It may use a code name. Officials may sign a nondisclosure agreement before discussing the site, incentives, utility needs or other details.

Then a resident or reporter asks for the agreement.

The answer sounds definitive:

Confidential.

Except in Illinois, writing “confidential” on a document does not make it exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Neither does signing an NDA.

The Illinois Attorney General made that unusually clear in a 2023 case involving the City of DeKalb and Kraft Heinz.

And the ruling matters well beyond one distribution center.

It matters anywhere local officials are negotiating privately with data centers, developers, manufacturers and other companies while decisions involving public land, infrastructure, incentives or taxpayer money are taking shape.

DeKalb had an NDA with Kraft Heinz

In July 2023, Daily Chronicle reporter Megann Horstead requested a copy of an NDA between DeKalb and Kraft Heinz concerning a development project known as “Supernova.”

The city denied the request.

DeKalb relied on an Illinois FOIA exemption protecting certain trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The city pointed out that the NDA itself required confidentiality and argued that Kraft Heinz customarily treated the information as private.

At first glance, that sounds like a strong argument.

It wasn’t enough.

The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor issued Binding Opinion 23-015 and found that DeKalb had violated FOIA by withholding the agreement. The opinion is now listed in the Attorney General’s FOIA index under a fairly blunt description: a nondisclosure agreement concerning an already announced commercial development was not exempt under the commercial-information exemption.

“Confidential” is only part of the test

Illinois FOIA does protect some commercial information.

Section 7(1)(g) covers trade secrets and commercial or financial information when it was supplied under a claim that it was proprietary, privileged or confidential and disclosure would cause competitive harm.

That last requirement mattered in DeKalb.

The Attorney General concluded that the NDA involved a commercial project and had been provided under a confidentiality claim.

So Kraft Heinz and the city cleared those parts of the test.

What they did not establish was that releasing the NDA would cause competitive harm.

The Attorney General noted that the agreement largely consisted of standard confidentiality provisions. It did not reveal sensitive details such as Kraft Heinz’s business strategies, expenses, revenues or specific plans for the distribution center.

There was another problem.

By the time the reporter requested the NDA, Kraft Heinz had already publicly announced the DeKalb project.

The Attorney General’s 2023 annual report explains the logic: disclosing an NDA could not reveal the existence of negotiations when the company had already announced the development itself.

DeKalb was ordered to release the agreement.

A private agreement cannot rewrite Illinois FOIA

That principle appears elsewhere in Illinois transparency law.

The Attorney General’s binding-opinion index includes decisions finding that:

• negotiated terms of contracts with public bodies do not automatically constitute trade secrets;

• financial terms, invoices and budget records involving public funds are not exempt merely because a company considers them commercial;

• a public body cannot withhold information concerning money it spends or receives under agreements with private entities;

• confidentiality clauses in public settlement agreements cannot defeat FOIA disclosure requirements.

In a 2015 binding opinion involving Rosemont, the Attorney General specifically concluded that negotiated contract terms with public bodies do not become trade secrets simply because the private party wants them treated that way.

Illinois’ Attorney General also tells public bodies in its current FOIA training that the presence of a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement does not supersede FOIA.

The underlying principle is simple:

Government cannot create a new FOIA exemption by signing a contract.

The exemptions come from law.

That does not mean every NDA must be released

There is an important limit.

The DeKalb opinion does not say every document exchanged under an NDA is automatically public.

Real trade secrets and genuinely sensitive commercial or financial information may qualify for protection.

A company could, for example, have information whose disclosure would actually damage its competitive position.

FOIA itself recognizes that possibility.

The distinction is between demonstrating an exemption and merely asserting confidentiality.

Calling something proprietary is not the same as proving that disclosure would cause the harm required by the statute.

In DeKalb, the Attorney General said Kraft Heinz’s assertions of competitive harm were too vague and conclusory.

That is a much higher bar than:

“We signed an NDA.”

That distinction matters for development deals

Nondisclosure agreements are particularly consequential when local governments negotiate major development projects.

Residents may not initially know:

who the developer is;

what property is being discussed;

how much electricity or water a project could require;

whether tax incentives are being considered;

what infrastructure taxpayers may be asked to provide;

or what commitments officials are discussing before a project reaches a public meeting.

Some information may legitimately remain confidential during negotiations.

Illinois law itself contains exemptions for certain ongoing real-estate negotiations and procurement matters.

But an NDA does not turn the entire relationship between government and a developer into a private one.

And once a project becomes public, the rationale for withholding some information can change.

That is exactly what happened in DeKalb.

The question isn’t whether an NDA exists

For residents seeking records about a development, the better question is:

What specific Illinois FOIA exemption applies to this specific information — and how would disclosure cause the harm that exemption requires?

That forces the analysis back where it belongs.

Not on what City Hall promised a corporation.

Not on a “CONFIDENTIAL” stamp.

Not on a code name.

On the law.

An NDA may govern what a company and a city voluntarily say to one another.

It does not give either party the power to rewrite the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.

How this story was made

We reviewed the Illinois Attorney General’s current Index of FOIA Binding Opinions, Public Access Opinion 23-015 involving the City of DeKalb and Kraft Heinz, the Attorney General’s 2023 Public Access Counselor annual report, other Illinois binding opinions concerning confidentiality, contracts and public funds, and the current text of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.

This story describes general Illinois public-records principles and does not conclude that every NDA or every document exchanged under an NDA must be disclosed. Individual records may qualify for statutory exemptions depending on their contents and circumstances.

Sources

• Illinois Attorney General — Public Access Opinion 23-015: City of DeKalb/Kraft Heinz NDA Read the binding opinion

• Illinois Attorney General — Index of FOIA Binding Opinions

• Illinoi

  

  s Attorney General — 2023 Public Access Counselor Annual Report

• Illinois Attorney General — Public Access Opinion 15-002: negotiated public contracts and trade secrets

• Illinois Attorney General — FOIA Training for Public Bodies

• Illinois General Assembly — 5 ILCS 140/7, FOIA exemptions

Dallas has equipped 50 brush-and-bulky-waste trucks with 100 AI-powered cameras that photograph property conditions as the trucks travel their normal

routes. The system, supplied by City Detect, uses computer vision to identify possible problems such as illegal dumping, high grass, debris, graffiti and dangerous structures.

In roughly four months, the cameras flagged more than 20,000 potential code concerns. About 3,700 courtesy notices went out, and a September 8 city memo reported 57 citations at 34 properties, issued after city employees reviewed the detections and code officers inspected in person.

The city pays $852,000 a year under a three-year contract valued at an estimated $2.556 million. The City Council approved it unanimously in December 2025.

That makes this an interesting AI story. It makes an even better local-government story, because Dallas did not have to build a new surveillance network. It already owned one. It was called the garbage fleet.

The fleet was already going past every house

This is the clever part of the technology, and the part municipal officials should think hardest about.

Sanitation vehicles already travel neighborhood streets on predictable schedules. The city already pays the drivers, buys the fuel and maintains the trucks. By attaching cameras and software to vehicles performing an existing function, a government can collect detailed visual information across enormous portions of the community without creating a new inspection workforce.

Dallas described the system exactly that way when it funded the program. Its FY 2025-26 budget said cameras on 50 sanitation trucks would act as an early-detection system, scanning public rights-of-way during normal routes so Code Compliance could prioritize inspections and Sanitation could improve operations. Operationally, that makes sense. A code inspector cannot drive every street every month looking for weeds, damaged structures and illegal dumping. A garbage truck already does.

AI converts those routes into something different: a recurring municipal sensor network. And the concept will not end with garbage trucks. Snowplows can scan pavement, buses can monitor curb conditions, parking vehicles can identify damaged signs, street sweepers can map potholes, and utility trucks can inventory trees, poles and structures. The same technology that helps a city find a broken sidewalk can, depending on what is collected and retained, also create a remarkably detailed historical record of what was visible at a particular address on a particular day.

So the hard governance question is not whether this technology can make city employees more efficient. Of course it can. The question is what rules should exist before an ordinary city vehicle quietly becomes a data-collection platform.

Dallas asked some of the right questions

One reason the Dallas case is useful is that council members asked unusually concrete questions before the cameras were deployed.

A November 2025 city memorandum explains that City Detect, not Dallas, configures the AI system according to operational requirements set by the city. The cameras record 1920-by-1080 images using fixed lenses with no zoom, and facial and license-plate blurring is enabled. City Detect maintains the data for the duration of the contract, and Dallas may download and retain it during the agreement and for 90 days after it ends. The data are stored in U.S.-based cloud storage.

Council members also asked whether the information could be obtained through open-records requests or subpoenas, and the city said those requests would follow ordinary Dallas legal and public-information procedures. They asked whether police could access the system, and Dallas said the Police Department would have no direct access, because the contract is between Sanitation, Code Compliance and City Detect.

Those are exactly the questions local governments should ask. But the answers also show why this technology deserves more attention than a standard equipment purchase. The government is not simply buying cameras. It is creating a dataset.

Datasets have a way of becoming useful for things nobody planned

Municipal technology frequently begins with a narrow purpose. Then another department notices that the information might help solve its problem.

Privacy and technology discussions call this function creep. A traffic camera becomes useful to police. A license-plate reader built to find stolen cars becomes useful in other investigations. A building database created for permitting becomes useful for enforcement. A sanitation-camera database created to identify weeds and dumping could someday be useful for entirely different questions.

Dallas currently says police do not have direct access. City Detect says its system is not connected to federal or law-enforcement databases, that faces and plates are blurred by default, that humans review detections before action is taken, that an independent SOC 2 audit verifies its data handling every year, and that it does not earn revenue based on how many detections lead to formal action.

Those are meaningful safeguards. But safeguards are not permanent restrictions. Policies, contracts, administrations and technology capabilities all change, and data that exist can attract uses nobody contemplated when the council approved the original contract. That is why governments should decide before deployment which secondary uses are prohibited, rather than merely describing what today’s department intends to do.

Even the privacy filter has already produced a warning

Vendor safeguards should not be treated as infallible. City Detect says it automatically blurs faces and license plates. Yet on September 23, NBC 5 Investigates reported that an image it obtained through an open-records request contained a license plate the automated process had failed to blur. The city said it had to add a black box over the plate before releasing the record. Jeremy Reed, who oversees the program for Code Compliance, said the vendor described the blurring process as about 99% effective.

That does not mean the privacy system is defective overall. It means what local governments should assume about any automated safeguard: it will occasionally fail.

The Dallas images also reveal a problem that blurring does not solve. A photograph can hide someone’s face while still showing clothing, body characteristics, a distinctive vehicle, the time of capture and the address where the person or vehicle appeared. NBC’s review found that those contextual details remained visible in some records. That may be perfectly appropriate for code enforcement. But cities should understand that anonymized does not always mean unidentifiable.

Human review does not answer the equity question

Dallas and City Detect emphasize that the AI does not automatically issue citations. A human employee reviews each detection, and Dallas says an in-person inspection occurs before a citation. That matters.

But “human in the loop” should not end the analysis. The AI still determines which properties get attention first, and enforcement resources are limited. If software disproportionately sends inspectors toward one part of a city, human employees may unintentionally reproduce the distribution created upstream by the algorithm.

The early numbers raise that question. Southern Dallas accounted for roughly 13,800 of the more than 20,000 photographed concerns. On the enforcement end, the city manager’s September 8 memo said 39 of the 57 citations, or 68%, were issued in Council Districts 4, 7 and 8 in Southern Dallas, which NBC 5 described as predominantly Black and Hispanic. Council Member Chad West, who has warned the program could function as a tax on the poor, told FOX 4 that about 70% of citations came from predominantly African American neighborhoods.

Those numbers do not, by themselves, prove algorithmic discrimination. Older housing stock may genuinely have more observable maintenance problems, income differences may affect property conditions, truck routes may not generate identical observation opportunities, and neighborhoods may differ in lot design and visibility. Reed has acknowledged that the cameras will likely capture more violations in Southern Dallas, where he says more violations exist. All of that is exactly why the city should measure the system. The relevant question is not whether an algorithm is technically “unbiased.” It is whether the complete enforcement pipeline produces fair and defensible outcomes:

• Where were properties photographed?

• What percentage were flagged?

• What kinds of violations were identified?

• How many resulted in notices?

• How many survived human review?

• How many became citations?

• How many were incorrect?

• How long did residents have to cure the problem?

• How do those patterns compare with code enforcement before the AI system existed?

Without that analysis, governments are left arguing about intentions. With it, they can evaluate outcomes. Dallas council members are due a briefing on the program in October, which is the natural moment to ask.

A surprisingly important performance question

The most seductive municipal technology pitch is often “we can find more problems.” But finding more problems is not the same as solving more problems.

If AI identifies 20,000 potential violations, a city has not automatically improved 20,000 properties. It may instead have created 20,000 additional items that employees must review, prioritize, inspect, document and potentially enforce. That can be useful. It can also simply move the bottleneck.

A city evaluating technology like this should avoid measuring success solely by detections or notices generated. Better measures include compliance rates, hazards corrected, illegal dumping removed, inspector hours saved, repeat violations reduced, resident response time and cost per resolved problem. Otherwise an AI system can look spectacular on a dashboard because it discovered thousands more things for government to do. That is not necessarily efficiency. Sometimes it is automated workload creation.

What cities should ask before turning the fleet into sensors

Before putting AI cameras on sanitation trucks, buses, snowplows or other municipal vehicles, a city should be able to answer a few basic questions:

• What exactly is being collected, and what is explicitly prohibited from being collected or analyzed?

• How long is raw imagery retained, who owns it, and what happens to it when the contract ends?

• Which departments can access the information, and are secondary uses prohibited by ordinance or policy, or merely by current practice?

• What happens when automatic privacy protections fail?

• Can residents obtain the image or data that triggered enforcement and meaningfully challenge an erroneous detection?

• Will the city publish geographic and demographic outcome data so elected officials can see whether enforcement shifts disproportionately?

• What metric determines whether the program is working: detections, notices, compliance, staff savings or improved neighborhood conditions?

• Who audits the system after purchase, rather than relying exclusively on the vendor that sold it?

These are not arguments against the technology. They are procurement questions, records questions, management questions and due-process questions. In other words, municipal-government questions.

The CityNewsWire takeaway

The most important thing about Dallas’ AI garbage trucks is not that a computer can recognize tall grass. That technology will become ordinary.

The important development is that routine municipal infrastructure can now double as continuous observation infrastructure. A city may buy the system because it wants cleaner alleys. A public-works director may see staff efficiency. A council may see a relatively modest technology contract. But the decision quietly creates something larger: a new stream of government data about the physical community.

That deserves the same governance attention cities are finally beginning to give police cameras, automated license-plate readers and facial recognition. The next surveillance system may not look like surveillance when the council approves it. It may look like a garbage truck.

CityNewsWire action

If your community is considering, or already using, AI cameras on municipal vehicles, request the vendor contract, retention schedule, data-sharing policy, user-access logs, AI configuration criteria, privacy-impact assessment, monthly detection data, notice and citation outcomes, false-positive records, geographic enforcement data and any policies governing secondary use of the imagery.

Do not just ask what the camera can see. Ask what government can do with what the camera remembers.

Sources

• Dallas City Council resolution approving the City Detect contract, December 10, 2025

• City of Dallas, Update on the Use of AI-Powered Camera Technology, Finance Committee presentation, December 9, 2025

• Dallas Morning News, Dallas approved AI-powered cameras for sanitation trucks. What to know

• Dallas Free Press, City of Dallas to put AI cameras on garbage trucks to identify code violations (FY 2025-26 budget)

• Dallas Morning News, AI flagged 20,000 possible code violations, only 57 were cited

• Dallas Observer, AI-powered trash truck cameras in Dallas capture 20,000 images, yield low citations

• NBC 5 Investigates, Dallas AI code enforcement cameras lead to first homeowner citations (September 2026)

• NBC 5 Investigates, Photo raises questions about trash truck AI cameras and privacy (September 23, 2026)

• FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth, AI-powered cameras on Dallas trash trucks result in almost 4,000 notices, 57 citations

• City Detect, Responsible AI Strategy and San Francisco Adds City Detect to Its Emerging Technologies Vendor Pool

A few years ago, a local-government camera purchase was relatively easy to understand.

The police department bought body cameras. Or license-plate readers. Or cameras for a municipal building.

Each purchase had a purpose, a vendor and a contract.

That model is changing.

Records from Illinois municipalities show police agencies increasingly buying something more consequential: the technology that connects all of those systems together.

Computer-aided dispatch. Police reports. Body cameras. Squad-car cameras. License-plate readers. Drones. Gunshot sensors. City-owned cameras. Privately owned business cameras. Digital evidence.

Instead of existing as separate tools, they can increasingly appear on the same screen.

The industry calls this a real-time crime center, real-time information center or “common operating picture.”

The result is a different kind of public-safety infrastructure.

The camera is becoming only one sensor inside a much larger system.

Aurora was already building the model three years ago

Aurora provides one of the clearest Illinois examples.

In 2023, the city approved a five-year Fusus subscription for its police department at a cost of $666,328 plus a 10% contingency.

Aurora’s procurement documents explain exactly why.

Its police intelligence center was already using multiple systems: the Hexagon computer-aided dispatch platform, Axon squad-car and body cameras, ShotSpotter, automated license-plate readers and hundreds of public and privately owned cameras.

The problem, according to the city, was that employees had to move between separate applications.

Fusus promised to put those systems into a single interface.

The purchase agreement contemplated more than merely displaying video. It included integration of existing and future video feeds, CAD information, automatic vehicle-location data, drones, covert cameras and license-plate readers. The platform also included tools designed to follow vehicles and people from one camera to another.

Then Aurora began connecting more pieces.

In 2024, the city approved Motorola license-plate-reader hosting and an integration specifically designed to transfer that data into Fusus. City records said Aurora was already using Motorola LPR services and had purchased its own LPR equipment; Fusus would give officers access to searches and alerts within the broader platform.

The city separately reached an agreement allowing police access to surveillance cameras at Chicago Premium Outlets through Fusus.

Aurora renewed ShotSpotter in 2025 for another three years at $420,000.

And now drones are entering the picture.

In August 2026, Kane County approved an agreement with Aurora for a Drone as First Responder pilot. The county had leased the drone platform and software on a trial basis from Flock Safety, while Aurora agreed to provide pilots and operational support.

Put those purchases together and the change becomes easier to see.

Aurora did not simply buy a camera system.

It created an information layer capable of bringing together products and data from Axon, Motorola, SoundThinking, Fusus, Flock and privately owned cameras.

That is the ecosystem.

Naperville bought the layer that sits above the systems

Naperville made a similar move this year — but chose a different company.

In March, the City Council approved a $556,400, three-year contract with Peregrine Technologies for Real-Time Information Center software.

Naperville’s explanation is unusually clear.

The police department already had dispatch information, police records and fixed and mobile camera systems. But they operated independently.

Peregrine would connect those sources so authorized employees could search, analyze and visualize information through one system.

Joliet reached the same conclusion.

In February, Joliet approved Peregrine after describing a police department in which Axon and Motorola records systems, 911 dispatch, video evidence, license-plate readers and administrative programs were operating independently.

The city described Peregrine as an integration layer providing a “single pane of glass” from which officers could query multiple systems at once.

That phrase — single pane of glass — is important.

The new product being sold to cities isn’t necessarily another camera.

It is the screen through which all the other cameras and databases become more useful together.

Naperville almost went much further

Naperville provides another important example because this month its City Council said no to a separate, much larger proposal.

City staff sought approval for an $8.29 million citywide camera and access-control contract with SDI Presence.

The project would have replaced about 200 aging cameras and added approximately 270 new cameras. It also proposed replacing roughly 400 building-access readers, adding about 90 new access points and moving the city’s existing systems into a centralized Genetec security platform.

But the most revealing part of the proposal may have been who would operate it.

City staff proposed a managed-service arrangement in which a private contractor would provide 24-hour monitoring, maintenance and support for the security network.

The agenda memo said the city’s preferred approach was for the managed-service provider to support and “own” the full network because the city did not have the specialized in-house expertise needed to maintain it.

The council rejected the proposal 6-2 on September 1. Local reporting said council members raised concerns about both its cost and residents’ concerns over privacy and surveillance.

That vote is important because it demonstrates that these systems are not inevitable.

Municipal officials still decide how large they should become, which capabilities should be connected, how much should be outsourced and how much taxpayers should spend.

Naperville is still moving forward with other real-time technology. Its 2026 budget included $150,000 for a Drone as First Responder initiative, and city documents describe drones capable of launching toward certain calls within about 15 seconds and streaming video back to responders.

The city has therefore approved some pieces, rejected another and continues to evaluate others.

That may become increasingly common as public-safety technology stops arriving as one easily understood purchase.

Evanston bought an Axon package stretching across police operations

Evanston provides perhaps the clearest example of what happens when many parts of police technology come from the same company.

The City Council approved a seven-year Axon agreement in December 2025 totaling about $5.85 million.

Evanston originally began buying Axon body cameras in 2017. It later expanded into Axon’s Evidence.com storage system, automated video redaction and an internal-affairs case-management product.

The new package is much broader.

City documents describe body cameras, fleet cameras, interview-room cameras, Taser 10 devices, unlimited digital evidence storage, redaction software, internal-affairs software and integration with the Axon Fusus real-time crime center platform.

The associated Axon proposal also lists drone technology, including Skydio patrol/DFR equipment, drone docks and DroneSense licenses, along with Fusus hardware capable of connecting additional CCTV streams.

That is not a camera contract in the traditional sense.

It is increasingly an operating environment for police work.

Axon itself describes Fusus as a system that brings officer locations, alerts, dispatch information, ALPR data and video feeds together on a common map. It also supports privately owned cameras that businesses or residents choose to share with police.

Axon acquired Fusus in 2024 for approximately $241 million for the remaining equity it did not already own. In its federal filings, Axon said the acquisition expanded its ability to aggregate video, sensor and other data as part of its public-safety offerings.

The company now openly describes its products as an end-to-end public-safety ecosystem.

Geneva’s records show what “ecosystem” can mean for competition

Geneva provides another angle that deserves more attention.

This summer, the city considered a 10-year, $1.254 million Axon agreement.

The package included 38 body cameras, 10 Fleet 3 vehicle systems, Tasers, digital-evidence storage and supporting software. The vehicle package included ALPR capabilities, real-time location and livestream functions. The proposal also included Community Link and Fusus livestream access.

During the review, someone asked an obvious procurement question:

Was 10 years too long to remain tied to one vendor, particularly in a rapidly changing technology market?

The city’s written response is revealing.

Geneva said it had not sought alternative pricing from other vendors, although it had reviewed cooperative-purchasing evaluations.

It also explained that switching away from Axon would be expensive because the existing body-camera system was already tied into dispatch systems, software, vehicle hardware, building wiring, staff equipment, training and FOIA redaction procedures.

“A new system change,” the city said, would require “a substantial investment of time and money.”

That is the other side of integration.

Connecting everything can make police work easier.

It can also make changing vendors harder.

The more body cameras, evidence storage, vehicle cameras, drones, redaction tools and real-time systems depend upon one another, the less a future procurement resembles simply replacing a camera.

A city may have to replace an ecosystem.

Even privately owned cameras can become part of it

The University of Illinois Police Department launched its Community Connect program in July.

Powered by Axon Fusus, it allows residents and business owners to register private security cameras so police know where potential footage may exist after an incident.

The university’s Real-Time Information Center also links to separate public transparency portals for its Flock license-plate readers and Skydio drones.

Fusus can go further than a simple camera registry.

Axon says participating businesses and residents can choose to connect camera feeds directly to police, with sharing rules controlled by the camera owner. Those feeds can then appear alongside government cameras and other public-safety information in the same operational platform.

That means the size of a municipal camera system can no longer always be determined by counting cameras purchased by city hall.

Some of the available network may belong to stores, schools, shopping centers, apartment buildings or residents.

Flock is moving in the same direction

This trend isn’t limited to Axon.

Flock increasingly markets its own real-time crime center platform as the place where agencies can combine 911 information, video, license-plate readers, drones, gunshot detection and other data.

The company also advertises integration of cameras belonging to schools, HOAs and businesses.

So while much of the current national debate has focused on Flock license-plate readers, the larger public-policy question is moving beyond any single company’s cameras.

The industry is heading toward integration.

Flock wants to connect the information.

Axon wants to connect the information.

Peregrine sells the integration layer.

Other vendors supply the individual sensors.

And Illinois local governments are already assembling combinations of all of them.

The procurement question has changed

A council agenda item titled “camera purchase” tells residents roughly what government wants to buy.

A contract for a real-time information platform may be much harder to understand.

The city may not be purchasing a new camera at all.

It may be purchasing the ability to connect cameras, police records, dispatch information, private video, license-plate detections and drones that already exist.

That changes the questions elected officials should be able to answer.

What systems will be connected on Day One?

What systems can be connected later without another major council vote?

Who decides which private cameras enter the network?

Can employees search across multiple databases at once?

Are those searches logged?

What information can neighboring agencies see?

How long is data retained in each underlying system?

If one company stores the evidence, supplies the cameras, provides the integration software and manages other police technology, how difficult is it to switch vendors?

And if new AI capabilities are introduced during a five-, seven- or ten-year contract, what requires another public discussion?

Those aren’t arguments that integration has no value.

Police agencies have given concrete reasons for wanting it: fewer screens, faster access to evidence, better information for officers responding to emergencies and less time spent manually moving among disconnected systems. Aurora, Joliet and Naperville all made versions of that case in their own procurement documents.

But integration changes what a technology purchase means.

The public debate over Flock has largely been about cameras.

Illinois procurement records suggest the next debate may need to be about something bigger:

the infrastructure that connects the cameras to everything else.

How this story was made

CityNewsWire reviewed municipal procurement records, council agendas, contracts and supporting materials from Aurora, Naperville, Joliet, Evanston and Geneva; records from Kane County and the University of Illinois Division of Public Safety; and current product information from Axon and Flock Safety.

CityNewsWire distinguished between systems that have been approved and implemented, proposed systems that were rejected, and capabilities vendors advertise but that an individual Illinois agency may not have activated. Vendor descriptions of safety, efficiency and product capabilities are identified as vendor or government claims rather than independent measures of program effectiveness.

Sources

• Aurora — Fusus Real-Time Crime Center contract and integrations Aurora City Council Fusus procurement

• Aurora — Motorola LPR/Fusus integration Aurora LPR hosting and integration records

• Aurora — Chicago Premium Outlets camera-sharing agreement Aurora private-camera agreement

• Kane County — Aurora Drone as First Responder agreement Kane County Resolution 26-350

• Naperville — Real-Time Information Center/Peregrine contract Naperville RTIC procurement

• Naperville — proposed $8.29 million citywide camera system Naperville Citywide Camera Access proposal

• Joliet — Peregrine data-integration contract Joliet Peregrine procurement

• Evanston — Axon public-safety technology agreement Evanston Axon contract materials

• Geneva — Axon contract and vendor-lock-in discussion Geneva Committee of the Whole responses

• University of Illinois — Community Connect/Fusus University of Illinois Community Connect announcement

• Axon — Fusus real-time operations platform Axon Fusus

• Flock Safety — Real-Time Crime Center platform Flock Real-Time Crime Center

Flock Safety cameras have become a familiar subject at city council meetings.

Residents ask who can search license plates, how long records are kept, which police departments can see them and what happens when cameras operated by one community become part of a much larger network.

Those are reasonable questions. Flock itself describes its product as a connected license-plate-reader network that captures plate numbers, vehicle images and characteristics, dates, times and camera locations.

But while attention has focused on cameras mounted on poles along roads and subdivision entrances, another large camera system has been spreading across the country.

This one moves.

It rides on school buses.

And the company behind one of the largest systems is increasingly describing those buses as something more than transportation.

BusPatrol says it now supports more than 400 school districts and more than 40,000 buses, protecting more than 2 million students. Its careers site says the company has installed more than 300,000 cameras.

The original purpose sounds straightforward: catch motorists who illegally pass stopped school buses.

But BusPatrol’s own marketing now describes school buses as a platform for something considerably broader.

First, the important difference from Flock

BusPatrol says its school-bus stop-arm enforcement system should not be confused with a conventional automated license-plate-reader network.

According to the company, its stop-arm cameras activate for potential violations when a school bus is stopped with its warning lights and stop arm deployed. Artificial intelligence helps identify possible violations, a human reviews the event and law enforcement ultimately decides whether the evidence justifies a citation.

BusPatrol says this system does not continuously scan license plates, does not create a searchable record of vehicle movements and does not permit police agencies to search footage from other communities.

The company also says government customers own their data and that footage that does not qualify for enforcement is deleted.

Those distinctions matter.

A school-bus camera documenting a car passing an extended stop arm is not doing the same thing as a fixed ALPR repeatedly recording vehicles as they travel through a community.

But that is no longer the entire BusPatrol story.

The school bus is becoming public-safety infrastructure

On another section of its website, BusPatrol makes a much broader pitch to law enforcement.

The company calls the school bus “America’s most trusted safety asset” and promotes connected buses as an additional layer of visibility for public-safety agencies.

Its platform advertises access to live and historical bus location and video, integration with real-time crime centers and 911/CAD systems, crash notifications and situational awareness for cases involving missing or endangered people.

BusPatrol says the buses can provide visibility near school zones and bus stops and help authorities identify where students are during emergencies.

The company describes the concept this way: school buses already travel millions of miles through communities, so connecting them to public-safety systems can extend camera coverage into places that previously lacked it.

That’s worth paying attention to.

The stop-arm enforcement system and BusPatrol’s broader public-safety platform are not necessarily the same product or governed by the same access rules. BusPatrol specifically says law enforcement does not have general searchable access to the stop-arm ticketing system.

But the company is simultaneously marketing live and historical bus video and location data as a public-safety resource.

For residents trying to understand the cameras operating in their communities, that distinction should be explained before a contract is approved — not discovered afterward.

Then there is the money

BusPatrol frequently markets its stop-arm program as requiring zero upfront cost.

Its current public-safety website is even more explicit: it calls the program “violator-funded” and says it is “fully funded through violator-paid fines.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean the vendor is paid the same way everywhere. State laws and individual contracts vary substantially.

But public records from other states show why the details matter.

A Bloomberg Businessweek investigation published through Type Investigations examined BusPatrol agreements around the country and found that many local governments were sending significant portions of citation proceeds to the company while also paying technology fees.

In Richmond, Virginia, for example, the contract examined by CBS 6 provided BusPatrol with 60% of gross citation revenue while the school district received 40%. Richmond’s portion was then subject to a $37,800 monthly technology fee. CBS 6 reported that during the 31 months it reviewed, Richmond actually generated a profit from the program in only 15 months.

BusPatrol has said financial structures are designed to allow it to recover its upfront investment and operating expenses and that in some programs operating costs can meet or exceed citation revenue.

Montgomery County issued $92 million in fines

The numbers become much larger in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Bloomberg and Type Investigations reported that more than 375,000 tickets representing $92 million in issued fines had been generated there.

Yet the investigation found little reduction in violations and no evidence of a decline in collisions near stopped school buses. An earlier Maryland audit similarly reported that it could not find evidence that the program had reduced collisions, improved public safety or decreased total violations.

That does not establish that school-bus cameras cannot improve safety.

Results differed considerably among the communities Bloomberg examined. Some experienced falling citation rates. Others did not. The investigation also found examples where enforcement was accompanied by education or infrastructure changes and violations fell more substantially.

BusPatrol says the vast majority of people receiving one of its citations do not become repeat offenders, and it argues that illegal passing of stopped buses remains a serious safety problem.

The important question for a government purchasing the system therefore isn’t simply whether the cameras can issue tickets.

It’s whether the program produces the outcome officials promised when they approved it.

Illinois has already put limits on this model

Illinois permits automated school-bus enforcement, but state law contains safeguards that appear designed to address some of the controversies familiar from the red-light-camera era.

A school board must approve the system and approve the vendor contract. The district must also enter an intergovernmental agreement with the municipality or county administering enforcement.

Illinois law specifically says vendor compensation must reflect the equipment or services provided and cannot be based on the number of citations issued or the revenue generated by the system.

Fine proceeds, however, are divided equally between the participating school district and the municipality or county administering the program.

That means the Richmond arrangement — where a vendor receives 60% of citation revenue — would not simply transfer into Illinois under the same terms.

But the Illinois structure still makes the contract important.

How much does the technology cost?

Is the program expected to support itself from citation proceeds?

How many events does the software flag?

How many are rejected before reaching police?

How many citations do officers reject?

How many drivers successfully contest them?

What happens to footage that never becomes a citation?

And, most importantly, do violations and dangerous incidents actually decline?

Those questions sound familiar because communities are already asking versions of them about Flock.

The conversation shouldn’t begin and end with Flock

It is easy to think of municipal surveillance as a collection of individual products.

A Flock camera here.

A school-bus camera there.

A real-time crime center downtown.

A traffic camera at an intersection.

But vendors increasingly sell these technologies as connected public-safety infrastructure.

BusPatrol’s current pitch demonstrates that evolution unusually clearly.

The company began with a compelling and narrow use case: record motorists who illegally drive past stopped school buses.

Today its website invites law-enforcement agencies to think much bigger — live bus video, historical video, bus-location information, real-time crime center integration and road coverage provided by a fleet that moves through neighborhoods every weekday.

And BusPatrol says its enforcement side can provide the revenue to help fund that broader public-safety mission.

None of that makes the technology inherently improper.

There are legitimate reasons to want evidence when someone drives around a school bus full of children. There are also legitimate emergency situations in which knowing where a bus is — or seeing its cameras — could help police find a missing child or respond to a crash.

But those benefits don’t eliminate the governance questions.

They make those questions more important.

Before a community turns hundreds of yellow buses into connected cameras, residents should know exactly what is being installed, when it records, who can see the footage, how long it is retained, whether the system can later be expanded, how the vendor gets paid and what evidence will be used to determine whether the program actually improves safety.

Flock may be the camera company everyone is talking about right now.

It isn’t the only camera network local government should be explaining.

How this story was made

CityNewsWire reviewed BusPatrol’s current school-bus safety, privacy, trust, careers and public-safety materials; Flock Safety’s current license-plate-reader policies; Illinois’ automated school-bus enforcement statute; Richmond’s BusPatrol contract terms as reported by CBS 6; and the April 2026 Bloomberg Businessweek/Type Investigations examination of BusPatrol programs and public records from communities across the country.

Company statements about technology, privacy, safety performance and program design are identified as company claims. Contract terms and program outcomes are distinguished from one jurisdiction to another because state law and local agreements differ.

Sources

• BusPatrol — Privacy, Security and School Bus Safety

• BusPatrol — Public Safety Platform

• BusPatrol — Trust and Program Controls

• Bloomberg / Type Investigations — The AI School Bus Camera Company Blanketing America in Tickets

• CBS 6 Richmond — BusPatrol Contract and Citation Revenue

• Illinois General Assembly — 625 ILCS 5/11-208.9

• Flock Safety — License Plate Reader Policy

Across Illinois, police departments and sheriff’s offices have been responding to a public-records project seeking information about when, where and how officers use force.

The requests were filed through MuckRock by police-accountability researcher Samuel Sinyangwe. Of the first 100 Illinois requests displayed on Sinyangwe’s MuckRock page, 81 were marked “Completed” when CityNewsWire reviewed the list.

Completed requests included departments in La Grange, Mokena, Willowbrook, Palos Heights, Hickory Hills, Bellwood, Highland and Fairview Heights. Larger agencies in Elgin, Peoria, Joliet, Rockford and Springfield also completed recent requests.

North Chicago did not.

MuckRock categorizes its North Chicago request as “No Responsive Documents.”

That result becomes more difficult to understand when compared with records North Chicago produced in response to earlier requests concerning excessive-force complaints, police litigation and settlements.

Those records include a risk-management summary listing nearly $3.9 million in police-related loss payments—and an executed $385,000 settlement arising from a 2017 arrest that was the subject of an excessive-force lawsuit.

What was requested

The request sought North Chicago Police Department use-of-force data covering January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2025.

It asked for a database or spreadsheet, if one existed, containing information such as:

• Case number, date, time and location

• Type of force used

• Whether the person was injured

• The person’s age, gender and race or ethnicity

• Whether a weapon was involved

• Names and badge numbers of participating officers

But the request did not depend upon a spreadsheet existing.

It specifically said that if no database or spreadsheet was available, the department should provide individual use-of-force reports or other reports in which officers documented force.

The request was submitted through MuckRock on May 12, 2026. The letter is dated May 13, and North Chicago’s copy bears a May 26 receipt stamp. The city assigned it reference number 26-306.

North Chicago’s response consisted of two sentences:

“We do not maintain that particular data in document form, and we are not required to create a new document in response to this request. This FOIA request is now closed.”

The response did not identify what record systems or files had been searched.

It did not say whether North Chicago officers completed individual use-of-force reports during the nine-year period. It did not address arrest reports, incident reports, supplemental narratives, supervisory reviews or reports submitted to the Illinois State Police.

Refusing to create a spreadsheet is not the entire answer

Illinois public bodies generally are not required to create a new record solely to answer a Freedom of Information Act request.

If North Chicago did not have the requested spreadsheet, the city would not necessarily have to build one.

But Sinyangwe anticipated that possibility. He also requested the existing underlying reports.

The city’s response addressed the creation of a new document but did not clearly address that alternative.

The distinction is significant. Saying a department does not maintain a compiled dataset is not the same as saying it searched for individual records and found none.

If individual records exist, the question is why they were not produced or addressed. If they do not exist, the question becomes how North Chicago documented, reviewed and supervised officers’ uses of force.

North Chicago produced police-loss records in another request

In August 2025, a different requester sought all North Chicago settlements resulting from Police Department actions from 2010 forward. The request specifically included settlements involving deaths, injuries, excessive force, retaliation, harassment and other claims.

Documents posted with the completed MuckRock settlement request include a risk-management summary listing seven police-related losses:

The summary describes the amounts as “loss paid to date.” It does not establish that every dollar came directly from North Chicago taxpayers. Some payments involved insurers, risk-management pools or multiple municipalities. The listed matters also include employment and wrongful-incarceration litigation, not only excessive-force claims.

But the records demonstrate that the city and its claims administrators maintained detailed documentation of police-related incidents, lawsuits and payments.

A $385,000 settlement falls squarely within the requested period

The most relevant record is the settlement with Jonathan Garcia.

Garcia filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against North Chicago, several officers and other defendants following his arrest and booking on September 1, 2017.

The settlement agreement provided:

• $175,000 to Garcia

• $210,000 for attorneys’ fees and costs

• $385,000 total

The city and officers denied liability, and the settlement expressly stated that it was not an admission of wrongdoing.

Garcia’s lawsuit nevertheless alleged excessive force, failure to intervene, supervisory liability and a municipal failure to discipline, monitor, supervise and retrain officers. A federal court allowed Garcia’s municipal-liability claim to proceed together with his claims against the individual officers. Read the federal court’s Garcia decision.

The September 2017 incident falls directly within the period covered by Sinyangwe’s request.

Curiously, North Chicago’s loss summary classified the $385,000 payment as a “violation of law,” rather than “excessive force.”

The settlement agreement is not itself an officer’s use-of-force report, and the lawsuit does not prove that such a report was completed. But the incident was documented extensively enough to produce a federal civil-rights case, discovery, a municipal-liability claim and a substantial settlement.

Did North Chicago officers prepare an arrest report, incident report, supplemental report or use-of-force form concerning that encounter? If they did, was it searched in response to FOIA request 26-306?

The city’s response does not say.

Another settlement involved a 2018 arrest and detention

North Chicago also produced a $75,000 settlement agreement with Darrell Haywood arising from his September 12, 2018 arrest and detention at the North Chicago Police Department.

Haywood’s federal civil-rights action named the city and four officers. As with Garcia, the city and officers denied liability, and the settlement was not an admission that the allegations were true.

North Chicago’s risk-management summary classified this payment as a civil-liberties matter.

Again, the settlement does not prove the existence of an officer-generated use-of-force report. It does establish another police encounter, civil-rights lawsuit and settlement during the exact period covered by Sinyangwe’s request.

Illinois requires monthly reporting—or a zero report

The state’s reporting requirements make North Chicago’s response even more puzzling.

Effective January 31, 2022, Illinois law-enforcement agencies have been required to submit monthly use-of-force reports to the Illinois State Police through the state’s incident-based reporting repository.

The rule applies to force resulting in death, serious bodily injury or the discharge of a firearm at or in the direction of a person.

If an agency has no qualifying use-of-force incidents during a month, it must submit a zero report by the fifteenth day of the following month.

In other words, for the portion of Sinyangwe’s request beginning in 2022, North Chicago should have reported qualifying incidents—or affirmatively reported that it had none. Read 20 Illinois Administrative Code §1244.30.

The state reporting rule is narrower than Sinyangwe’s request. It does not cover every physical restraint, Taser deployment, strike or other lower-level use of force. It also does not conclusively establish that North Chicago retained a local copy of every state submission.

But it raises an obvious question the city’s FOIA response did not answer: Did North Chicago search for the reports or zero reports it submitted to the Illinois State Police?

If those records are maintained only by the state, the city could have explained that. Instead, it closed the request after saying it did not maintain “that particular data in document form.”

The department says it archives its reports

North Chicago’s own 2025 Police Department annual report describes a department with formal recordkeeping and administrative-review systems.

According to the report, the Records Unit “processes and archives all reports of criminal, non-criminal, and traffic activity handled by the police department.”

The report also says the Support Services Division manages recordkeeping and the administrative review of officer conduct. It states that all complaints, including anonymous complaints, are investigated and reviewed by a civilian committee.

The annual report publishes the disposition of citizen complaints. It does not provide a count or breakdown of police uses of force.

That omission does not prove that force information is concealed or missing. It does make it harder to understand why the city could not identify any responsive record category when presented with a request covering nine years.

North Chicago used “use of force forms” before

An earlier federal case indicates that North Chicago previously used formal use-of-force documents.

In Smith v. City of North Chicago, a plaintiff alleged that North Chicago officers had filed 88 “use of force forms” reporting injuries to arrestees between approximately 2006 and 2011.

That number was an allegation contained in a civil complaint, not a judicial finding. The period also predates Sinyangwe’s request.

It nevertheless presents another important records question: If North Chicago previously maintained use-of-force forms, when did that practice change, and what replaced them?

The Smith litigation also placed police oversight directly within the mayor’s office.

The same mayor has overseen police since 2005

Leon Rockingham Jr. was first elected mayor in 2005 and, according to the city’s official website, is now serving his sixth term.

An Illinois appellate court described Rockingham as North Chicago’s chief executive officer with “general supervision and control” of the Police Department.

That description appeared in Brame v. City of North Chicago, a whistleblower case brought by North Chicago Police Lt. Curtis Brame.

Brame reported to Rockingham what he believed was criminal activity by then-Police Chief Michael Newsome. Brame alleged that Newsome subsequently retaliated against him by moving him to another shift.

A trial court entered summary judgment against Brame, but the appellate court reversed and returned the case for further proceedings. It found that Brame’s disclosure to the mayor could qualify for protection under the Illinois Whistleblower Act and that factual questions remained about the alleged retaliation.

The decision did not find that Rockingham personally retaliated against Brame. The alleged retaliation was attributed to Newsome. Read the appellate court’s Brame decision.

Newsome was later charged with stealing more than $200,000 in city funds for personal use. The Brame decision does not establish that Brame’s warning concerned the same conduct that produced those charges. Read the Associated Press report published by CBS News.

A court allowed allegations against Rockingham to proceed

The Smith lawsuit contained more direct allegations about Rockingham’s police oversight.

According to the complaint, then-Chief Newsome recommended firing Officer William Bogdala following earlier complaints involving force. Smith alleged that Rockingham intervened and informed Newsome not to fire the officer. Bogdala instead received a three-year “last chance” agreement.

The federal court was deciding a motion to dismiss, so it was required to treat well-pleaded allegations as true at that preliminary stage. It found the revised allegations sufficient to permit a supervisory-liability claim against Rockingham to proceed.

That was not a final finding that the allegations were true. Read the federal court’s Smith decision.

The case is relevant because it illustrates the authority attributed to Rockingham over police personnel and discipline. It also contains the allegation that North Chicago previously maintained 88 use-of-force forms.

This is no longer merely a spreadsheet question

None of these records proves that North Chicago possesses every use-of-force report sought by Sinyangwe.

They do establish that:

• North Chicago maintained and produced detailed records concerning police lawsuits, settlements and loss payments.

• At least two civil-rights settlements arose from police encounters during the requested 2017–2025 period.

• Illinois agencies have been required to submit monthly qualifying use-of-force reports—or zero reports—since January 2022.

• North Chicago says its Records Unit archives police reports.

• The department previously used documents described in federal litigation as “use of force forms.”

• The city’s longtime mayor has had general supervision and control of the Police Department throughout the entire requested period.

Against that backdrop, closing the request with a statement that the city does not maintain “that particular data in document form” is not a sufficient public explanation.

It may eventually turn out that the requested information is divided among several record systems, retained by another agency, partially exempt from disclosure or no longer maintained.

But the city did not say that.

It said it would not create a new document—and closed the file.

Questions to ask

• Did North Chicago officers complete any use-of-force reports between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2025?

• What databases, files and record categories were searched for FOIA request 26-306?

• Were arrest reports, incident reports, supplemental narratives and supervisory reviews searched?

• Did the city search for reports or zero reports submitted to the Illinois State Police under 20 Illinois Administrative Code §1244.30?

• If North Chicago stopped using separate use-of-force forms, when did that occur and what system replaced them?

• Was a use-of-force or comparable report prepared after Jonathan Garcia’s September 1, 2017 arrest?

• Was such a report prepared following Darrell Haywood’s September 2018 arrest and detention?

• Why was the Garcia settlement classified as “violation of law” rather than “excessive force” in the city’s loss summary?

• What records support the $2,740,795 death payment listed in that summary?

• Why does the Jason Strong settlement agreement appear to allocate $333,333.33 to North Chicago while the loss summary lists $166,666.67?

• What use-of-force information is provided to the police chief, Public Safety Committee and mayor?

• How does the administration identify officers with repeated force incidents or complaints?

North Chicago may have legitimate answers.

The public-records response does not provide them.

For a department with mandatory state reporting obligations, documented civil-rights settlements and more than two decades under the same mayoral oversight, the city’s one-sentence response should not be the end of the inquiry.

It should be the beginning.

How this story was made

CityNewsWire reviewed the original records requests, North Chicago’s response, settlement agreements, payment records, a police-loss summary, the department’s 2025 annual report, Illinois reporting regulations and published court decisions. Lawsuit allegations are identified as allegations and distinguished from settlements and judicial findings.

Sources

• Samuel Sinyangwe’s Illinois public-records requests

• North Chicago Police excessive-force and other settlements request

• North Chicago excessive-force complaints request

• North Chicago Police Department 2025 Annual Report

• Illinois use-of-force reporting requirements — 20 Ill. Admin. Code §1244.30

• Garcia v. Ramirez — federal court decision

• Smith v. City of North Chicago — federal court decision

• Brame v. City of North Chicago — Illinois Appellate Court decision

• North Chicago Mayor Leon Rockingham Jr. — official city biography

• Former Police Chief Michael Newsome’s theft charges — Associated Press/CBS News

The village’s own timeline adds important context to that number.

Eighteen of those meeting dates concerned the broader Cornerstone development, beginning in 2009—approximately 15 years before Grayslake considered the T5 campus plans now being challenged in court.

The timeline identifies six additional meeting dates specifically associated with the data-center approvals in 2024 and 2025.

Those six meetings were enough for Grayslake to approve a development covering approximately 473 acres and authorize building envelopes totaling more than 10 million square feet.

The village now says T5’s current plan is smaller: 11 buildings totaling 6.75 million square feet. But Grayslake’s development agreements provide flexibility to change the size, layout and number of buildings to meet the needs of future tenants.

That distinction matters.

The current construction plan is not necessarily the same as the maximum development the village approved.

The project is now under construction

On September 1, Grayslake announced that it had issued the first building permit for the T5 campus along Peterson and Alleghany roads.

The permit authorizes work on an 800,000-square-foot building—the first structure in what the village now describes as an expected $18 billion private investment.

Grayslake projects that the campus will generate $1.4 billion in property-tax revenue for local taxing bodies during its first 20 years. The village says it granted no municipal tax incentives, tax exemptions or tax-increment-financing subsidies.

Mayor Elizabeth Davies said the new revenue could be used for direct household financial relief or major community projects.

The permit was issued while a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the underlying development approvals remains pending.

The Preservation of Community Well-being Collective LLC and nine Lake County residents filed the lawsuit July 31 against Grayslake, T5 Data Centers and Alter Asset Management Company.

The complaint alleges that the village approved the project without adequate public disclosure and used zoning procedures intended for ordinary commercial development to authorize a hyperscale data-center campus.

Those remain allegations. No court has ruled that Grayslake’s approvals were invalid.

What “24 public meetings” means

Grayslake published a 14-page data-center FAQ after public opposition intensified.

Near the beginning, the FAQ prominently states:

“100% TRANSPARENCY: No NDA’s signed — 24 public meetings during the approval process of the campus.”

But the chronology immediately following that statement separates those meetings into two categories:

• 18 meeting dates involving the Cornerstone project and its underlying zoning

• Six additional meeting dates involving the T5 data-center plans

The Cornerstone dates begin March 9, 2009. They include proceedings from 2009, 2010, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

Only two of the 18 Cornerstone dates occurred in 2024.

The T5-specific approval dates were:

• September 23, 2024

• November 19, 2024

• January 13, 2025

• February 18, 2025

• April 14, 2025

• May 6, 2025

The earlier Cornerstone proceedings are relevant because they established the development framework and non-residential zoning that Grayslake later used for the data-center campus.

But a public meeting about a mixed-use or industrial development plan years before T5’s proposal existed is not the same as a meeting at which residents were presented with the scale, electrical demand, backup-generation infrastructure and environmental implications of a hyperscale data-center campus.

Grayslake’s FAQ combines both categories into its advertised total of 24 meetings.

The campus grew in stages

The T5 development did not reach 473 acres in one vote.

It expanded through a sequence of separate proceedings.

At a special Plan Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on September 23, 2024, T5 presented plans involving approximately 135 acres in Cornerstone and another 90-acre property.

The first hearing opened at 6:01 p.m. and closed at 6:10 p.m. T5 representative Tim Bright described the company, its business model, expected traffic and staffing, cooling technology and discussions with potential tenants.

A second hearing concerning the adjoining 90-acre property opened at 6:25 p.m. There was no public comment, and the hearing closed at 6:26.

The commission unanimously recommended both projects.

On November 19, the Village Board approved the related ordinances and subdivision plats. The entire board meeting ran from 6 p.m. to 6:25 p.m. The minutes report no public comment on agenda items or matters of general interest.

The board’s votes were unanimous among the four trustees present.

Two more parcels were added months later

By January 2025, T5 had placed two additional properties under contract.

One consisted of approximately 31.5 acres inside Cornerstone. The other added approximately 33 acres to the adjoining planned-unit development.

The January 13 Plan Commission meeting included separate public hearings for the two additions.

The first opened at 6:12 p.m. and closed at 6:13. The second opened at 6:16 and closed at 6:17.

There was no public comment at either hearing.

Commissioners did ask questions after the hearings closed. They discussed the new electrical substation, anticipated power availability and the subdivision of the property into what the minutes call “sliver lots.”

Village staff explained that the smaller lots would allow T5 to combine properties later and adjust the size, number and layout of buildings for unidentified future tenants.

The commission unanimously recommended the amendments. The Village Board unanimously approved them on February 18.

The largest expansion came last

T5 returned in April 2025 seeking to add the approximately 184-acre Cornerstone South Parcel at the southwest corner of Illinois Route 83 and Peterson Road.

The April 14 public hearing opened at 6:01 p.m.

No one spoke.

It closed at 6:02.

Commissioners then discussed roads, public pathways, access points and coordination with state and county transportation officials. The commission unanimously recommended approval.

The Village Board unanimously approved the 184-acre expansion on May 6.

Four of the five T5 public hearings identified in Grayslake’s own timeline therefore had public-comment portions lasting approximately one minute, with no one speaking.

That does not mean the entire commission discussions lasted only one minute. Commissioners continued discussing the proposals after the formal hearings closed.

Nor does the absence of speakers establish that the village failed to comply with legal notice requirements.

It does show how little public participation occurred while a 225-acre proposal grew into a campus exceeding 470 acres.

The approved ceiling exceeds the current plan

Grayslake’s August 2026 FAQ says T5 currently expects to build 11 buildings totaling 6.75 million square feet.

The development agreements reviewed authorized considerably more.

The 10.16-million-square-foot figure is an approved maximum, not a representation that T5 will build that much space.

The village says the present plan is approximately 33 percent smaller than earlier versions and remains subject to change.

The agreements also expressly allow building sizes, configurations and quantities to be adjusted for customer needs, provided the applicable maximum floor area and other development standards are observed.

The public therefore needs two numbers to understand the project:

• The current proposal: 6.75 million square feet in 11 buildings

• The maximum building area authorized by the agreements: approximately 10.16 million square feet

The power plan also expanded

T5 originally announced in May 2024 that its Grayslake project would occupy approximately 160 acres and provide up to 480 megawatts of critical computing capacity.

The project grew substantially after that announcement.

Plans included in Grayslake’s approval records depict a 23-acre substation labeled 600 MW on the original campus and a separate T5 substation labeled 350 MW on another phase.

Published accounts of the lawsuit place the expanded campus’s total electrical demand at approximately 1.55 gigawatts, with as much as 1.2 gigawatts of leasable computing capacity.

A gigawatt equals 1,000 megawatts.

Grayslake’s current FAQ does not state the campus’s total projected electrical demand. It says the developer will pay for the substation and other infrastructure needed to deliver power to the campus.

The FAQ also says data centers occupy a separate rate category from residential customers and that Grayslake residents will not experience higher rates than residents elsewhere in ComEd’s service territory because the campus is located in their village.

Those statements do not answer the broader regional question of how large new electrical loads affect generation demand, transmission planning or prices throughout the multistate PJM power market.

Detailed impact studies came later

The development agreements establish general requirements for water, sewer, stormwater, landscaping, roads and other infrastructure.

But the approval records reviewed do not include a quantified pre-approval water-demand study, noise study, air-emissions study or comprehensive environmental-impact analysis for the full 473-acre campus.

Grayslake says those issues are being evaluated during the building-permit process.

Its August 2026 FAQ says independent specialists and village staff “are, and will” review studies covering water use, sound, vibration, traffic and emissions as individual buildings proceed through technical review.

The FAQ says the current 6.75-million-square-foot plan will use a closed-loop cooling system and consume approximately 50,000 gallons of village water per day, primarily for restrooms, breakrooms and similar domestic uses.

It also says the project will comply with state sound and emissions standards and that standby generators will operate fewer than 60 hours per year.

Those details are important.

They also appeared publicly in the village’s comprehensive FAQ after residents began organizing against the project—not in the meeting minutes through which the underlying land-use entitlements were approved.

Records were withheld after litigation was anticipated

On July 28, a requester sought the development agreement, hearing re

cords, impact studies and correspondence among Grayslake, T5 and ComEd.

Grayslake approved the request in part.

On August 4, the village withheld one category:

“Records relating to the T5 Data Center Campus that have been compiled by the Village at the request of its attorney in anticipation of litigation.”

The village cited the Illinois Freedom of Information Act exemption for records prepared or compiled at an attorney’s request in anticipation of legal proceedings.

The public-records request was submitted three days before the residents’ lawsuit was filed. The village’s response came four days after the filing.

The exemption may be legally applicable to the records described. But the response means the public cannot review all of the material the village assembled concerning the dispute.

Grayslake’s FAQ acknowledges that litigation now limits what additional information officials will provide.

The village’s financial argument is substantial

Grayslake presents the campus as an extraordinary economic opportunity.

Its current projections include:

• $18 billion in private investment

• $1.4 billion in property-tax revenue for local taxing bodies over 20 years

• Nearly $100 million in annual property taxes after the first 20 years

• Between 750 and 1,000 construction jobs annually during development

• Between 1,200 and 1,600 eventual operations jobs

• Utility-tax revenue that could support community projects or direct payments to households

Those are projections, not guaranteed results. Actual revenue will depend on what gets built, property assessments, tax rates, occupancy and other factors.

Grayslake also emphasizes that it granted no local incentives or tax abatements.

T5’s original announcement, however, identified attractive tax incentives as one reason the Chicago market appeals to data-center developers. Illinois has operated a separate state data-center incentive program providing qualifying facilities with exemptions from several state and local taxes.

The village’s promise of no municipal incentive should therefore not be interpreted as proof that the project receives no tax benefit through any other unit of government.

The transparency question is narrower—and more important

The question is not whether Grayslake held public meetings. It did.

The question is whether residents were given a realistic opportunity to understand the project’s eventual scale before the critical approvals became legally binding.

Grayslake counts 24 meeting dates in its transparency defense.

Its own timeline shows that 18 concerned the broader Cornerstone development, many years before T5’s specific proposal came before the village.

The T5 campus itself was approved through six meeting dates and five public hearings. Four of those hearings recorded one-minute public-comment periods with no speakers.

During that sequence, the project grew from approximately 225 acres to approximately 473 acres. The agreements authorized more than 10 million square feet of buildings and gave the developer flexibility to modify building configurations for future tenants.

Now that residents are paying attention, Grayslake has published extensive information on water, noise, emissions, taxes, electrical infrastructure and community benefits.

That information is useful.

The question raised by the record is why the public did not receive the same consolidated explanation before the village completed its approvals.

Questions to ask

• Why does Grayslake count 18 Cornerstone meetings dating to 2009 as part of the T5 campus’s “24 public meetings”?

• How did the village notify residents outside Grayslake whose homes are near the project?

• Did notices identify the proposal as a hyperscale data-center campus and describe its anticipated acreage, building area and electrical demand?

• What is the maximum electrical demand authorized or reserved for the entire campus?

• Why is the total projected electrical demand not disclosed in the village’s FAQ?

• Does the 6.75-million-square-foot current plan replace the 10.16-million-square-foot authorized ceiling, or could T5 return to the larger configuration without new zoning hearings?

• What independent water, noise, vibration, traffic, emissions and environmental studies existed before the Village Board approved the development agreements?

• Which studies were completed only during the later building-permit process?

• How many backup generators are contemplated, what fuel will they use and what is their combined generating capacity?

• What assumptions support the village’s $18 billion investment and $1.4 billion property-tax projections?

• Has T5, an affiliate or a future tenant obtained or applied for any Illinois data-center tax exemptions?

• Which records were withheld as having been compiled in anticipation of litigation?

• When were those records compiled, and do comparable non-attorney-compiled records exist?

• Will Grayslake publish the studies supporting each building permit before construction begins?

Grayslake may have persuasive answers.

But the number “24” does not tell the complete story.

Sources

• Village of Grayslake data-center FAQ, updated August 25, 2026

• Grayslake’s September 1, 2026 building-permit announcement

• Village of Grayslake agendas and minutes

• T5’s original May 2024 Grayslake announcement

• Residents’ lawsuit and description of the expanded project

• Illinois Data Center Investment Tax Exemptions and Credits

• Grayslake Ordinances 2024-O-37, 2024-O-38, 2025-O-05, 2025-O-06 and 2025-O-21, development agreements, master plans, meeting records and the village’s August 4, 2026 response to a Freedom of Information Act request, reviewed by CityNewsWire.

How this story was made

CityNewsWire reviewed Grayslake’s signed ordinances and development agreements, campus plans, Plan Commission and Village Board records, a Freedom of Information Act response, the village’s current project FAQ, T5’s public announcement and reporting about the pending lawsuit. Lawsuit allegations are identified as allegations, and current project estimates are distinguished from the development limits authorized in the village’s agreements.

Illinois has always had an export business.

Corn. Soybeans. Caterpillar equipment.

And, apparently, politicians.

Former Dolton Mayor Tiffany Henyard — the self-described “Super Mayor” whose single term turned a south suburban village into a national story — is back in politics.

Just not in Illinois.

Henyard has moved to the Atlanta area and is now the Republican nominee for the District 5 seat on the Fulton County Board of Commissioners in Georgia.

Yes, Republican.

Henyard, who held office in Illinois as a Democrat, qualified for the Georgia race in March as a Republican business owner. She was the only Republican to file for the seat and won the May primary unopposed with a little more than 1,100 votes. In November, she is scheduled to face Democratic nominee Helen Willis.

Henyard has even given the comeback a name: Project Phoenix.

Because apparently simply moving to Georgia was not dramatic enough.

From Dolton to Georgia

Henyard left behind an extraordinary chapter in Illinois local government.

She served as mayor of Dolton from 2021 until May 2025, eventually losing her bid for reelection to Jason House. Her administration became the subject of investigations, lawsuits, intense public scrutiny and a noncriminal financial investigation led by former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot.

Henyard has not been criminally charged in the federal investigation connected to finances in Dolton and Thornton Township.

The financial disputes in Dolton have not disappeared with her departure.

Earlier this year, the Village of Dolton sued Fifth Third Bank, alleging the bank processed 251 checks totaling approximately $1.9 million that had Henyard’s signature but lacked the required signature of Village Clerk Alison Key. The lawsuit names the bank — not Henyard — as the defendant and seeks to recover the funds.

Then came Georgia.

And Georgia had some questions.

Three Very Interesting Days

To run for the Fulton County commission seat, Henyard had to establish that she satisfied the county’s residency requirements.

Fulton County election officials held hearings specifically concerning her qualifications.

During an April hearing, Henyard said she had become a Georgia resident on May 1, 2025.

There was an awkward detail.

Her term as mayor of Dolton did not end until May 4, 2025.

Fulton County election board member Julie Adams pointed out that Illinois law required Henyard to reside in the municipality while serving as mayor.

Adams noted the three-day overlap.

Henyard’s response:

“OK.”

The board ultimately voted 3-1 to allow her candidacy to proceed.

Whatever else can be said about Tiffany Henyard, subtlety has never been central to the brand.

And in May, Fulton County Republican voters — or at least the approximately 1,100 who selected the only candidate listed in the Republican contest — officially made her their nominee.

But Henyard Isn’t Illinois’ Only Export

Henyard’s political migration might seem uniquely improbable.

It isn’t entirely unique.

A few hundred miles farther south, two other familiar Illinois political names recently turned up together on another ballot.

Jim Oberweis and Catalina Lauf both ran this year for Florida’s 19th Congressional District, an open Southwest Florida seat.

And if the names sound familiar to Illinois voters, they should.

Oberweis is the dairy businessman and former Illinois state senator who has spent decades running for public office in Illinois.

Lauf, a former Trump administration appointee, ran for Congress in Illinois in 2020 and again in 2022.

In fact, Oberweis and Lauf already faced each other once — in the 2020 Republican primary for Illinois’ 14th Congressional District.

Six years later, there they were again.

Same two Illinois political figures.

Different state.

Palm trees.

Northern Public Radio/NPR described Florida’s 19th District primary as a contest filled with candidates who had recently relocated from other states, with accusations of “carpetbagging” becoming part of the race.

Oberweis rejected that characterization, saying he had owned a home in Bonita Springs for 16 years.

Lauf said she and her husband had chosen Florida as the place where they wanted to build their life and raise a family.

Florida’s official candidate records listed both candidates with Bonita Springs addresses.

Neither won.

Local media owner Jim Schwartzel captured the August Republican primary with about 29% of the vote. Lauf finished second with roughly 22%, despite receiving President Donald Trump’s endorsement late in the campaign. Oberweis finished third with about 16%.

Florida’s election system now lists both Lauf and Oberweis as defeated candidates.

Is Moving and Running for Office a Problem?

No.

People move.

Politicians move.

Retirees certainly move from Illinois to Florida.

There is nothing inherently improper about establishing legal residency in another state and later seeking office there.

And the circumstances surrounding Oberweis and Lauf are very different from those surrounding Henyard.

But the migration is interesting because political candidates traditionally sell themselves partly on their connection to a place: its neighborhoods, institutions, taxes, schools, businesses and history.

Then sometimes the place changes.

And the political career continues.

The 2026 Florida race made that tension unusually visible. One Schwartzel campaign ad attacked rivals as failed politicians from elsewhere who had moved to Florida, while voters interviewed by NPR were considerably less bothered by the idea.

That may be because Southwest Florida itself is full of transplants.

In other words, perhaps an Illinois politician representing former Illinois voters in Florida isn’t political carpetbagging.

Maybe it’s constituent relocation.

And Then There’s the Super Mayor

Henyard’s situation remains something else entirely.

She didn’t merely move and quietly reappear years later.

She lost the Democratic nomination for another term as mayor in February 2025, finished her term in May, established residency in Georgia according to her testimony, opened a business in the Atlanta area — and less than a year later qualified for another elected office.

This time as a Republican.

The residency question was formally examined.

She survived it.

The primary came.

She survived that too.

And now Tiffany Henyard is one general election away from returning to public office.

The woman who once presided over a village of roughly 20,000 people south of Chicago could soon help govern a Georgia county with more than a million residents.

That does not mean she will win. District 5 leans Democratic, and Willis enters the general election as the Democratic nominee.

But Henyard has already accomplished something many politicians never manage after a spectacular political collapse:

She found another ballot.

Illinois politics has always had an export business.

This year, business is good.

Sources

Fulton County, Georgia — List of Qualified Candidates, May 19, 2026 General Primary. Henyard is listed as a Republican candidate for County Commission District 5, occupation “Business Owner,” qualified March 5, 2026.

Fulton County, Georgia — Board of Registration and Elections notices concerning hearings on Henyard’s candidate qualifications, April 2026.

Chicago Sun-Times — “Ex-Dolton Mayor Tiffany Henyard says she lived in Georgia while serving final days as Dolton mayor,” April 21, 2026.

NBC Chicago — “Former Dolton Mayor Tiffany Henyard wins primary election in Georgia,” May 20, 2026.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution — Fulton County primary coverage identifying Helen Willis as Henyard’s November opponent.

Chicago Sun-Times — “Dolton claims Fifth Third Bank allowed former mayor to ‘steal’ $1.9 million in public funds,” Feb. 12, 2026. The quoted characterization is the Village of Dolton’s allegation in its lawsuit; Fifth Third Bank is the defendant.

CBS Atlanta — Coverage of Henyard’s Georgia candidacy and the continuing federal investigation. CBS reported that Henyard had not been charged in connection with the probe.

Florida Division of Elections — Candidate records for Jim Oberweis and Catalina Lauf, Florida Congressional District 19.

Northern Public Radio/NPR — Coverage of Florida’s 19th Congressional District Republican primary and debate over recently relocated candidates, Aug. 17–18, 2026.

Florida Politics — Aug. 18, 2026 Republican primary results for Florida Congressional District 19.

Burr Ridge and Decatur have approved remarkably similar five-year expenditures for Flock Safety camera systems.

Decatur authorized up to $1.25 million for 100 automated license-plate readers covering 2024 through 2028.

Burr Ridge subsequently approved a $1.264 million agreement covering August 2026 through August 2031.

Burr Ridge’s contract is $14,000 larger.

But the communities are nowhere near the same size.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated Decatur’s 2025 population at 67,884. Burr Ridge’s estimated population was 11,179. Decatur therefore has slightly more than six times as many residents.

The comparison does not establish that Burr Ridge overpaid. The municipalities purchased different combinations of products and services. But it raises a basic question of scale: Why does a small, low-crime suburb require a Flock system costing slightly more than one approved for a city six times its size?

Nearly identical five-year totals

In November 2023, the Decatur City Council approved a five-year extension with Flock Safety for 100 license-plate-reading cameras in city neighborhoods and along adjacent thoroughfares.

The authorization allowed annual payments of up to $250,000 in each of five years:

The complete resolution is available through the City of Decatur’s public meeting system.

Burr Ridge’s agreement requires:

The Burr Ridge order form, product descriptions, payment schedule and subdivision-camera policy begin on packet page 67 of the Village’s July 13, 2026 board packet.

The contracts are not identical

Decatur’s resolution identifies 100 Flock license-plate readers. It does not provide the full product detail contained in Burr Ridge’s order form.

Burr Ridge’s order form includes four groups of license-plate readers with quantities totaling 81. It also lists 53 solar video-camera units, Advanced Search, electrical services, poles and related implementation work.

The Advanced Search package includes visual search, searches across multiple geographic areas and convoy analysis. The Flock platform also offers access to statewide and nationwide license-plate searches, custom hotlists and other participating law-enforcement and private-camera networks.

The broader Burr Ridge package may explain some of the difference in cost.

It also raises another question: Why did Burr Ridge choose a system with such expansive capabilities?

The per-resident difference

Using the Census Bureau’s 2025 population estimates, the five-year contract totals equal approximately:

• Burr Ridge: $113 per resident

• Decatur: $18 per resident

Expressed annually, Burr Ridge’s agreement averages approximately $22.61 per resident per year. Decatur’s maximum authorization averages approximately $3.68 per resident per year.

Those figures are not tax bills, and they do not account for grants, reimbursements or other revenue. They illustrate the relative scale of each municipality’s commitment.

Burr Ridge’s order form also lists approximately 72 license-plate readers for every 10,000 residents. Decatur’s authorization equals approximately 15 readers for every 10,000 residents.

Burr Ridge therefore contracted for nearly five times as many license-plate readers per resident, before counting its solar video-camera units.

Crime was already falling in Burr Ridge

Burr Ridge’s own 2025 Crime and Incident Data Report documented 248 Group A criminal offenses.

Property crime fell 5% from 2024. Burglaries declined from 36 to 12—a 67% reduction. Theft and fraud also fell.

The report said Burr Ridge’s increased police activity was “driven by proactive patrol, not rising crime.”

That does not mean cameras provide no value. Burr Ridge sits near major highways, commercial areas and affluent residential neighborhoods. Police may use license-plate readers to locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles connected to burglaries and develop investigative leads.

But the Village’s declining crime figures make it especially important to define what additional benefit the expanded system is expected to deliver.

The board materials do not establish public performance targets for reducing burglaries, recovering vehicles, clearing cases or responding to missing-person incidents.

Who will pay?

Burr Ridge staff told the Village Board that the program’s projected “net cost” would be approximately $70,000 annually.

That figure is far below the contract’s annual payments of $245,000 to $258,000, and the packet does not provide a calculation reconciling the difference.

One expected revenue source is the subdivision-camera program.

Participating homeowners associations will pay Burr Ridge $1,750 per camera annually after receiving their first year without charge. Flock charges the Village $3,500 annually for each new subdivision camera, leaving the Village to subsidize the other half.

Burr Ridge reported that at least seven subdivisions had expressed a willingness to participate. The packet does not identify them, state how many cameras each requested or show the amount of anticipated HOA revenue included in the $70,000 projection.

It is therefore unclear how much of the $1.264 million will ultimately be paid from general Village revenue and how much Burr Ridge expects to recover from homeowners associations or other sources.

Different cities, different needs

A direct comparison between municipal technology contracts is never perfect.

Cities differ in geographic area, road configuration, crime patterns, staffing, existing equipment and the specific technology included in an agreement. Decatur covers approximately 43 square miles, while Burr Ridge covers about seven. Decatur’s resolution identifies 100 LPR cameras, while Burr Ridge’s order includes both LPR and video products.

But scale still matters.

Decatur is responsible for policing a substantially larger population and geographic area. Burr Ridge committed slightly more money and contracted for a much denser camera network on a per-resident basis.

The comparison should prompt Burr Ridge officials to explain why this particular system—and this particular level of expenditure—is appropriate for the Village.

What should be measured

Burr Ridge should report whether the expanded system produces results that justify its cost.

Useful measures would include:

• Number of license-plate searches

• Number of real-time alerts

• Stolen vehicles recovered

• Missing or endangered people located

• Arrests resulting from camera information

• Cases materially advanced or cleared

• False or outdated alerts

• Cameras unavailable because of maintenance problems

• Searches conducted by outside agencies

• Confirmed policy violations

• Total annual cost after HOA payments and other revenue

• Cost per successful investigative outcome

Without those figures, residents are left comparing contract prices and general assurances rather than measurable public-safety results.

The question is proportionality

Burr Ridge may conclude that its location, road network and property values justify more cameras per resident than a larger city.

If so, officials should present that analysis publicly.

The Village has committed $1.264 million over five years to a system capable of recording vehicles, issuing alerts, searching physical characteristics and accessing information through wider camera networks.

Decatur, with six times the population, authorized slightly less for its five-year Flock program.

That does not prove Burr Ridge made the wrong decision.

It does mean taxpayers deserve a much clearer explanation of why Burr Ridge needs a surveillance system of this size—and how the Village will determine whether it was worth the money.

Questions to Ask

• Why does Burr Ridge require nearly five times as many LPR cameras per resident as Decatur?

• What public-safety analysis determined that Burr Ridge needed 81 LPR entries and 53 solar video-camera units?

• What portion of the $1.264 million will be paid by the General Fund?

• How much revenue does Burr Ridge expect from homeowners associations?

• How was the projected $70,000 annual net cost calculated?

• What measurable results must the system produce to justify renewal?

• Will Burr Ridge publish annual cost and performance reports?

• Will the Village reconsider the number of cameras if crime remains low or continues declining?

Sources

• Burr Ridge Village Board Packet and Flock Order Form—July 13, 2026

• Decatur Resolution Authorizing Five-Year Flock Agreement

• Burr Ridge Police Department 2025 Crime and Incident Data Report

• U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts—Burr Ridge

• U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts—Decatur

• City of Decatur Crime Statistics

• Burr Ridge Flock Transparency Portal

How we made this: CityNewsWire compared Burr Ridge’s July 13, 2026 Flock order form and payment schedule with Decatur’s 2023 resolution authorizing its five-year Flock extension. Population figures are the U.S. Census Bureau’s July 1, 2025 estimates. Burr Ridge crime figures come from the Police Department’s 2025 Crime and Incident Data Report. Because Decatur’s resolution does not provide the same product-level detail as Burr Ridge’s order form, the comparison identifies differences in the available records rather than treating the two purchases as identic

Burr Ridge officials describe the Village’s new Flock Safety system as a tool for identifying vehicles connected to crimes.

The contract reveals a much larger capability.

Burr Ridge did not simply lease cameras positioned along local roads and subdivision entrances. Its five-year, $1.264 million agreement includes access to a nationwide system that Flock says generates 10 billion additional license-plate reads every month.

The platform allows authorized users to search for vehicles recorded by participating cameras beyond Burr Ridge. Searches may be based on a license plate, location, time or a vehicle’s physical appearance.

The contract also includes Advanced Search, which Flock says provides visual search, searches across multiple geographic areas and “convoy analysis”—the ability to identify vehicles observed traveling together.

For a Village with approximately 11,000 residents and 248 reported Group A criminal offenses in 2025, those capabilities deserve closer public scrutiny.

What the system records

Flock’s license-plate readers capture more than plate numbers.

The company’s “Vehicle Fingerprint” technology can classify or identify attributes including:

• Vehicle type

• Make

• Color

• License-plate state

• Missing or covered plates

• Bumper stickers

• Decals

• Roof racks

• Bike racks

• Other distinguishing features

Police can use the information after a crime to search for a suspected vehicle. Officers may also receive real-time alerts when a vehicle on a law-enforcement or custom hotlist passes a camera.

Those features can help locate stolen vehicles, missing people and suspects in serious crimes.

But the system records vehicles before police know whether they have any connection to criminal activity. Every passing vehicle contributes another time-and-location data point that may later become searchable.

In practical terms, the system can help reconstruct where a vehicle has been observed and when it was there.

A search can extend far beyond Burr Ridge

The order form included in the Village’s July 13, 2026 board packet describes several network features:

• State Network: Allows license-plate lookups across participating cameras within Illinois.

• Nationwide Network: Allows agencies to use Flock’s broader sharing network and billions of additional monthly plate reads.

• Law Enforcement Network Access: Allows an agency to request direct access to cameras operated by law-enforcement agencies outside its jurisdiction.

• Community Network Access: Allows police to request access to privately owned Flock cameras at neighborhoods, schools and businesses.

The existence of those features does not mean Burr Ridge can automatically see every Flock camera in the country. Access depends on network participation, sharing settings and agreements between agencies.

But it means the system is designed to make vehicle information portable across jurisdictional boundaries.

A plate entered in Burr Ridge could potentially return sightings captured far from Burr Ridge if the relevant camera data is available through the network.

The stalking scenario

Imagine that a police officer develops an improper personal interest in someone—a former partner, neighbor, relative or acquaintance.

If the officer knows the person’s license plate and has access to Flock, the system could potentially be misused to search for that vehicle’s recent sightings.

The results would not provide continuous GPS tracking. They would show individual observations made when the vehicle passed participating cameras.

But repeated observations could reveal where someone lives, where they work, the routes they regularly travel and the places they visit.

Moving to another community would not necessarily prevent that kind of search if cameras in the new location participate in a shared network.

This is not evidence that any Burr Ridge employee has misused the system. The records reviewed by CityNewsWire do not establish such misuse.

The risk, however, is not hypothetical.

The Associated Press recently reported that nearly 50 police officers had been charged or accused of using license-plate-reading systems for unauthorized purposes. Many of the allegations involved officers searching for romantic partners, former partners or family members.

In Savannah, Georgia, six police employees were reportedly fired after searches involving friends and relatives and after an outside officer was allowed to use the city’s cameras. Read the Associated Press report.

Flock is changing its safeguards

Following growing criticism and reports of improper searches, Flock announced additional safeguards for law-enforcement customers.

The company says users will be required to connect searches to specific case numbers. An auditing tool is expected to detect abnormal search activity and lock accounts pending review. Emergency searches that override normal requirements would be flagged.

Flock is also reducing its standard data-retention period from 30 days to seven days, although information connected to an investigation may be preserved longer.

These changes are significant because Burr Ridge’s newly adopted subdivision-camera policy provides for a 30-day retention period. The Village has not publicly explained whether it will move to the shorter default or deliberately preserve the longer period.

Auditing also does not necessarily prevent an improper search from occurring. It creates a record that may allow the misconduct to be discovered afterward—if someone reviews the logs, recognizes the problem and acts on it.

What Burr Ridge tells the public

Burr Ridge recently launched a Flock Transparency Portal.

The Village says the cameras do not use facial recognition and that strict policies and safeguards protect residents’ privacy. It also says an alert is an investigative lead rather than proof that a crime occurred.

Those are useful assurances, but the public-facing page does not itself answer several important questions:

• How many Burr Ridge employees can search the system?

• Are nationwide searches enabled for every authorized user?

• Must every search be associated with a valid case number?

• Who reviews the search logs?

• How frequently are audits performed?

• How many searches have been conducted?

• How many searches were performed by outside agencies?

• Has an audit ever identified an improper or questionable search?

• Would a person be notified if an officer searched for the person’s vehicle improperly?

The portal also does not provide the public with Burr Ridge’s search logs, a list of connected agencies or regular statistics showing how often different capabilities are used.

Unlimited users and custom hotlists

The Flock contract describes access for “unlimited users.” That does not necessarily mean every Village employee will receive an account. Burr Ridge controls which employees it authorizes.

But the contract does not set a numerical limit on the number of users the Village may add.

It also provides “unlimited custom hotlists.” These allow authorized users to create lists of vehicles of interest and receive alerts when those vehicles pass a Flock camera.

Custom hotlists can serve legitimate purposes when police are searching for a missing person or a vehicle connected to a documented investigation.

They also create an obvious risk if a plate is entered without an adequate law-enforcement basis. The relevant safeguards are therefore not merely whether searches are logged, but who may add a vehicle, what documentation is required, how long an entry remains active and who reviews it.

Low crime does not eliminate legitimate police needs

Burr Ridge is not crime-free. Its location near major highways and valuable residential and commercial property may make vehicle-based investigative tools useful.

The Village’s 2025 report documented burglaries, theft, fraud and assaults. Police may reasonably conclude that vehicles are frequently involved in crimes committed by people traveling into or through the community.

But Burr Ridge’s own report also says property crime fell 5% in 2025 and burglaries declined from 36 to 12. The report attributes the Village’s results to proactive policing rather than rising crime. Read the 2025 crime report.

The issue is therefore not whether police should have useful investigative tools. It is whether a nationwide vehicle-surveillance capability is proportionate to the Village’s needs and subject to adequate independent oversight.

Trust requires verification

Mayor Gary Grasso has said Burr Ridge would not use the cameras to violate anyone’s rights.

That is the expected position of responsible public officials. It is not a permanent safeguard.

Administrators, police chiefs and officers change. Network settings change. Technology gains new capabilities. Information shared with another agency may be used by people Burr Ridge does not supervise.

A durable system of accountability cannot depend entirely on confidence in the people currently holding office.

It requires written limits, mandatory documentation, regular audits, public reporting and meaningful consequences for misuse.

Burr Ridge has committed $1.264 million to technology capable of searching vehicle movements across an enormous public-private network. Residents should not have to wait for an abuse allegation to learn how that power is controlled.

Questions to Ask

• Are nationwide searches enabled for Burr Ridge users?

• Which employees are permitted to conduct those searches?

• Must every search include a valid case or incident number?

• Who reviews searches involving personal acquaintances, public officials or sensitive locations?

• How frequently are user and hotlist audits conducted?

• Which outside agencies can search Burr Ridge camera data?

• Can federal agencies obtain Burr Ridge information directly or indirectly?

• Will the Village reduce its retention period from 30 days to seven?

• Would a resident be notified if an audit found that an officer searched for the resident’s vehicle improperly?

• Will Burr Ridge publish quarterly statistics on searches, alerts, outside access and confirmed outcomes?

Sources

• Burr Ridge Village Board Packet — July 13, 2026

• Burr Ridge Police Department 2025 Crime and Incident Data Report

• Burr Ridge Flock Transparency Portal

• Burr Ridge Flock Camera Locations FOIA Record

• Associated Press: Flock Announces Changes Amid Backlash

• Patch: Burr Ridge Cameras Spark ICE Surveillance Concerns

How we made this: CityNewsWire reviewed Burr Ridge’s July 13, 2026 board packet, including the Flock order form, product descriptions, payment schedule and subdivision-camera policy. Crime information comes from the Burr Ridge Police Department’s 2025 report. National context comes from the Associated Press report linked above. The records reviewed do not establish that Burr Ridge personnel have misused the system.

The Burr Ridge Village Board has approved a five-year, $1.264 million agreement with Flock Safety to expand and replace the Village’s public-safety camera system.

The decision comes as Burr Ridge’s own statistics show property crime was already declining.

According to the Burr Ridge Police Department’s 2025 Crime and Incident Data Report, the Village recorded 248 Group A criminal offenses in 2025. Property crime fell 5% from the previous year, while burglaries dropped from 36 in 2024 to 12 in 2025—a 67% decrease.

The report also says theft and fraud declined.

Burr Ridge describes the decline as evidence that proactive policing is working. But the statistics raise a related question: What additional reduction in crime does the Village expect from a camera system costing more than a quarter-million dollars in some years?

What the Village approved

The Flock order form appears in the Village Board’s July 13, 2026 meeting packet.

It establishes a 60-month term running from August 1, 2026, through August 1, 2031. The agreement can renew for additional 12-month periods unless Burr Ridge or Flock provides notice of nonrenewal.

The payment schedule is:

Contract yearPaymentYear 1$245,000Year 2$245,000Year 3$258,000Year 4$258,000Year 5$258,000Total$1,264,000

The order form lists multiple groups totaling 81 Flock license-plate readers and 53 solar video-camera units. It also includes Advanced Search, statewide and nationwide license-plate lookups, custom hotlists and access to camera networks operated by other law-enforcement agencies and participating private organizations.

Flock’s “Vehicle Fingerprint” technology allows police to search not only for a license plate but also for a vehicle’s make, type, color and distinguishing characteristics such as bumper stickers, decals, roof racks and covered plates.

The Advanced Search package includes visual search, searches across multiple geographic areas and convoy analysis, which can identify vehicles observed traveling together.

Data will generally remain on Flock’s servers for 30 days unless Burr Ridge downloads it for an investigation involving what its policy calls a bona fide public-safety concern.

Calls for service are not crimes

Burr Ridge police reported handling 31,067 calls for service in 2025, the highest number during the three-year period covered by the report.

That figure could create the impression that crime is increasing. The Police Department says otherwise.

Nearly three-quarters of the calls—73%—were initiated by officers rather than residents. They included 19,850 extra-patrol activities and 2,667 traffic stops.

The report states that the increased call volume was “driven by proactive patrol, not rising crime.”

Reported crime was a small portion of the department’s total activity:

• Burr Ridge recorded 248 Group A criminal offenses.

• Property crimes represented approximately 65% of those offenses.

• Burglaries declined from 36 to 12.

• The Village recorded 54 simple assaults and five aggravated assaults.

• Crimes against society totaled 18, primarily from officer-initiated enforcement.

Those numbers do not mean Burr Ridge has no crime or that cameras provide no value. License-plate readers can help identify stolen vehicles, locate missing people and provide investigative leads after an offense.

But the statistics make it reasonable to ask how much additional surveillance is justified—and how the Village will measure whether the investment works.

The Village says its “net cost” will be lower

The staff memorandum recommending the agreement states that the projected net cost of the program will be approximately $70,000 annually.

That is substantially less than Flock’s annual invoices of $245,000 to $258,000.

The packet does not provide a calculation clearly reconciling those figures.

One anticipated source of revenue is Burr Ridge’s subdivision camera program. Participating homeowners associations will pay the Village $1,750 per camera annually, beginning after their first year of service.

Flock charges the Village $3,500 annually for each new subdivision camera, meaning the Village and participating HOA would generally divide that cost equally.

Existing subdivision cameras will be removed or shut down by April 30, 2028. A subdivision that wants to remain in the Village-managed camera system must opt into Flock and assume the annual payment.

The Village told the board that it had contacted current homeowners associations and that at least seven subdivisions had expressed a willingness to participate. The packet does not identify those subdivisions, state how many cameras each requested or show how much HOA revenue was included in the $70,000 estimate.

That leaves residents without a clear picture of how much the program will ultimately cost the general taxpayer, how much will flow through HOA budgets and whether participation will generate the revenue assumed by Village staff.

Even the contract amount was misstated once

The July 13 agenda correctly describes the proposed Flock agreement as totaling $1,264,000. The Flock order form and its payment schedule confirm that figure.

But the accompanying staff memorandum calls it a $1,246,000 agreement, apparently transposing two digits.

The difference is $18,000.

The correct amount is clear from the contract documents, but the error underscores why large technology agreements should be accompanied by a transparent financial analysis—not simply a headline estimate of the program’s “net cost.”

What taxpayers still do not know

The board packet describes examples of crimes in which camera information has assisted police. It does not provide a comprehensive performance analysis of Burr Ridge’s existing camera program.

The materials do not clearly report:

• How many Flock searches Burr Ridge officers conducted

• How many alerts led to police stops

• How many stolen vehicles were recovered because of Flock

• How many arrests or cleared cases depended materially on camera evidence

• How many searches returned no useful information

• How many false or outdated alerts officers received

• How frequently Burr Ridge data was searched by outside agencies

• The projected cost per arrest, vehicle recovery or cleared case

• The amount of HOA revenue used to calculate the claimed $70,000 annual net cost

Those measures matter because Burr Ridge is not purchasing a one-time piece of equipment. It has committed to a recurring surveillance service that will cost an average of $252,800 annually over five years.

A question of scale

The choice is not simply between having cameras and having no cameras.

The real question is whether the size, cost and capabilities of this particular system are proportionate to Burr Ridge’s documented public-safety needs.

Burr Ridge reported falling property crime and a two-thirds decline in burglaries before approving the agreement. If officials believe an expanded Flock network is necessary to preserve or improve those results, the Village should identify the outcomes it expects and report publicly on whether those outcomes occur.

Residents should be able to determine what the cameras cost, who can search the data, how the system is used and whether it produces measurable results.

A $1.264 million commitment deserves more than an assurance that the technology is helpful. It deserves a public accounting.

Questions to Ask

• How did Burr Ridge calculate the projected $70,000 annual net cost?

• How much money does the Village expect to collect from participating HOAs?

• Which subdivisions have agreed to participate, and how many cameras will each receive?

• How many crimes did Burr Ridge’s existing Flock cameras help solve in 2025?

• How many alerts resulted in arrests, vehicle recoveries or assistance to missing people?

• What measurable reduction in crime does the Village expect from the expanded system?

• Will Burr Ridge publish regular search, access, audit and outcome statistics?

• Will the board review the system’s results before allowing the contract to renew?

How we made this: CityNewsWire reviewed Burr Ridge’s July 13, 2026 Village Board packet, including the Flock Safety order form, payment schedule, subdivision-camera policy and staff memorandum. Crime figures come from the Burr Ridge Police Department’s 2025 Crime and Incident Data Report.

Sources

• Burr Ridge Village Board Packet — July 13, 2026 — The Flock material begins on packet page 67. It includes the order form, five-year payment schedule, subdivision agreement and camera-program policy.

• Burr Ridge Police Department 2025 Crime and Incident Data Report — Three-year crime comparison, calls for service, burglaries and property-crime trends.

• Burr Ridge Flock Transparency Portal — The Village’s public explanation of how it says the system works and the safeguards governing its use.

• Burr Ridge Flock Camera Locations FOIA Request — Public correspondence and records concerning camera locations and the Flock agreement.

• Burr Ridge Cameras Spark ICE Surveillance Concerns — Coverage of resident concerns, nationwide data sharing and the July 13 board vote.

• Flock Announces Platform Changes Amid Public Backlash — National context concerning reported misuse, auditing, case-number requirements and changes to Flock’s standard retention period.

A major company wants hundreds of acres, enormous electrical capacity, access to water, infrastructure assistance, and possibly years of tax relief.

Local officials begin meeting with the developer. Utility representatives calculate what the project will require. Economic-development staff discuss incentives. Lawyers exchange proposed agreements.

The residents who will live with the decision may know none of this.

They hear only a project name: “Project Delta.” “Project West.” “Project Tango.” The company behind it may be represented by a recently created limited liability corporation with no employees, public history, or recognizable connection to the eventual operator.

When residents ask questions, officials say they cannot answer because they signed a nondisclosure agreement.

By the time the company’s identity and the project’s full scale become public, land may already be under contract, infrastructure planning may be underway, and the government may have invested months of work in advancing the deal.

The public hearing still happens. But the public enters the process late.

This is becoming a defining problem in the nationwide expansion of artificial-intelligence infrastructure: communities are being asked to approve data centers before they are allowed to understand them.

The secrecy playbook

Large economic-development projects have used confidential negotiations for decades. Companies argue that secrecy prevents competitors from interfering, protects trade secrets, and stops land prices from rising before a site can be assembled.

Some confidentiality is legitimate. A government does not need to disclose proprietary server designs, cybersecurity systems, private land-negotiation strategies, or legally protected trade secrets.

But data-center secrecy often extends beyond those narrow concerns.

Developers may use:

• Code names that conceal the nature or owner of a project

• Shell companies that acquire land or submit applications

• Nondisclosure agreements covering communications with public officials

• Land options that secure control before public review

• Redactions that conceal financial and infrastructure commitments

• Closed economic-development negotiations

• Claims of competitive sensitivity involving information with direct public consequences

The result is an information imbalance.

The developer knows what it wants. Government officials may know what it wants. Residents know only what the parties decide to reveal.

These are not ordinary warehouses

A data center can resemble an industrial warehouse from the outside, but its public effects are different.

Hyperscale facilities can require extraordinary and continuous electrical loads. They may need new substations, transmission lines, water systems, roads, emergency-response capacity, and large banks of backup generators.

The permanent workforce can be modest compared with the project’s construction cost and physical footprint.

That makes several facts essential before approval:

• Maximum electrical demand

• Expected water consumption

• Source of the water

• Responsibility for grid and utility upgrades

• Effect on residential utility rates

• Number and type of permanent jobs

• Property and sales-tax exemptions

• Emergency-generation capacity and emissions

• Noise levels at neighboring properties

• Plans for expansion

• Decommissioning obligations

• Financial guarantees if the project is abandoned

These are not trade secrets. They are the basic terms residents need to evaluate whether a project benefits their community.

Officials may be negotiating with a company they cannot name

In Norwalk, Iowa, officials worked with an unidentified national technology developer on a proposed 300-acre data-center district known as “Project West.” Local officials had signed a nondisclosure agreement while working with the developer and utility providers.

The public was asked to consider creating an overlay district intended to streamline approvals for a project that could take years to develop.

Residents could evaluate the proposed zoning language. They could not initially evaluate the company seeking its benefit.

Similar patterns have appeared across the country. A 2026 review described developers using newly created or obscure corporate entities to acquire property and submit applications while the ultimate company remained hidden.

In Arkansas, entities named Willowbend Capital and Forgelight Ventures reportedly represented projects later connected to Google. In Wisconsin, local governments negotiated data-center developments involving limited liability companies before the technology companies behind them were publicly identified.

The shell company may be perfectly legal. The question is whether government should make consequential public decisions without disclosing who will receive the benefit.

Nondisclosure agreements can distort public service

A private landowner can decide whether to sign a confidentiality agreement.

A public official has a different obligation.

Government officials hold information on behalf of the public and operate under open-meetings and public-records laws. They should not contract away transparency merely because secrecy is convenient to a prospective developer.

Some agreements reportedly require public entities to assert available records exemptions when responding to information requests. Others restrict elected officials from discussing a proposal while legislative or land-use decisions move forward.

That places officials in an impossible position. They are expected to represent residents while being contractually restricted from telling residents what they know.

It also damages public trust.

When officials finally announce a project, they may believe they are presenting an economic opportunity. Residents may see a decision that has already been made.

Microsoft’s reversal proves secrecy is a choice

In March 2026, Microsoft announced that it would stop using nondisclosure agreements with local governments for data-center development and work to terminate existing agreements.

The company acknowledged that it had used NDAs to protect commercial information and address security concerns during early project development. It then reached a more important conclusion: transparency with affected communities was more important.

Microsoft will continue protecting legitimate trade secrets and using confidentiality in private land transactions. It will no longer treat broad secrecy agreements with governments as the default.

That distinction matters.

Protecting a private negotiation is not the same as concealing a public commitment. A company can protect server-security specifications without hiding how much electricity it wants, whether residents will subsidize infrastructure, or how much tax revenue the community will forgo.

If one of the world’s largest data-center operators can abandon local-government NDAs, other developers can do the same.

Some governments are beginning to push back

Cuyahoga County, Ohio, released a Data Center Development Guide in June 2026 to help municipalities evaluate proposals before committing public resources.

County Executive Chris Ronayne warned that poorly structured projects can consume local power, water, and tax capacity without producing adequate jobs or revenue.

The guide encourages communities to investigate energy use, infrastructure costs, environmental effects, employment, and long-term public benefits. It also warns local officials against signing nondisclosure agreements, relying solely on developer-generated projections, or accepting verbal assurances about significant impacts.

That approach reverses the usual power relationship.

Instead of competing to offer the fastest approval and largest incentive, a local government defines its requirements before a developer arrives.

It decides what information must be public, what costs the developer must bear, and which promises must become enforceable obligations.

That is economic development conducted as public administration—not salesmanship.

Secrecy can produce worse deals

Officials sometimes argue that confidentiality is necessary to compete with other communities.

That argument assumes landing the project is the goal.

It is not.

The goal is securing a project whose public benefits exceed its public costs.

Competition can pressure local governments to accept the developer’s assumptions, shorten review periods, conceal negotiations, and offer incentives without independent analysis. Officials may fear that asking difficult questions will cause the company to choose another location.

But a project that cannot withstand public scrutiny may not be a project worth winning.

Secrecy can prevent residents, independent engineers, utility experts, environmental specialists, and financial analysts from identifying weaknesses before an agreement becomes difficult to reverse.

It can also protect exaggerated claims.

A developer may emphasize total investment and construction employment while saying less about permanent jobs, equipment-tax exemptions, transmission costs, water infrastructure, or the project’s effect on other customers.

The bigger the promised investment, the more scrutiny—not less—the public agreement deserves.

What should be public before a vote?

Before a governing body approves zoning, incentives, public financing, annexation, utility service, or a development agreement for a major data center, residents should receive:

1. The identity of the developer, landowner, operator, and parent company.

2. All corporate entities involved in acquiring land or requesting approvals.

3. The anticipated electrical demand at each phase of development.

4. Estimated daily and peak water use.

5. Every proposed tax exemption, rebate, credit, or public subsidy.

6. The expected number of construction and permanent jobs.

7. All publicly funded infrastructure obligations.

8. The method used to prevent costs from shifting to other utility customers.

9. Noise, air-emission, and emergency-generation studies.

10. Draft development, utility, and community-benefit agreements.

11. Independent fiscal and environmental analyses.

12. The identities of lobbyists, consultants, and law firms representing the project.

13. Any nondisclosure agreement signed by the government or its representatives.

14. A record of campaign contributions and gifts involving relevant officials, where required by law.

15. Sufficient time for public review before the final vote.

Documents should be published in a searchable format. Material redactions should identify the legal basis for withholding information.

“This is confidential” is not an adequate explanation.

Public hearings should occur before commitment

A legally compliant public hearing is not necessarily meaningful public participation.

If officials have already spent months advancing a project, negotiated key terms, directed staff resources, and publicly celebrated the investment, the final hearing may function as procedural closure rather than deliberation.

Meaningful participation begins before the government becomes committed to an outcome.

Residents should have an opportunity to shape:

• The location

• Project scale

• Water and energy limits

• Required setbacks

• Noise standards

• Tax terms

• Infrastructure responsibilities

• Monitoring and enforcement

• Community benefits

• Expansion conditions

Public participation does not mean every project must be rejected. It means approval must be informed and legitimate.

AI infrastructure needs public legitimacy

The country will build more data centers. Artificial intelligence, cloud computing, financial systems, hospitals, government agencies, and ordinary digital services depend on them.

The choice is not between technology and no technology.

The choice is between infrastructure developed with communities and infrastructure imposed on them through secrecy, urgency, and institutional momentum.

Local officials are not real-estate brokers for multinational corporations. They are fiduciaries for the public.

Their responsibility is not to land every deal. It is to ask whether the community can support the project, whether the promised benefits are real, whether the costs are fairly allocated, and whether residents had a genuine opportunity to influence the decision.

A company may need to protect a trade secret.

A government should never treat the public interest as one.

Sources: Microsoft’s decision to end local-government NDAs, Cuyahoga County’s Data Center Development Guide announcement, reporting on shell companies and secrecy in data-center land deals, and analysis of confidential data-center agreements.

As Burr Ridge officials and residents considered the future of the former CNH Industrial property, the Village’s planning consultant repeatedly sought environmental reports for the 110-acre site.

CNH declined to provide them.

Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that representatives of Houseal Lavigne, the firm hired to lead Burr Ridge’s comprehensive-plan update, asked CNH for its Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments in March and April 2026.

Those reports can identify recognized environmental conditions and determine whether additional investigation or remediation may be necessary before property is redeveloped.

In an April 22 email, CNH Vice President Jason Omerza said the company had decided not to distribute the reports.

“We have decided not to distribute those reports,” Omerza wrote. He said the reports contained “nothing concerning” and that the property was suitable for light industrial and research-and-development uses.

But Omerza also tied the decision to public reaction.

“The tone of resident feedback from the open house makes us think it may not be in our best interest to share the information widely,” he wrote.

That explanation raises an obvious question: If the reports contain nothing concerning, why should residents’ opinions determine whether the Village’s planning consultant can review them?

The consultant asked more than once

On March 18, Houseal Lavigne principal Cory Lavigne asked CNH for the Phase II assessment and records concerning past operations, underground storage tanks and environmental remediation.

The request followed a meeting with Burr Ridge Mayor Gary Grasso and Village Administrator Evan Walter.

Lavigne followed up on April 21, asking for the complete Phase I and Phase II reports. He explained that questions about possible remediation had emerged during the public planning process.

CNH refused the following day.

The matter apparently remained unresolved. On June 10, Mayor Grasso wrote that he wanted to “renew my request” for the reports.

The correspondence does not establish that the CNH property is contaminated or unsafe. Environmental assessments are routine parts of major real-estate transactions, particularly for land with a long history of industrial use.

But the records do establish something significant: the consultants helping Burr Ridge determine the property’s future sought environmental information, and the owner withheld it partly because of public reaction.

A property with a long industrial history

The CNH property at 6900 Veterans Boulevard has been used for machinery and diesel-engine research, development and testing since approximately 1959, according to CNH.

Its history is closely connected to Burr Ridge itself. The community was originally incorporated as the Village of Harvester after International Harvester established operations in the area.

CNH later announced that it would relocate and sell the property, prompting years of redevelopment proposals and public debate.

Bridge Industrial initially considered a project containing a Costco, gas station, corporate offices and light-industrial space. A later proposal combined townhomes, industrial buildings and a new Burr Ridge Public Works facility.

By September 2024, the housing had been removed and Bridge was proposing seven industrial buildings, open space and the Village-owned facility. After public hearings, revisions and repeated continuances, Bridge formally withdrew its zoning petition in August 2025. The Village’s official CNH redevelopment timeline documents that process.

Burr Ridge subsequently hired Houseal Lavigne and began developing a CNH subarea master plan. The Village held a public visioning workshop in February 2026, an open house in April and Plan Commission proceedings beginning in June. The process is summarized on the Village’s Comprehensive Plan Update page.

Another environmental review involved Village property

The records also show that environmental due diligence extended beyond CNH’s privately owned land.

In September 2024, Tetra Tech arranged a Phase I environmental site assessment of the Burr Ridge Public Works property at 451 Commerce Street. The work was being performed for Midwest RE Acquisitions, an entity associated with Bridge Industrial.

A subsequent email described the assessment as part of environmental due diligence for the proposed CNH redevelopment, whose boundaries would have included the Public Works property.

That creates additional unanswered questions:

• What did the assessment of the Public Works property find?

• Did the Village receive a complete copy?

• Were any environmental conditions identified?

• What protections would taxpayers have received if Village land became part of a private redevelopment?

• Would the Village have assumed any remediation or long-term environmental costs?

“Nothing concerning” is not the same as disclosure

CNH may be correct that its environmental reports contain no alarming findings. Nothing in the released correspondence proves otherwise.

But an assurance from a property owner is not a substitute for allowing qualified planners and environmental professionals to examine the underlying documents.

Residents were being asked to evaluate competing visions for one of the largest development sites in Burr Ridge. Village officials were weighing housing, commercial uses, industrial buildings, public facilities, traffic, open space and potentially substantial public expenditures.

Environmental conditions could affect every one of those decisions—including which uses are appropriate, what construction may cost and who could ultimately be responsible for remediation.

Public skepticism should increase the need for verifiable information. It should not become a reason to withhold it.

The complete correspondence and the Village’s response to the public-records request are available through the MuckRock request file.

Questions to Ask

1. Has CNH subsequently provided its complete Phase I and Phase II reports to Burr Ridge or Houseal Lavigne?

2. What environmental conditions, if any, were identified in those reports?

3. Did the Village receive the Phase I assessment conducted on its Public Works property?

4. Has the Village independently evaluated environmental conditions across the proposed redevelopment area?

5. Will environmental reports be released before Burr Ridge approves a master plan or future redevelopment proposal?

How we made this: CityNewsWire reviewed public records obtained through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act and compared them with Burr Ridge’s published redevelopment and comprehensive-planning timelines. The records do not establish that contamination exists; they document requests for environmental reports and CNH’s decision not to provide them.

Concerned about the effects of hyperscale data centers on their small community, they organized, drafted a proposed ordinance, collected signatures, and asked for a public vote.

The Johnson County Election Office confirmed that the petition had enough valid signatures.

The Edgerton City Council could have adopted the proposed ordinance or submitted it to voters. Instead, the city sued two residents and the civic organization behind the petition.

The lawsuit was paid for by taxpayers—including the taxpayers being sued.

On September 3, Johnson County District Court Judge Stephanie Goodenow dismissed the city’s action. According to reporting by the Johnson County Post, the judge determined that the lawsuit violated the defendants’ rights under the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act, the state’s anti-SLAPP law.

That law protects people from litigation intended to deter or punish participation in public affairs.

The ruling raises a question that reaches far beyond one Kansas town:

Should residents need to hire lawyers to exercise their right to petition their own government?

The petition

Edgerton is a small city southwest of Kansas City with approximately 1,700 residents. It has been considering a major data-center project involving DAMAC Digital, part of a Dubai-based company developing large-scale digital infrastructure.

Residents Kimberly Twente and Carrie Schmidt became prominent voices questioning the proposal. Along with the Public Trust Collective, they circulated a petition seeking an ordinance prohibiting certain “high-impact” data centers.

The proposed definition covered facilities exceeding either 10 megawatts of peak electrical demand or 100,000 gallons of water use per day.

The petition collected 208 signatures. The Johnson County Election Office certified that it met the statutory signature requirement.

Under Kansas law, a city receiving a valid citizen petition generally must either adopt the proposed ordinance or submit it to voters. The Edgerton City Council declined to do either.

The council voted 3–1 to take the matter to court.

The city’s position

Edgerton maintains that it was not trying to silence residents.

City Attorney Todd Luckman said the government sought a declaratory judgment because Kansas law allows voters to initiate legislative ordinances but not administrative measures. The city believed the proposed data-center restriction involved administrative zoning decisions and might therefore be ineligible for the petition process.

The city also argued that the ordinance could expose Edgerton to legal and financial liability, including claims from property owners or developers.

According to the city, Twente, Schmidt, and the Public Trust Collective were named because they organized the petition and had a direct interest in the court’s decision. The city said it was not seeking damages or attorney fees from them.

That is an important distinction. This was not a lawsuit demanding millions of dollars from individual residents.

But it was still a lawsuit.

The city named residents as defendants, asked a judge to suspend the election timeline, and sought an order preventing the proposed ordinance from reaching voters while the case proceeded.

The residents had to defend themselves in court.

A restraining order against an election

Language matters in government, but consequences matter more.

Edgerton described its case as a request for judicial clarification. Its court filing went further than asking a judge an abstract legal question.

The city requested a temporary restraining order and injunction preventing the petition from being submitted to voters. It argued that allowing the election process to continue could cause the city irreparable harm.

The city’s lawyers contended that the proposed ordinance contained inaccurate factual claims, interfered with established zoning procedures, and could not be amended or repealed by the council for ten years if voters adopted it.

Those concerns may have justified requesting a legal opinion. They do not automatically justify forcing individual residents to defend their political participation.

The Kansas Public Speech Protection Act exists to prevent litigation from becoming a weapon against public involvement. These cases are commonly known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs.

A lawsuit does not need to end in a massive damages award to discourage public participation. The cost, uncertainty, time, and stress of being named as a defendant can be enough.

The message to other residents is difficult to miss: challenge a major development, and you may need a lawyer.

Taxpayers paid both ways

Government litigation is not funded by an abstract institution called “the city.”

Residents fund it.

Edgerton taxpayers paid the public officials and attorneys who initiated the lawsuit. The residents named as defendants then faced the burden of securing their own legal representation.

If the court orders the city to pay the defendants’ attorney fees under the Kansas anti-SLAPP law, taxpayers could also bear the cost of the residents’ defense.

The public therefore deserves a complete accounting:

• How much did Edgerton spend bringing the case?

• Who recommended naming residents as defendants?

• Were less confrontational legal options considered?

• Did the city’s insurance carrier participate?

• Could the defendants recover attorney fees from the city?

• Did the data-center developer contribute to or reimburse any legal, consulting, or public-engagement expenses?

• What private communications occurred between city officials, attorneys, utilities, and the developer?

• What financial or infrastructure commitments had been discussed before the public petition was filed?

These are not anti-development questions. They are basic questions about the use of public authority and public money.

The court did not decide whether data centers are good or bad

The ruling should not be mischaracterized as a judicial rejection of data centers.

Data centers can provide construction activity, tax revenue, investment, and specialized employment. They also can require immense electrical capacity, substantial water resources, new transmission infrastructure, backup generators, and public incentives.

Communities are entitled to weigh those benefits and costs.

The court’s dismissal concerned the residents’ right to participate in that decision without being subjected to unlawful litigation. It did not resolve every legal question surrounding the petition, and separate proceedings may still determine whether the proposed ordinance reaches the ballot.

The underlying data-center debate continues.

The democratic principle should be easier to resolve.

Residents do not surrender their rights because a proposed project is large, technically complicated, or economically attractive.

Development agreements often advance before the public sees them

Data-center projects frequently arrive under code names accompanied by claims of urgency and confidentiality.

Before residents learn the developer’s identity or the project’s full scale, officials may already be discussing land acquisition, utility capacity, tax incentives, road improvements, water access, annexation, and development agreements.

By the time a formal public hearing occurs, government staff and elected officials may have spent months advancing the project.

Legally, the final decision may remain open. Practically, substantial institutional momentum has already developed.

Citizen petitions interrupt that momentum. They move the decision outside the ordinary administrative process and place it directly before voters.

That may be inconvenient for officials and developers. Inconvenience is not a defect in democracy.

Public participation cannot exist only when government welcomes it

Local governments routinely encourage residents to attend meetings, volunteer for committees, complete surveys, and provide feedback.

Those invitations ring hollow if officials become hostile when residents organize effectively enough to influence an outcome.

Public participation is not limited to three minutes at a microphone after a project has been negotiated. It includes organizing, petitioning, criticizing, requesting records, challenging official claims, and asking voters to decide.

Government does not get to define civic engagement as participation that leaves its preferred policy undisturbed.

Edgerton says it wanted a court to clarify uncertain law. The court concluded that the method the city selected violated protections for public speech and participation.

That should prompt more than an evaluation of the city’s next legal option.

It should prompt an evaluation of its judgment.

What every local government should learn

When officials question the legal validity of a citizen petition, they should choose the narrowest and least intimidating method available to obtain an answer.

Before suing residents, a governing body should publicly establish:

1. Why litigation is necessary.

2. What alternatives were considered.

3. Why individual residents must be named.

4. How much the litigation could cost.

5. Whether residents may recover their legal expenses.

6. Whether any private developer will benefit from the action.

7. What protections will prevent the lawsuit from chilling future public participation.

The governing body should vote in public after residents have a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Officials should also consider the simplest democratic solution: let the people vote.

A public vote does not guarantee that opponents of a project will prevail. It guarantees that residents—not government attorneys, private developers, or procedural maneuvering—will make the decision.

The chilling effect is the point

Kimberly Twente described the city’s lawsuit as aggressive and intended to silence opposition. Edgerton disputes that characterization.

Intent matters, but effect matters too.

When a city sues petition organizers, other residents notice. Some will decide that speaking up is not worth the risk. They may not know whether the government wants damages. They know only that ordinary citizens were pulled into court after challenging a powerful project.

That is the chilling effect anti-SLAPP laws are designed to prevent.

Local government should be the level of government closest to the people. It should not become the level of government most capable of intimidating them.

Data centers may be essential to the country’s technological future. Democratic consent is essential to its civic future.

A community can debate power demand, water consumption, jobs, taxes, noise, land use, and economic development.

Residents should not have to defend their right to hold that debate.

Editor’s note: The court ruling dismissed Edgerton’s action against the residents under the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act. Separate litigation and election deadlines may affect whether the proposed ordinance ultimately appears before voters. CityNewsWire will update this story as additional court records become available.

Sources: Johnson County Post report on the dismissal, City of Edgerton’s explanation of its legal action, statement from the Edgerton city attorney, the city’s motion for a restraining order and injunction, and the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act.

A firefighter’s death, a rejected municipal defense, and the staggering cost of treating safety procedures as paperwork

A Whiteside County judge has upheld a jury’s finding that the City of Rock Falls and two former fire chiefs were responsible for the death of Sterling Fire Lt. Garrett Ramos.

The original $31.5 million award was reduced to $28.5 million after Circuit Court Judge James Heuerman removed $3 million that he concluded duplicated other damages. But the central verdict remains intact: the jury had sufficient evidence to find that failures by Rock Falls fire leadership contributed to Ramos’s death.

The case is not finished. Ramos’s widow, Brittney Ramos, must decide whether to accept the reduced award, and attorneys for Rock Falls have indicated that the city intends to appeal.

That procedural uncertainty should not obscure the larger lesson.

This case is about more than one verdict, one fire department, or one Illinois city. It demonstrates what can happen when written safety procedures do not become operational habits—and when a public organization responds to documented failure primarily as a legal threat rather than an urgent demand for institutional change.

Thirty minutes that changed everything

Ramos, 38, was part of a Sterling Fire Department mutual-aid crew responding to a house fire in Rock Falls on December 3, 2021.

While working inside the house, he fell through a compromised floor into an undiscovered basement. He transmitted two mayday calls.

Fire commanders did not know who had called, where the firefighter was, or what had happened. Another firefighter was initially identified as missing. When that firefighter was located, the mayday response ended without confirming that every firefighter operating inside the structure had been identified and accounted for.

Approximately 30 minutes passed before crews realized Ramos was missing and began searching for him. Investigators determined that he survived for roughly 17 minutes after falling into the basement. He was eventually found out of air and unresponsive.

He died from asphyxiation.

The Illinois Fire Service Institute records Ramos’s death as Sterling Fire Department’s first line-of-duty fatality. He was posthumously promoted to captain and left behind his wife and two daughters.

This was not simply an unpredictable tragedy

Firefighting is inherently dangerous. Municipal liability does not arise every time a public employee is injured while doing hazardous work.

The distinction in the Ramos case is the evidence of preventable operational failures.

An Illinois OSHA investigation identified a series of breakdowns involving incident command, accountability, communication, rescue operations, and mutual-aid coordination. Investigators found that commanders had not determined that the house had a basement before sending firefighters inside. The mayday caller was not conclusively identified. The personnel-accountability process incorrectly indicated that everyone was accounted for. Once Ramos was found, rescuers did not immediately provide him with emergency breathing air.

Illinois OSHA’s subsequent lessons include requirements that incident commanders:

• Check for a basement during the initial size-up.

• Communicate basement conditions to personnel.

• maintain accurate records of firefighters entering hazardous areas.

• Account for every individual and their location.

• Identify and locate a mayday caller before ending the mayday response.

• Reassess whether an interior attack remains justified after a collapse, mayday, or other major event.

The agency also emphasized something that extends far beyond fire service operations: command personnel must speak up when something is wrong and verify that critical tasks have been completed rather than assuming someone else handled them.

These are management principles written in the language of life safety.

Why the city’s defenses failed

Following the jury verdict, Rock Falls and former chiefs Cris Bouwens and Ken Wolf asked the court to overturn the result.

Among their arguments, the defendants asserted that Ramos was effectively a “loaned employee” of Rock Falls during the mutual-aid response and that workers’ compensation law therefore shielded the city from liability. They also invoked statutory immunity for discretionary decisions made by public officials.

Judge Heuerman ruled that the defendants had forfeited key arguments by failing to put them before the jury during the trial.

The court also rejected the claim that the evidence could not support a finding of willful and wanton conduct. That legal standard requires more than an ordinary error or momentary lapse. It concerns conduct demonstrating an utter indifference to—or conscious disregard for—the safety of others.

The judge concluded that the properly instructed jury had heard the evidence and was entitled to find that the standard had been met.

The ruling does not mean every command mistake creates municipal liability. It means that a public body cannot necessarily characterize a chain of documented safety failures as protected professional judgment, particularly after a jury finds that the conduct went well beyond simple negligence.

The questions Rock Falls still needs to answer

The court proceedings will determine the city’s ultimate legal and financial responsibility. The public-accountability questions are broader:

1. What insurance coverage applies to the judgment, and what portion could ultimately fall on taxpayers?

2. How much has the city already spent on outside counsel, experts, depositions, and trial preparation?

3. Have Rock Falls and its mutual-aid partners adopted unified mayday, accountability, basement-fire, and incident-command procedures?

4. How often have the departments trained together under those procedures?

5. Were all of Illinois OSHA’s findings incorporated into written policy, practical exercises, and command evaluations?

6. Who verified that the corrective measures were implemented?

7. Have elected officials received—and discussed publicly—a complete corrective-action report?

A $28.5 million verdict is consequential. A public body’s responsibility, however, does not begin when a jury returns a verdict. It begins when officials first learn that a system intended to protect employees has failed.

A policy is not protection unless people follow it

Municipal organizations generate policies, manuals, checklists, corrective-action plans, and training records. Those documents matter, but their existence alone proves very little.

The real questions are whether employees understand the procedures, whether supervisors enforce them, whether teams practice them under realistic conditions, and whether anyone verifies compliance.

That applies to emergency operations, public works, police departments, utilities, vehicle fleets, cybersecurity, procurement, and financial controls.

After a serious failure, responsible governance requires more than updating a binder. Officials should establish specific corrective actions, assign each action to a named person, set deadlines, document completion, test whether the changes work, and report the results publicly whenever legally possible.

Most importantly, employees must be allowed—and expected—to speak up.

One of the starkest conclusions arising from the Ramos investigation was that people with responsibility for firefighter safety failed to assert themselves and verify that the missing firefighter had been identified.

A culture that discourages questions can defeat even a technically adequate policy.

Accountability is not hostility toward public employees

Examining this case closely is not an attack on firefighters, commanders, or municipal government.

It is the opposite.

Public employees deserve systems that protect them. Residents deserve to know that warnings produce change. Taxpayers deserve officials who treat risk management as a governing responsibility rather than a courtroom strategy.

And Garrett Ramos’s family deserves more than years of litigation over whether anyone will accept responsibility for failures already documented by investigators and presented to a jury.

The pending appeal may change the legal outcome. It cannot change the central public-management lesson:

When lives depend on a procedure, “we thought someone else had handled it” is not an acceptable system.

Editor’s note: This article discusses a trial-court ruling that may be appealed. Allegations and legal findings should be understood within that ongoing procedural context.

Sources: Shaw Local/Daily Gazette reporting republished by Firehouse, Illinois OSHA Ridge Incident summary, and the Illinois Fire Service Institute memorial record.

It’s become almost normal to judge members of Congress by their press releases — not their legislation. Scan the average congressional “press room” today and you’ll find statements criticizing Cabinet secretaries, statements denouncing foreign leaders, statements expressing outrage about decisions made in agencies, statements calling for resignations, and statements demanding someone else fix something.

What you don’t see much of are bills drafted, negotiations led, hearings chaired, amendments sharpened, regulatory gaps closed, or coalitions built to actually solve the problems those statements describe.

Take a recent example. In January, Rep. Brad Schneider (IL-10) issued statements calling for the removal of the DHS Secretary, condemning ICE actions, and expressing horror at policy failures. Scroll backwards and the pattern holds: statements on foreign leaders, statements on violence abroad, statements on the Epstein files, statements on vaccine scheduling. Nearly all addressed important issues. Nearly none represented actual legislative work that would close loopholes, improve agency oversight, or produce the accountability those statements insist is urgently needed.

This isn’t about Schneider individually. It’s bipartisan and deeply structural. We have a Congress incentivized to broadcast feelings rather than exercise power or do actual work. The incentives are terrible but rational: it takes minutes to issue a statement and it earns instant media pickup. It takes months to negotiate legislation and it rarely earns anything. We’ve built a political economy where outrage is rewarded and outputs are ignored.

The problem is that statements don’t govern. Legislation does. Federal agencies don’t change behavior because a congressman is sad, shocked, disturbed, disappointed, or “calls for removal.” They change when Congress writes law, restructures authority, or conditions appropriations.

If a DHS shooting reveals leadership failure, then Congress should use its enormous oversight and statutory authority to:

• Clarify rules of force

• Redesign reporting requirements

• Condition appropriations on reforms

• Create independent review mechanisms

• Fix organizational charts and training gaps

• Close statutory loopholes that let failures repeat

That’s the work. That’s what Congress exists to do. It is wildly underutilized.

We need a Congress that spends less time reacting and more time governing. Less performance, more architecture. Fewer statements, more statutes. The public doesn’t elect representatives to be commentators. We elect them to exercise the power only they have: to legislate, investigate, appropriate, and oversee the federal government.

If members want to criticize Cabinet secretaries, foreign leaders, or agencies, fine. But the criticism should be attached to an actual bill, amendment, subpoena, or oversight action, not just a quote.

America does not lack for statements. America lacks for Congressmen doing actual work.

The latest delinquency report from the Illinois Comptroller’s Office confirms what taxpayers already suspected—local governments across the state are following Springfield’s lead, and the worst offenders are exactly who you’d expect. The 200-page document reveals that 983 local government units are breaking state law by refusing to submit their required financial reports to the Comptroller. This isn’t a new crisis; it’s a chronic disease that has been allowed to fester for decades, thriving in Illinois’ most troubled, high-crime, and corruption-plagued communities.

The Hall of Shame: Where Secrecy and Corruption Go Hand in Hand

The delinquency list reads like a greatest hits compilation of Illinois dysfunction. The communities with the longest records of financial secrecy share the same characteristics: sky-high crime rates, crushing tax burdens, and a revolving door of convicted public officials. The pattern is undeniable—where transparency dies, corruption thrives.

These aren’t isolated cases of administrative oversight. This is deliberate concealment. While these governments may post a budget on their website or hold a sparsely attended public hearing, they systematically refuse to file their financial reports with the state Comptroller. This shields them from oversight and prevents the state from certifying their solvency.

The TIF Shell Game: Billions Disappear Into the Void

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts are supposed to be engines of economic development, redirecting property tax revenue from schools and parks to fund infrastructure and business growth. They are also supposed to be transparent. Illinois law mandates that every TIF district hold an annual Joint Review Board (JRB) meeting within 180 days of the end of the municipal fiscal year. The JRB—composed of representatives from all the taxing bodies whose revenue is being diverted—exists to provide oversight on behalf of taxpayers.

But the JRB can only review what is reported. The Comptroller’s report reveals 617 missing TIF reports across Illinois, including chronic offenders like the Village of Dixmoor, the City of Harvey, and the City of Waukegan. When a municipality fails to file its TIF report with the state Comptroller, it’s not just skipping paperwork—it’s circumventing the entire oversight process. If they are not filing the annual report, they are probably not having the meetings either.

Those diverted tax dollars can become a slush fund. In the Village of Dixmoor, which hasn’t filed approved TIF reports in over 20 years, the lack of transparency is staggering.

The State’s Toothless Threat: The ‘Do Not Pay’ List

The Illinois Comptroller maintains a “Local Government Delinquency—Do Not Pay List” for government units that fail to file required reports. The Comptroller has statutory authority to withhold state funds from delinquent entities—a powerful enforcement mechanism that could force immediate compliance.

Being placed on this list and having state funds withheld would cripple a municipality’s ability to function. It is a powerful enforcement tool that could bring even the most defiant local government to heel within days.

And yet, for decades, this list has been more suggestion than threat. The Village of Washington Park has ignored the law for 26 consecutive years with virtually no consequence. The Village of Dixmoor has hidden its TIF spending for over two decades. The state has enforcement mechanisms available but has chosen not to use them aggressively. This inaction makes Springfield complicit in the secrecy and the resulting corruption.

Not Just the Usual Suspects: Even Wealthy Communities Are Hiding

This isn’t just a problem in struggling, high-crime communities. Even some of Illinois’ wealthiest suburbs are on the delinquency list. The Village of Deerfield, an affluent North Shore community with a median household income over $150,000, has failed to file TIF reports for its Downtown Village Center district for both 2023 and 2024. The Wilmette Public Library District, serving one of the most educated and prosperous communities in the state, is delinquent on its 2025 Annual Report.

If even wealthy communities with professional staff and ample resources can’t be bothered to file their reports on time, the problem isn’t just capacity or resources—it’s a systemic disregard for transparency that has infected governments at every income level.

Lake County’s Dysfunction Triangle: A Case Study in Serial Non-Compliance

Perhaps nowhere is the delinquency crisis more concentrated than in Lake County, where three cities—Zion, Waukegan, and North Chicago—have turned non-compliance into an art form. Together, these three cities represent over 100,000 residents who have no state-verified financial transparency from their local governments.

City of Zion is a chronic violator with 25 delinquent reports, making it the 8th worst offender in the entire state. The city has failed to file Annual Reports for five consecutive years (2021-2025) and has missing TIF reports across four separate districts.

City of Waukegan, one of the largest municipalities on the delinquency list, is missing its 2025 Annual Report and TIF reports for four major districts, including its North Lakefront, Downtown Lakefront, South Lakefront, and McGaw Business Center TIFs. The city also has unresolved Fountain Square TIF reports dating back to 2021.

City of North Chicago is perhaps the most troubling case—a textbook example of systemic dysfunction. In 2019, the city’s firefighters’ pension fund was so underfunded that it triggered the state’s pension intercept law. Meanwhile, North Chicago School District 187 was once placed under state financial oversight due to its own fiscal crisis. Now the city is back on the delinquency list, missing its 2025 Annual Report and TIF reports for three districts for both 2024 and 2025.

But it gets worse. Even the Foss Park District, which serves North Chicago, is delinquent on its 2025 Annual Report. Every single unit of government in North Chicago—the city, the school district, and the park district—has either been under state intervention, has triggered the pension intercept law, and/or is hiding its financial records from taxpayers.

When Dysfunction Goes Viral: The Contagion of Fiscal Collapse

North Chicago isn’t alone in this systemic collapse. The pattern repeats across Illinois: when one unit of government operates without accountability, it sets the tone for all the others. Transparency failures spread like a disease.

The City of Harvey has three delinquent units—the city itself, Harvey Public Library District, and Harvey Park District—all while having its sales tax intercepted for pension payments. The City of East St. Louis has the city, East St. Louis Park District, and East St. Louis Township all on the delinquency list, and also had its tax revenues seized for pensions. In Cahokia/Cahokia Heights, the city, village, and public library district are all delinquent. Even the Village of Dolton, already notorious for fiscal mismanagement, has both the village and Dolton Park District failing to file.

When one layer of local government abandons accountability, taxpayers are left completely in the dark about how their money is being spent across every level of public service.

The Pension Intercept Hall of Shame

Under Illinois’ pension intercept law, enacted in 2016, pension boards can demand that the Comptroller intercept a municipality’s sales tax and other state-shared revenues if the city fails to make required pension contributions. It’s a nuclear option—a sign that a city’s finances have collapsed so completely that the state must step in to protect retirees.

The City of Harvey was the first major case in 2017, with its police pension fund winning a $7 million judgment and forcing the Comptroller to withhold the city’s state tax revenues. The City of East St. Louis followed in 2019, facing interception for $2.2 million in pension debt. Both cities are also on the Comptroller’s delinquency list for failing to file financial reports.

The pattern is unmistakable: cities that can’t manage their pension obligations also can’t be bothered to file their financial reports. Fiscal dysfunction and transparency failures go hand in hand.

A Culture of Negligence: From the Statehouse Down

The State of Illinois’ own two-year-late audit set the tone. When Springfield ignores its statutory deadlines, it tells every local government that deadlines no longer matter. That example has normalized negligence.

The issue is no longer isolated or clerical—it’s cultural. Whether it’s the City of Harvey and Village of Dolton in the south suburbs, the Village of Bensenville in DuPage County, or the City of Waukegan and City of Zion on the lakefront, Illinois governments have fallen into the same pattern: missing filings, ignoring deadlines, and eroding the public’s ability to track how taxpayer money is used.

Transparency failures at this scale don’t happen by accident. They signal a collapse of fiduciary oversight where boards and administrators stop fearing accountability because no one enforces it.

Fiduciary Duty: The Forgotten Promise

Elected officials and administrators hold a fiduciary duty to manage public funds honestly, prudently, and transparently. Delinquent reporting violates that trust as surely as misuse of funds. When governments fail to file, the Comptroller cannot certify solvency, auditors cannot detect waste, and residents cannot know how their money is spent.

Late reports don’t merely reflect disorganization—they obscure accountability. And in communities like the Village of Washington Park, Village of Dixmoor, and City of Cahokia Heights, where crime is rampant and public services are failing, the refusal to show the books suggests something far worse than incompetence. It suggests a deliberate effort to hide waste, fraud, and corruption from public view.

The Way Forward

Illinois faces a choice. The Comptroller can continue treating the Do Not Pay list as an empty threat, allowing 983 units of government to operate in the shadows. Or the state can enforce the law it already has on the books, cutting off state funds to delinquent governments until they comply.

The Village of Washington Park has been hiding its finances for 26 years. The Village of Dixmoor for 12 years. Lake County’s dysfunction triangle continues to operate without accountability. These aren’t administrative delays—they’re deliberate violations of public trust.

Public money demands public accountability. In Illinois, that basic principle has been arriving past deadline for decades. It’s time to stop waiting and start enforcing. The law already exists. The only question is whether Springfield has the will to use it.

References

[1] Illinois Office of the Comptroller. (2026, January 15). Local Government Division - Delinquent Units.
[2] U.S. Department of Justice. (2014, March 14). Former Washington Park Street Superintendant Sentenced to Prison for Forging Village Check.
[3] BestPlaces. (n.d.). Crime in Dixmoor, Illinois.
[4] Chicago Tribune. (2020, January 17). Dixmoor mayor may face removal from office over alleged $64,000 in overcompensation.
[5] NeighborhoodScout. (n.d.). Cahokia, IL Crime Rates.
[6] St. Louis American. (2021, October 17). New city, same betrayal of public trust.
[7] City NewsWire. (2026). Illinois Local Governments Following State’s Lead on Delinquent Filings.
[8] Illinois Policy Institute. (2021, September 27). Illinois’ rising property taxes driven by $75 billion local pension debt.
[9] Illinois Policy Institute. (2025, October 27). Harvey needs a way out of its crippling pension debt.
[10] Illinois Policy Institute. (2019, September 19). East St. Louis faces interception of state funds for $2.2M pension debt.

At the heart of this issue is the Illinois Way Forward Act, signed into law by Governor J.B. Pritzker in 2021 . This legislation significantly strengthened the pre-existing Illinois TRUST Act, effectively barring state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. In practice, this means that when a non-citizen is arrested for a crime such as shoplifting, police are prohibited from honoring an ICE detainer—a federal request to hold the individual for potential deportation proceedings. Consequently, after being processed for the local crime, the individual is released back into the public, regardless of their immigration status.

This stands in stark contrast to the experience of an American citizen arrested for the same offense. While Illinois has also eliminated cash bail under the SAFE-T Act, citizens are still subject to the full judicial process, which can include pretrial detention if a judge deems them a flight risk or a threat to the community . The core of the controversy lies in this divergence: one group is granted a de facto

release from federal immigration consequences, while the other navigates the state’s justice system without such protections.

The Public Safety Fallout: A Look at the Numbers

The consequences of this policy have been stark, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The December 2025 report states that since January 2025, Illinois jurisdictions have released 1,768 criminal illegal aliens with active ICE detainers back into communities . The crimes these individuals were charged with or convicted of are not minor. They include:

The DHS report further highlights that as of its publication, there were 4,015 aliens with active ICE detainers still in the custody of Illinois jurisdictions for a shocking array of alleged crimes, including 51 homicides and 813 sexual predatory offenses . Federal officials have expressed outrage, with Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stating, “Governor Pritzker and his fellow Illinois sanctuary politicians are releasing murderers, pedophiles, and kidnappers back into our neighborhoods and putting American lives at risk” .

The Staggering Cost to Illinois Taxpayers

Beyond the significant public safety concerns, the financial implications for Illinois taxpayers are staggering. Data compiled by Illinois State Representative Tom Weber reveals that from July 2022 to the proposed 2025 fiscal year, the cost of providing services to undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers is estimated to be $2.84 billion . This figure, which does not even include education and other local service costs, is broken down as follows:

Illinois is one of only five states in the nation to provide Medicare-like benefits to undocumented immigrants at taxpayer expense. While hardworking Illinois families pay insurance premiums and co-pays for their own healthcare, non-citizens are receiving these services largely for free. This has led many to question the state’s priorities, arguing that these billions could be used to fund essential programs for citizens, including seniors and the state’s most vulnerable residents.

A Tale of Two Systems

The situation in Illinois presents a clear and troubling picture. On one hand, American citizens arrested for shoplifting face a justice system that can include detention and a permanent criminal record. On the other, non-citizens arrested for the same crime—and in many cases, far more serious ones—are shielded from federal immigration enforcement and released back into the public, with taxpayers footing a multi-billion-dollar bill for their healthcare and support services.

This is not a matter of being for or against immigration. It is a matter of fairness, public safety, and fiscal responsibility. When state laws create a system where citizens are treated more harshly than non-citizens who have committed crimes, and when taxpayers are forced to subsidize this disparity, it erodes trust in government and the rule of law. The people of Illinois deserve a system that prioritizes the safety and well-being of its legal residents, not one that creates a protected class of offenders at the taxpayer’s expense.

References

[1] Illinois General Assembly. (2021). Public Act 102-0234.

[2] Illinois Legal Aid Online. (2023 ). Cash bail changes - 2023 SAFE-T Act.

[3] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2025, December 8 ). Governor Pritzker’s Sanctuary Illinois Released More than 1,700 Criminal Illegal Aliens Including Murderers, Pedophiles, and Kidnappers.

[4] Weber, T. (2024, April 9 ). The Growing Costs of Sanctuary State Policies on Illinois Taxpayers.

It’s the kind of story that barely raises eyebrows in Illinois anymore. And that’s exactly the problem.

The Scheme That Unraveled

The plot was almost mundane in its simplicity. In 2017, Kosmowski and Summit building inspector William Mundy allegedly accepted cash from Kris Hodurek, owner of the Fire Station Pub. The goal: facilitate transferring the pub’s liquor license to a relative, which would unlock the real prize: video gambling machines, a lucrative addition in Illinois’ booming gaming landscape since legalization in 2009.

Here’s where it gets interesting: neither Kosmowski nor Mundy actually had authority over liquor licenses. But prosecutors argued they had something more valuable, influence. They pressured the mayor to approve the transfer, collected the bribe, and split it between them.

The scheme might have stayed buried in the gray area where “helping constituents” meets corruption. But federal investigators don’t do gray areas.

The Sting

William Mundy cracked first, pleading guilty and turning state’s witness. During the seven-day trial in Chicago, he detailed how Kosmowski tried to cover their tracks. When undercover recordings captured their conversations in 2022, the former chief coached Mundy to reframe the bribe as a “loan.”

It didn’t work.

Kosmowski now faces sentencing on March 27, 2026, with significant prison time looming. One more conviction in a state that’s made them routine.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Let’s zoom out for a moment. Since the 1970s, Illinois has convicted roughly 1,500 public officials on corruption charges. That’s an average of one per week for four decades. Not one per year. One per week.

The hall of shame reads like a greatest hits album nobody wants to hear:

Rod Blagojevich: Former governor, imprisoned for trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacated U.S. Senate seat. His infamous wiretapped quote became shorthand for Illinois corruption.

Michael Madigan: The state’s longest-serving House Speaker, convicted in February 2025 on bribery, conspiracy, and wire fraud charges involving a racketeering scheme with utility companies. Madigan wielded power in Illinois politics for decades. His fall was seismic.

Operation Greylord: The 1980s FBI sting that exposed wholesale judicial bribery in Cook County, resulting in over 90 convictions of judges, lawyers, and court personnel.

Chicago’s Aldermanic “Dishonor Roll”: Dozens of city council members convicted over the years for everything from zoning kickbacks to ghost payroll schemes.

When Police Chiefs Break Bad

Perhaps most troubling is when the corruption comes from those sworn to protect us. Police chiefs are the people we call when we need help. They’re supposed to be the ethical backbone of their communities, the ones who enforce the law rather than break it. Yet Illinois has a particularly grim record of police chiefs betraying that trust:

Michael Newsome (North Chicago): The former police chief was accused of stealing more than $200,000 from the city’s drug asset forfeiture fund between 2007 and 2012. Prosecutors alleged he used the seized money for personal expenses including car payments, his children’s education, and home remodeling. The case dragged through the courts for years with multiple indictments, dismissals, and reinstatements.

Emil Schullo (Cicero): The former police chief was convicted in 2002 in two separate corruption schemes involving reputed mob boss Michael Spano Sr. and then-town president Betty Loren-Maltese. Schullo helped loot the town coffers of millions through a mobbed-up insurance firm that siphoned money through overbilling and outright theft. He also took kickbacks for steering a $75,000 town contract to a mob-connected private investigator. Schullo was sentenced to more than nine years in federal prison.

Mario DePasquale (McCook): The former police chief was sentenced in 2024 to 27 months in prison for conspiring with then-Mayor Jeff Tobolski to extort business owners. DePasquale, wearing his gun and badge in his police office, demanded monthly payments from struggling business owners, threatening that “it would not be good” for their companies if they didn’t pay. He collected approximately $85,000 in bribes over five years. The federal judge called the corruption scheme “breathtaking” and noted that “the idea of a police chief extorting money from local businesses” should not happen “in this country in the 21st century.”

Derrick Muhammad and Derrick Moore (Harvey): Two Harvey police officers were charged in 2019 with obstruction of justice and conspiracy after allegedly falsifying a police report to protect convicted felons from firearm charges. Muhammad was later indicted separately in 2022 for running a separate extortion scheme from 2011 to 2019, demanding cash, cars, and other benefits from towing companies in exchange for city contracts.

Antoine Larry and Jarrett Snowden (Phoenix, Illinois): The patrol officer and sergeant were indicted in 2023 for a criminal conspiracy from 2020 to 2022 in which they stole cash, drugs, and other items from vehicle occupants during traffic stops. They offered to reduce or withhold criminal charges in exchange for the stolen property, and in some instances agreed to sell stolen drugs to a dealer and split the proceeds.

When a police chief falls, it doesn’t just expose individual corruption. It corrodes the entire foundation of public trust. These are the people who are supposed to set the ethical tone for their departments, who residents call in emergencies, who speak at community meetings about safety and accountability. Their betrayal cuts deeper because the role itself demands integrity as its most basic qualification.

The pattern isn’t subtle.

Why Illinois?

Political scientists and historians point to a “culture of corruption” rooted in the state’s patronage-heavy political machine. Power concentrates in the hands of a few, creating fertile ground for abuse.

Take Chicago’s aldermanic prerogative system, where council members hold near-absolute control over local zoning and permits in their wards. It’s a system designed for “helping the neighborhood” that too often becomes a tollbooth for doing business.

Video gambling licenses (the hook in Kosmowski’s case) represent exactly the kind of regulatory gray area where corruption thrives. When approval processes involve multiple stakeholders and discretionary decisions, influence becomes currency. And currency can be bought.

But Here’s the Thing

Not every official succumbs. Many serve honorably amid these pressures, navigating a system that makes ethical choices harder than they should be. The existence of corruption doesn’t mean everyone’s corrupt, a distinction worth making in an era when cynicism comes easy.

Illinois has also made genuine attempts at reform: ethics training post-Blagojevich, increased transparency laws, and aggressive federal prosecution through the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Illinois. These efforts matter. They catch bad actors like Kosmowski.

The question is whether they’re enough.

The Bigger Picture

Cases like Kosmowski’s aren’t really about one person’s greed. They’re diagnostic tools, revealing where systems are vulnerable. A $10,000 bribe in Summit might seem small compared to Madigan’s schemes, but the underlying dynamics are the same: discretionary authority + economic incentives + inadequate oversight = opportunity for corruption.

What could actually help?

Stronger ethics training that goes beyond checkbox compliance to create cultures of accountability.

Independent oversight that doesn’t rely on political appointees investigating their benefactors.

Campaign finance reforms that reduce the influence of money in local politics.

Structural changes to systems like aldermanic prerogative that concentrate too much power in too few hands.

Whistleblower protections that encourage people like Mundy to come forward earlier, before schemes metastasize.

None of these are silver bullets. But together, they could shift the calculus that makes bribery seem worth the risk.

Vigilance, Not Cynicism

The Kosmowski verdict is one more data point in a long spreadsheet. But data points are people: in this case, a police chief who thought he could get away with it, a building inspector who flipped when the heat came, and a bar owner who apparently believed $10,000 could buy what regulations wouldn’t allow.

Illinois’ history is checkered. That’s not in dispute. But history isn’t destiny. Every conviction is both an indictment of past failures and proof that accountability is possible. The work of good governance isn’t sexy, it’s the daily grind of oversight, transparency, and ethical choice-making when nobody’s watching.

Or at least, when you think nobody’s watching.

The feds in Illinois have proven they usually are.

Sources:

• U.S. Department of Justice

• FOX 32 Chicago

• Patch.com

• Chicago Sun-Times

• Illinois Policy Institute

• PBS NewsHour

• NPR

• FBI - Operation Greylord

• Chicago Tribune - The Dishonor Roll

• University of Chicago Harris School

• Murder and attempted murder

• Aggravated criminal sexual assault

• Predatory criminal sexual assault of a child

• Kidnapping and child abduction

• Armed robbery and serious weapons offenses

ICE says another 4,015 criminal aliens with active detainers are still being held in Illinois prisons and jails, among them individuals linked to 51 homicides and more than 800 sexual or predatory crimes against children.

Acting ICE Field Office Director Todd Lyons didn’t hold back: “Illinois, under Governor Pritzker, continues to release violent criminal aliens back into our neighborhoods instead of honoring federal detainers. These are not minor offenders—these are murderers, child rapists, and kidnappers. Governor Pritzker’s refusal to cooperate with ICE is putting Illinois families in danger.”

The timing couldn’t be worse for Pritzker. Just hours after ICE dropped these numbers, the governor signed a new law further restricting federal immigration enforcement—banning civil immigration arrests near courthouses, hospitals, schools, and daycares, and even allowing Illinois residents to sue ICE agents who violate the new rules. Critics are calling it the most aggressive anti-ICE measure in the country, signed on the very same day federal officials accused Pritzker of shielding over 1,700 dangerous criminals from deportation.

Pritzker’s office has pushed back, insisting Illinois cooperates when public safety demands it. But with sanctuary policies that date back to the 2017 Trust Act (which Pritzker has proudly defended and expanded), local jails are legally prohibited from honoring most ICE detainers unless the individual has a serious felony conviction—and even then, cooperation is spotty. The result? Murderers, rapists, and child predators walking free in Illinois communities while ICE is forced to try tracking them down later—if they can find them at all.

As Governor Pritzker heads into another election cycle with national ambitions, this growing list of released criminal aliens is quickly becoming the defining public-safety scandal of his administration. Illinois families deserve to know: How many more violent offenders will Governor JB Pritzker release before he finally puts cooperation with federal law enforcement ahead of sanctuary politics?

Sources

• ICE Chicago Field Office statement & data release, Dec 7–8, 2025

• Fox News: “ICE warns Illinois releasing violent criminal illegal aliens despite detainers” (Dec 7, 2025)

• KOMO News/Sinclair Broadcast Group (Dec 8, 2025)

• Washington Post: “Pritzker signs law limiting immigration enforcement in Illinois” (Dec 9, 2025)

• Official statement from Illinois Governor JB Pritzker’s office on new immigration restrictions (Dec 9, 2025)

• $5.2 billion in unemployment benefits looted during the pandemic, much of it through fake and deceased (“ghost”) claimants.

• $1.6 billion blown on a migrant healthcare program that auditors say was riddled with ineligible enrollees and outright fraud.

Critics — including state auditors, Republican lawmakers, and a growing chorus of fed-up residents — now point to a common thread: Pritzker’s aggressive sanctuary policies that deliberately limit identity and immigration-status verification across state agencies. Those same critics warn the governor is about to double down by signing Senate Bill 516, a new law that would further prohibit state workers from asking about immigration status when handing out benefits.

The $5.2 Billion Unemployment Theft That Was Never Seriously Pursued

A 2023 performance audit by the non-partisan Illinois Auditor General found that IDES paid out $5.2 billion in improper or fraudulent unemployment claims from 2020–2022. Of that total, $2.7 billion was outright fraud — including millions paid to dead people, prisoners, and organized identity-theft rings operating from Nigeria, Russia, and China.The audit explicitly criticized the Pritzker administration for delaying basic anti-fraud tools (such as ID.me identity verification) for more than a year while rushing checks out the door. By the time safeguards were finally added, the money was long gone.As of December 2025, only about $1 billion has been clawed back — mostly through automatic tax-refund intercepts — and fewer than 200 cases have been referred for prosecution. Large-scale fraud rings have faced virtually no consequences.

The $1.6 Billion Migrant Healthcare Program That “Exploded” Out of Control

In 2020, Governor Pritzker launched state-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants. What started as a modest pilot ballooned into a $1.6 billion liability.A scathing February 2025 compliance audit revealed:

• The adult program cost $485 million in a single year — 282% above projections.

• More than 6,000 “undocumented” enrollees somehow possessed Social Security numbers, meaning they should never have been billed to the state program.

• Hundreds of people under 65 were enrolled in the seniors-only plan.

• Long-term residents eligible for federal Medicaid were allowed to double-dip at Illinois taxpayer expense.

Rather than launch fraud investigations, the Pritzker administration simply canceled the adult program in July 2025 and kept the seniors’ coverage running at $110 million a year.

Sanctuary Policies: The Missing Verification Link

Critics argue the common denominator in both scandals is Illinois’ sanctuary framework, which since 2021 has barred state agencies from sharing immigration data with federal authorities and discourages status inquiries for most public benefits. Auditors and GOP lawmakers say that when you combine “don’t ask about immigration status” with pandemic-era “pay first, verify never” rules, you create a perfect environment for ghost claims and organized theft. Now, with Senate Bill 516 awaiting the governor’s signature, Illinois is poised to go further — explicitly prohibiting state employees from asking about immigration status when administering benefits and expanding free interpreter services in court. Opponents call it a green light for the next multibillion-dollar scandal.

A Governor Facing Few Consequences

Despite presiding over two of the costliest fraud episodes in Illinois history, Governor Pritzker has faced no criminal referrals, no special prosecutor, and no legislative impeachment push. Attorney General Kwame Raoul — a major recipient of Pritzker-family political donations — has prosecuted almost none of the unemployment fraud cases referred to his office.

With the 2026 election cycle already underway, critics say the sanctuary expansion is less about compassion and more about cementing a political base while the bill for the last round of unchecked spending lands on Illinois families and businesses.

Sources

1. Illinois Auditor General – Performance Audit of IDES Unemployment Insurance Overpayments (July 2023)
   https://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Performance-Special-Multi/Performance-Audits/2023_Releases/23-IDES-UI-Overpayments-Perf-Full.pdf

2. Illinois Auditor General – Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults and Seniors Programs (February 2025)
   https://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Compliance-Audits/2025_Releases/25-HFS-Immigrant-Health-Care-Comp-Full.pdf

3. Capitol News Illinois – Audit finds Illinois immigrant health care program cost nearly $1B more than estimated (Feb 20, 2025)
   https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/audit-finds-illinois-immigrant-health-care-program-cost-nearly-1b-more-than-estimated/

4. Illinois General Assembly – Senate Bill 516 (passed Nov 2025, awaiting signature)
   https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=516&GAID=17&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=112

5. Wirepoints – Pritzker ends healthcare for noncitizen adults after program explodes to $1.1 billion (July 2025)
   https://wirepoints.org/pritzker-ends-healthcare-for-noncitizen-adults-after-program-explodes-to-1-1-billion-wirepoints/

6. Chicago Tribune – Illinois paid $5.2 billion in fraudulent or improper unemployment benefits during pandemic (July 26, 2023)
   https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-illinois-unemployment-fraud-audit-20230726-story.html