Board Postpones County Purchasing Code Overhaul Amid Union Contractor Debate

Members seek clarification on requirements that could favor unionized businesses

The Will County Board postponed action on proposed changes to county purchasing ordinances after members raised concerns about language that could effectively exclude non-union contractors from public projects.

The proposed ordinance updates, which would replace 1992-era procurement rules, include new “responsible bidder” requirements such as proof of legal registration, tax compliance, workers compensation insurance, substance abuse policies, and participation in approved apprenticeship programs.

Speaker Joe VanDuyne initially proposed removing only the “local preference” provisions while advancing the responsible bidder standards, citing the need to address increasingly tight bid margins and unauthorized subcontractor issues.

“We had an issue as recently as 48 hours ago where there was a potential unauthorized subcontractor on a job,” VanDuyne told the board, explaining how the new requirements would prevent such problems.

Union vs. Non-Union Concerns

Several board members questioned whether the apprenticeship requirements would effectively exclude non-union contractors, despite assurances that any qualified company could bid.

“Only union companies will meet these requirements,” said Member Daniel Butler. “There’s no private company that I know of that could meet all these requirements.”

Member Dave Oxley noted that the Department of Labor apprenticeship requirements typically favor union contractors because “non-union companies don’t have the availability to that because of their apprenticeship programs.”

Member Katie Dean Schlottman raised concerns about veteran-owned businesses: “There’s a lot of very well trained veterans that come out of military service who start businesses that are capable of doing public work projects, and I guess we’re just going to overlook all of the veterans who are trying to get to work.”

Postponement Decision

The board voted to refer the ordinance back to committee after Member Steve Balich made a motion to postpone, supported by members seeking a complete proposal rather than piecemeal approval.

“When I want an assignment, I want a complete assignment,” Dean Schlottman said. “I do not want part of it. I want a complete ordinance before I can vote yes or no.”

VanDuyne indicated the local preference provisions remain under legal review, with differing attorney opinions about their permissibility under county procurement law.

The ordinance will return to executive committee for further refinement before coming back to the full board, likely in June.