Barrington Hills residents press trustees for written answers after months-long data center talks

Residents at the Village of Barrington Hills’ Feb. 23 meeting accused the board of discussing a proposed data center with the developer months before residents learned about it and asked for a written response to a Jan. 27 procedural notice alleging Open Meetings Act and process irregularities.

"Trust, once broken, requires more than reassurances to rebuild," Julie Becker told the board, summarizing a sequence of public records that she said show conversations with Brennan Investment Group began in October, with a developer presentation to the board in December that was not listed on the agenda. Becker said the developer’s presentation and subsequent email exchanges undermine the board’s public assurances that no trustees supported the project.

Karen Traska read a timeline of messages and meetings she said showed staff and trustees were in contact with the developer as far back as Oct. 8, and that some trustees appeared to favor pursuing the proposal. "It seems like it was done in the dark," she said, adding that residents only learned the full timeline after FOIA requests.

Carson Rice asked when each trustee first learned about the proposal; President Brian Sikola and other trustees responded that the public-comment period is not a question-and-answer forum and directed residents to email trustees for individual responses. "We just don't engage in back and forth conversations," Sikola said when a resident asked for an on-the-spot answer.

Aaron Becker, who said he had sent a certified letter to the village president, administrator and attorney on Jan. 27, asked when the village would respond in writing and whether corrective steps to address the procedural concerns were being implemented. In his public comment he said the letter raised "Open Meetings Act risk and the need to preserve what's called a neutral and defensible record should the matter ever proceed to a formal land-use petition." He said he had not received a written response as of the meeting.

Trustees did not provide a written or on-the-record substantive reply during the meeting. The board encouraged residents to submit questions by email and indicated they would respond through those channels rather than during the public-comment period.

Next steps: residents requested a written response to the Jan. 27 notice and urged the board to clarify any off-record contacts with the developer. The transcript records the public comments and the request for a written response; the village’s written reply, if any, was "not specified" in the meeting record.