Legislative Committee: Will County Committee Narrows Solar Siting Language in 2027 State Agenda

Will County Legislative Committee | October 6, 2026

Article Summary: The Will County Board’s Legislative Committee voted unanimously on Oct. 6, 2026, to amend the draft 2027 State Legislative Agenda so that its demand on renewable energy siting ends with a call for the General Assembly to “return local control in siting solar and battery storage facilities,” striking a clause that would have also let counties cap the share of solar permitted on farmland. The committee later recommended the full agenda to the County Board, with one member opposed.

Solar Siting Amendment Key Points:

The amendment, proposed by Vice Chair Judy Ogalla, places a period after “facilities” in the agenda’s blue-lettered new language and deletes “and allow Counties to determine the percent of solar allowed on agricultural land.”

The amendment passed on a 7-0 roll call of the committee’s seven members.

The underlying agenda plank opposes legislation such as SB25, described in the document as approved in the 104th General Assembly in 2025, that “categorically removes or limits” a county board’s authority over siting commercial solar, wind, or energy facilities.

Nothing is enacted by this vote. Both the amendment and the agenda are recommendations to the full Will County Board, which would adopt the agenda by resolution.

WILL COUNTY — The Will County Board’s Legislative Committee on Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2026, voted to tighten the renewable energy plank of the county’s draft 2027 State Legislative Agenda, ending a lengthy debate over how far the county should go in demanding its zoning authority back from Springfield.

The committee met at noon in the County Board Committee Room at 302 N. Chicago St. in Joliet. The agenda item, listed as 26-5597, was captioned “Final Review and Approval of the 2027 State Legislative Agenda.”

The disputed passage sits on page 1 of the draft, dated 09.23.2026, under the heading “OPPOSES: Opposes legislation that denies County Board authority to control local approval or denial of commercial solar, wind, or energy facilities.” The body of that plank states that the board “opposes any legislation, such as SB25 (approved in the 104th General Assembly in 2025), which categorically removes or limits the rightful authority of a County Board to review, approve, or deny the siting of commercial solar, wind, or energy facilities based upon lawfully adopted local ordinances, land resource plans, and local public input.”

Appended to that paragraph in blue type — the draft’s marking for newly proposed language — was a further sentence: “The General Assembly should return local control in siting solar and battery storage facilities and allow Counties to determine the percent of solar allowed on agricultural land.”

Debate Turns on Zoning, Not Percentages

The discussion opened when a committee member argued the language did not go far enough, contending that solar, wind and battery projects receive treatment no other land use gets. The member said a solar facility is an industrial use and should have to go through the county’s rezoning or special-use process before being placed on farmland.

“No one else gets a free pass, only solar facilities, wind and battery,” the member said, adding that residential neighbors “are held to a different standard.”

The same member said the committee’s goal should be stated as retaining the county’s authority to enforce its own zoning. “They have taken away our governing ability, and we’re just asking to retain our right to enforce our zoning,” the member said, noting that members of the committee have voted to approve solar facilities in the past.

Chair Denise Winfrey pushed back on expanding the plank that far. “What you’re asking for is for us to circumvent the legislation, which does not give us that,” Winfrey said, describing that as a separate issue from the local-control principle the plank was written to assert.

Ogalla then proposed the narrower fix. “The General Assembly should return local control in siting solar and battery storage facilities,” she said, reading the sentence as she would end it. “I think if we put a period there rather than the rest — if we were able to get our siting back, or control for siting back, we could then determine how much and everything.”

Winfrey said she would support that. “Beyond that, I think we’re going too far,” she said. At least one other member agreed aloud.

One member said she did not object to the period but would have preferred keeping the deleted clause as well, arguing that the scale of individual projects deserved mention. She referred to a 9,300-acre figure, which she said amounted to roughly 25 percent of the agricultural land in a smaller farming community, and said the agenda should “guard against the enormity of these projects.” She acknowledged that if the period gave the county control, the result would be substantially the same.

The roll call on the amendment was unanimous: Ogalla, Julie Berkowicz, Herbert Brooks Jr., Dawn Bullock, Daniel J. Butler, Kelly Hickey and Winfrey all voted yes. Butler, who had voted no on the federal agenda minutes earlier, remarked as he voted: “See, I can be a team player, too.”

What Happens Next

Committee action on the agenda is a recommendation only. The draft resolution included in the packet, “Resolution Authorizing the 2027 State Legislative Agenda,” recites that “the Legislative Committee recommends the 2027 State Legislative Agenda be adopted by the Will County Board” and provides that the board “hereby establishes the list of priorities set forth as the Will County 2027 State Legislative Agenda in substantially the same form as attached hereto.” No agenda takes effect, and no lobbyist is bound by it, until the full board acts.

The resolution also states that state lobbyists engaged by the board will use the agenda “as a guide for representing these priorities and concerns to our state legislators.”

The committee’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Nov. 4, 2026.