Urbana keeps surveillance‑technology ordinance in committee after months of public comment

The City of Urbana Committee of the Whole continued discussion of a proposed ordinance establishing approval, policy and reporting requirements for policing surveillance technology and databases and voted to keep the item in committee for further work rather than adopting it at this meeting.

Public commenters urged the council to adopt strong limits on surveillance technology, with multiple speakers citing concerns about automatic license‑plate readers (ALPRs) and private companies that aggregate vehicle‑tracking data. “From the standpoint of civil rights and personal security, I think the ALPR surveillance network is a complete betrayal of the public trust,” Ron Kester, a local resident, told the committee, citing reported out‑of‑state searches of Illinois data and calling for an outright ban on ALPR systems unless safeguards and enforceable penalties are in place.

Sana Sabuwala, representing the Champaign Urbana Muslim Action Committee, said the community needs protections that align with Urbana’s sanctuary‑city values and urged the council to pass the ordinance. Brian Dolliner recounted local cases of alleged misuse of police databases and argued that existing law has not been sufficient to ensure accountability. The council clerk read several written comments into the record, including a letter from the ACLU of Champaign County urging passage (ordinance number 2024‑12‑042) and other resident emails supporting transparency and oversight.

Council discussion focused on definitions, scope and process. Several council members said Oak Park’s ordinance language could be a useful template for definitions and exclusions; others emphasized language they said is tailored to Urbana’s public‑input requirements. Concerns raised during debate included whether the code should apply only to the police department or to other city departments, what specific technologies would be covered, and how to structure oversight and reporting — including whether to route annual reports through the Civilian Police Review Board for review before council consideration.

A procedural motion to keep the ordinance in committee of the whole and to schedule it to appear no sooner than Sept. 29 (the council discussed interim discussion dates) passed by voice vote. The motion was moved by Council member Mary Alice and seconded by Council member James. Council direction included scheduling discussion/check‑in items on the Committee of the Whole agendas for Sept. 2 and Sept. 15 so staff can provide updates on current technologies in use and draft language changes. No final vote on the ordinance was held.

Speakers and written commenters repeatedly referenced Flock Safety (a private ALPR vendor), the Illinois secretary of state’s reported review of unauthorized searches of ALPR data, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as a point of comparison for judicial oversight, and federal Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections as constitutional guardrails commenters said the city should consider when writing policy. The city attorney and clerk cited logistical steps for drafting and for incorporating any final ordinance into the city code.

Council members and staff said they would continue work on definitions, scope, reporting timelines and whether oversight reports should be routed through the Civilian Police Review Board before returning the ordinance to council for action.