During legislative action from April 27-May 1, 2026, several bills tracked by the Illinois State Association of Counties (ISACo) were advanced by the Senate. The bills are listed below:
Passed the Senate
SB 3772 amends the Environmental Protection Act to require the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to incorporate environmental justice considerations into certain air pollution construction permit decisions. The bill applies to specified permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2026, for new or existing sources located in areas of environmental justice concern that are subject to, or seeking, major operating permits such as CAAPP or Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits, including projects that would increase permitted emissions. In reviewing these applications, the Agency must evaluate whether the source is located in an area of environmental justice concern, assess the potential environmental justice impacts, determine whether emissions can be reduced or limited, consider whether additional air quality modeling or testing is needed, and identify any appropriate permit enhancements or modifications. The Agency’s decision must also be informed by an evaluation of the applicant’s prior compliance and operating history with environmental laws. The bill includes legislative findings regarding the disproportionate and adverse impacts experienced by environmental justice communities and authorizes the Agency to adopt implementing rules.
The bill also amends the Environmental Justice Act to establish an Office of Environmental Justice within the IEPA, led by an Environmental Justice Officer appointed by the Director, to coordinate the integration of environmental justice principles across Agency programs and activities. The Act takes effect immediately. ISACo has no position on the bill.
Why SB 3772 Matters to Counties: This bill matters to counties because it adds new requirements to the air permitting process that could affect where and how development occurs, especially in communities identified as environmental justice areas. By requiring the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to take a closer look at pollution impacts, past compliance history, and possible emission reductions, projects may face longer review times, added conditions, or even denial, which can influence local economic development and land use planning. Counties may also see increased public engagement and pressure around siting decisions, particularly in vulnerable communities, while the creation of a new Office of Environmental Justice signals a broader, long-term shift toward more scrutiny and coordination that counties will need to navigate.
Bills Approved by Senate Committees
HB 4365 renames and refocuses the Metro-East Sanitary District Act of 1974 by changing its short title to the Metro-East Flood Prevention District Act and redesignating the Metro-East Sanitary District as the Metro-East Flood Prevention District, signaling a clearer emphasis on flood control and prevention. It also makes conforming changes across multiple Illinois statutes to reflect the new name and purpose. As amended, the bill further revises the governance structure of the district by clarifying residency requirements for commissioners, specifying that two commissioners must reside in the portion of the district located within the county with the greater equalized assessed valuation within the district’s boundaries, while two must reside in the portion within the other county. In addition, the amendment provides that the mayor, or the mayor’s designee, of the largest municipality within the higher equalized assessed valuation county portion of the district shall serve as an ex officio voting commissioner. Overall, the measure retains the renaming and statutory updates while refining how representation on the district’s governing board is allocated between the two counties. ISACo has no position on the bill.
Why HB 4365 Matters to Counties: This bill matters to counties because it reshapes the focus and governance of a regional entity that directly impacts flood control responsibilities and coordination between counties. By shifting the former sanitary district toward a clearer flood prevention mission and adjusting board representation based on equalized assessed valuation, the bill affects how participating counties share influence and decision-making authority. Counties within the district may see changes in how priorities are set, how resources are allocated, and how regional flood control efforts are coordinated, making governance structure and inter-county balance especially important.
HB 4592 creates the Retail Cash Payment Act to provide that a retail mercantile establishment selling or offering to sell goods or services to the public that employs an individual to accept in-person payments at a physical location shall not: (1) refuse to accept cash as a form of payment for sales of less than $500 made at the physical location; or (2) post a sign on the premises stating that cash payment is not accepted. Provides for exceptions to the requirement. Provides that the provisions do not require a person to accept any bills larger than $20 bills as payment for goods or services. Provides that a violation of the provisions is a petty offense and provides for fines. Establishes a 30-day period to cure a violation before a fine may be imposed. Preempts home rule. Effective January 1, 2028. ISACo opposes the bill.
Why HB 4592 Matters to Counties: The bill matters to counties because it creates a statewide requirement that most retail businesses accept cash for smaller in-person purchases, and it overrides home rule authority, meaning counties cannot adopt stricter or conflicting local rules. While the bill is aimed at ensuring access for residents who rely on cash, counties may see indirect impacts through enforcement responsibilities, handling complaints, and supporting compliance among local businesses. Overall, it standardizes payment practices across Illinois, limiting local control while potentially improving accessibility for unbanked or underbanked populations.
HB 4614 amends the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 and the Probate Act of 1975 to clarify the duration of custody and guardianship arrangements for abused, neglected, and dependent minors and to better align court oversight across systems. It provides that when a minor is placed with a suitable relative or other as a legal custodian or guardian, including subsidized guardianship, that arrangement continues until the court directs otherwise, but not beyond age 18. In contrast, when a minor is placed under the guardianship of a probation officer, committed to an agency, or placed with the Department of Children and Family Services, custody or guardianship may continue until age 21, unless the court orders otherwise. The bill also establishes that when a youth in care is the subject of a guardianship petition under the Probate Act, the court must apply the review standards and procedures of the Juvenile Court Act, including for motions to modify or vacate guardianship and for restoring custody to a parent who was previously a respondent in the juvenile case. As amended, the bill retains these substantive provisions while making technical updates to provisions governing court review of placement decisions, including those related to permanency goals and petitions to reinstate wardship, ensuring consistency in how courts evaluate and oversee the care and custody of youth in care. ISACo has no position on the bill.
Why HB 4614 Matters to Counties: The bill matters to counties because it clarifies how long custody and guardianship arrangements can last for youth in care and aligns how courts oversee these cases across different legal systems. For counties—particularly those involved in juvenile justice, court services, and child welfare—this could mean more consistency in case handling, clearer expectations for when court involvement ends, and potentially longer periods of oversight for some youth up to age 21. While largely procedural, the changes may affect workloads for county courts, probation departments, and related services by standardizing review processes and ensuring continuity in how cases are managed.
HB 4867 amends the Illinois Vehicle Code to allow for the use of green oscillating, flashing, or rotating lights on certain motor vehicles or equipment engaged in highway-related work. The bill permits State agencies, the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, local authorities, and contractors to use green lights in combination with amber or amber and white lights when vehicles or equipment are operating within the limits of construction or maintenance projects. It also authorizes contractors, engineering or survey crews, and union representatives to use green lights on vehicles or equipment while engaged in work on a highway. The lights may be activated only when the vehicles or equipment are actively performing such work. The Act takes effect immediately. ISACo has no position on the bill.
Why HB 4867 Matters to Counties: The bill matters to counties because it expands the use of green warning lights on vehicles involved in road work, which could improve safety and visibility for county highway departments, contractors, and crews working in or near traffic. By clearly allowing these lights during active work, the bill helps standardize safety practices across jurisdictions and may reduce accidents in construction zones. For counties, the impact is mostly operational—updating equipment policies and ensuring compliance—but it ultimately supports safer working conditions for employees and contractors on local roads.
HB 5081 amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. With regard to automated speed enforcement systems in safety zones, provides that "safety zone" does not include any roadway in which the 30 mile per hour speed limit is decreased by local ordinance without an engineering or traffic investigation. Provides that a local authority or park district shall determine and declare by ordinance a reasonable and safe absolute maximum speed which: decreases the limit within an urban district which shall not require an engineering or traffic investigation to a maximum speed limit of 25 miles per hour, but not less than 20 miles per hour and a maximum speed limit of 10 miles per hour in an alley; increases the limit within an urban district, but not to more than 55 miles per hour, if after increasing the limit within an urban district an engineering or traffic investigation is required to decrease the limit; or decreases the limit within a residence district which shall not require an engineering or traffic investigation to a maximum speed limit of 20 (rather than not to less than 25) miles per hour. Requires a park district, city, village, incorporated town, or county board to post a sign designating the new speed limit. Makes other changes. ISACo supports the bill.
Why HB 5081 Matters to Counties: This bill matters to counties because it changes how local governments can set and enforce speed limits, particularly in areas tied to automated speed enforcement. By limiting what qualifies as a “safety zone” and allowing certain speed reductions without requiring engineering studies, the measure gives counties more flexibility to lower speeds in residential and urban areas, but it also creates new requirements around ordinances and signage. Counties that use or are considering automated enforcement may need to reassess where it can legally be applied, while also taking on added responsibility to ensure speed limits are properly justified and posted to avoid challenges or lost enforcement authority.
SB 1700 amends the Counties Code provisions governing the Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board to revise age and probationary requirements for sheriff’s personnel. As introduced, the bill would have lowered the minimum age for all deputy sheriffs to 19 and extended the probationary period for appointees to 15 months. As amended, however, the measure restores and clarifies existing distinctions among classifications of personnel. It specifies that individuals appointed as county police officers must be at least 21 years of age, or 20 with two years of accredited law enforcement study, while correctional officers and full-time deputy sheriffs who are not county police officers may be appointed at age 18. The amendment also establishes separate probationary periods, requiring at least 12 months for county police officers and 15 months for correctional officers and non-police deputy sheriffs. Overall, the amendment replaces the uniform approach of the introduced bill with a differentiated framework that aligns age and probation standards with specific law enforcement roles. ISACo has no position on the bill.
Why SB 1700 Matters to Counties: This bill matters to Cook County because it clarifies hiring and probation standards for sheriff’s personnel in a way that aligns requirements with different law enforcement roles. By setting distinct age thresholds and probationary periods for county police officers versus correctional officers and other deputy sheriffs, the bill provides clearer guidance for recruitment and training while preserving flexibility to hire younger candidates for certain positions. For the County, the impact is mainly operational, helping standardize personnel policies, reduce ambiguity, and support workforce planning within sheriff’s offices.