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move follows other steps the Trump administration has taken to roll back rules that aim to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the signing of the resolutions was 'Trump's latest betrayal of democracy.' 'Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets,' Becker said in a statement. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the EPA, allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but Democratic President Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. Republicans have long criticized those waivers and earlier this year opted to use the Congressional Review Act, a law aimed at improving congressional oversight of actions by federal agencies, to try to block the rules. That's despite a finding from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, that California's standards cannot legally be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. The Senate parliamentarian agreed with that finding. California, which makes up roughly 11% of the U.S. car market, has significant power to sway trends in the auto industry. About a dozen states signed on to adopt California's rule phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars.


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
GOP tax bill could cost low-income Americans $1,600 per year, CBO says
The Republicans' "big beautiful" budget package is aimed at ushering in "a new golden age in America" through a combination of tax and spending cuts, according to House Speaker Mike Johnson. But a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that the bill may prove less golden for some Americans. The lowest-earning 10% of U.S. households are likely to see their financial resources reduced by $1,600 per year, or almost 4% of their annual income, according to the June 12 CBO report. The analysis, which tallies the impact of the bill's tax breaks, reductions in funding for federal programs and changes in matching state funds, notes that the proposed legislation would reduce resources for low-income Americans because of cuts to Medicaid and food stamps. The CBO found the bill would boost the government resources going to the highest-earning 10% of U.S. households by $12,000 per year, while middle-income households would see a gain of $500 to $1,000. The agency estimated that, on average, "household resources would increase over the 2026–2034 period, mainly because of reductions in how much households owed in federal taxes," CBO said. But those changes would not be evenly distributed the agency said. "The agency estimates that in general, resources would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution," the CBO report noted. President Trump has urged lawmakers to support the Republican budget measure. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the Trump administration's economic policies, saying they will benefit working class Americans. "Democrats and the media unquestioningly ran with CBO's gloomy scoring of President Trump's tax cuts during his first term — tax cuts that helped usher in the first decline in wealth inequality in decades," Desai said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch. "President Trump's America First economic agenda unleashed historic job, wage, and economic growth for working-class Americans in his first term, and this agenda will repeat the success in his second term." The analysis could fuel criticism from some congressional Democrats and advocates for low-income Americans that the proposed legislation could hurt the most vulnerable households by stripping away Medicaid and other benefits, while providing the richest Americans with generous tax cuts. "As the nonpartisan [Congressional Budget Office] just confirmed to me, Trump's budget bill will make it harder for working Americans to make ends meet while sending thousands to the ultra-rich," said Rep. Brendan Boyle, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, on social media. Boyle, who with House minority leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries asked the CBO for the analysis, added, "Republicans are stealing hard-earned money from working people to enrich billionaires." Previous analyses from nonpartisan think tanks such as the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a University of Pennsylvania research group that analyzes the fiscal impact of public policies, have come to similar conclusions about the bill's impact. Penn Wharton forecasts that the bottom 20% of U.S. households would lose $1,035 in 2026, while the top 0.1% of income earners would get an after-tax boost of $389,000 due to the bill's provisions. A Thursday analysis of the CBO report by the Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan policy research center, concluded that the bottom 10% of U.S. households would see an average decrease of more than 6.5% in incomes under the GOP budget bill, while high-income earners would get a boost of 1.5%.


Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
House clears $9.4B in funding clawbacks requested by White House
House Republicans have narrowly advanced a request from the White House to claw back $9.4 billion that lawmakers have already approved for public media and more than a dozen accounts across the State Department focused on foreign assistance. The 214-212 vote is a major victory for President Donald Trump, who had been lobbying hard for lawmakers to pass the legislation, including in a social media post shortly before members went to the floor. 'For decades, Republicans have promised to cut NPR, but have never done it, until now,' Trump said, in part. 'The Rescissions Bill is a NO BRAINER, and every single Republican in Congress should vote, 'YES.' MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' It's also a huge relief for Speaker Mike Johnson, who hours earlier was projecting cautious optimism that the package of funding cuts would pass despite knowing his margins were exceedingly narrow. 'We think we have the votes. We're going ahead with it,' Johnson told reporters Thursday afternoon. One 'yes' vote: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is known to frequently break with his party. 'First time I've ever seen us cut spending in my life. I would be 'yea' all day long,' Massie said in a brief interview earlier this week, previewing his support. The final margin was narrow — as many as six Republicans had been recorded as opposing the bill; two of those ultimately changed their votes. Johnson and Whip Tom Emmer huddled with the holdouts on the House floor during the vote to try to sway them in favor of the measure; Budget Chair Jodey Arrington also touched base with multiple of the Republicans who had cast no votes. The legislation would revoke $8.3 billion in foreign aid and $1.1 billion for public broadcasting. It faced opposition from some Republican lawmakers concerned about slashing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, and how emergency alerts could be impacted by the public media cuts. House Republican leadership and White House officials spent days trying to assuage the concerns of lawmakers worried that the clawbacks would hurt their local public broadcasting stations, emergency alert systems and efforts to prevent AIDS around the world. In defense of cuts to public broadcasting, senior GOP lawmakers argued that the local PBS affiliates in their home states do good work but that those in some other states air inappropriate programming. 'These stations are some of the most partisan stations out there. Can you imagine if a conservative station was funded? The left would have screamed, vilified and exterminated it a long while ago,' said Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.), during floor debate. Democrats countered that's a lie. 'That's BS. It's total BS,' Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the House's top Democratic appropriator, said in a brief interview. 'These comments that it's 'woke' in this state or that — what the hell do you know? Nothing.' Still, there are discussions underway among many appropriators that they could try to offset some of these slashes in upcoming spending bills, since the funding cuts won't impact accounts until after the new fiscal year kicks in come October 1. 'I am concerned about the future of trying to do away with public television. I'm a supporter of public television in Idaho, they do a fantastic job,' said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, who ultimately voted in favor of the bill. The package now heads to the Senate, where Republicans are discussing whether they can amend it – despite the complicated mechanics for doing so. The rescissions process was created under the decades-old law enacted to block presidents from withholding federal cash Congress has already approved. The Senate also has the option to approve sections of the package piecemeal and reject others. That's what Congress did back in 1995 when the House and Senate approved a rescissions package that clawed back less funding than then-President Bill Clinton had requested to cut. But doing that would send it back to the House, where passage a second time may not be guaranteed. Congress has until midnight on July 18 to act on the legislation, otherwise the proposal will expire and the White House is required to spend the money as lawmakers intended. Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.