Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Real Estate’ Category

Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 2)

Posted in AI, Audio Recordings, Data Center, Ethics, FOIA, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Use, Minutes, OMA, OP/Ed, Open Meetings Act, Plan Commission, Politics, Privacy, Property Taxes, Public Safety, Real Estate, Simple Minds, Topics Of Interest, Transparency, Village Board, Village Code, Village Director of Administration, Village Government, Village President, Zoning Board on March 5, 2026| Leave a Comment »

On January 16th, 2026, more than a month after the surprise guest visitor appeared at the December Board Meeting, our Village announced a “Special” Plan Commission Meeting scheduled for February 2nd to, “Welcome Resident Input For the Consideration of a Possible Data Center Development.” That announcement was posted to both the Village Facebook Page and Website.

On January 26th the regular meeting of the Barrington Hills Board of Trustees took place. Minutes posted from that meeting include the following:

“Attorney Sean Conway thanked everyone for coming, and touched upon various points, including:

  • The Board originally scheduled the Plan Commission Special Meeting only as an informational meeting for the public.
  • The data center developer informed the Village that they are not interested in presenting or pursuing it at this time. Thus, the Plan Commission Special Meeting was cancelled.
  • No plans of any kind were submitted to the Village.

PUBLIC COMMENT

  • Mary Ellen Peterson regarding the data center
  • Aaron Becker regarding spot rezoning
  • Tony Bojiorno regarding the data center
  • Chris Yamamoto regarding land stewardship and the data center
  • Ron Barlow regarding data centers relative to horses
  • Karen Trzaska regarding the data center
  • Caitlyn Sieg regarding the data center
  • Representative Martin McLaughlin regarding the data center

President Cecola reiterated that to be transparent to the residents, the special meeting was scheduled (But NOT posted on his agenda) for informational purposes only. He shared there is a possibility this project might deannex from the Village. The Board has the Village’s best interests and continues to support residential 5-acre zoning, green space, and protecting its borders, providing the Penny Road Pub annexation as an example.

Trustee Hoffmann acknowledged Rep. Mclaughlin’s comment, highlighting the importance of the agenda are reflecting exactly what the Board will be discussing to ensure transparency and trust with the residents.

Trustee McClary agreed with Trustee Hoffmann’s comment, adding her concern if the data center does deannex, the Village may face negative impacts and not be in a position for mitigation.

Trustee Ekstrom concurred with Trustee Hoffmann’s comment and shared her concerns about the property disconnecting, touching upon noise mitigation, water recirculation, regulations and strategy to protect the land.”

We will share the transcript of all comments, but it is very important for people to read the comments made by the most experienced person in the room that evening regarding the, “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”:

“Good evening everybody. Uh, Martin McLaughlin… former President of Barrington Hills, currently State Representative in the 52nd District, where I serve 12 villages, up from 4,000 people to about 120,000.

I was called by a ton of residents regarding this issue, and I want to thank all the trustees for volunteers. I know these are all highly paid positions… just for the audience, you don’t get any money working in these positions, but you get a lot of this, which is trying to look down the road and protect what’s best for the village.

I have worked with some of these people professionally, the attorney, the administrator, the clerk, and I often said that their job is to put a 5-rail fence up so that the trustees know what they can and cannot do. You cannot have a presentation from an outside group with questions and answers in advance of a planning and zone commission.

How do I know this? Because former Village Attorney Pat Bond stopped us from doing exactly the same thing when someone wanted to come and develop Penny Road Pub into a retail center. We had a developer come with presentations, and we stopped them based on the attorney’s recommendation, and the village administrator. I was actually shocked to find out that that occurred prior to a planned committee meeting.

What I want to say about it is this, the history of this Village is we are constantly under attack for our zoning laws. This is not the first time this has happened. It will not be the last. But you need to be aware of this: A year ago and 2 months, East Dundee changed their zoning for the adjacent property to M1, M2 manufacturing industrial, manufacturing industrial light. That means that somebody a year and 2 months ago in East Dundee was aware that they were hoping that they could grab the adjacent land in Barrington Hills.

Here’s how this works for everyone in the audience. The 2-mile or 1.5-mile doesn’t exist, unless you have an intergovernmental agreement with East Dundee. Barrington Hills does not have an intergovernmental agreement for development with East Dundee. The reason? Our former President, before I was here, sued them so often, and they were so angry that they would never enter into an agreement with us. I would recommend that the Board do that immediately. I will do everything I can in my power to sit down with East Dundee to get a development agreement.

Further, I want to give a little history of the Village. The Iatarola property at 59 and 72 was disconnected prior to my time as Village President, and someday it’ll be high rises and retail center. Kennedy, Bill Kennedy, a developer in Carpentersville, had 300 acres a number of years ago. The village said, we’re not interested in doing feathered development. I call it the F word of Barrington Hills. They disconnected, and instead they put quarter-acre and eighth-acre homes there. My point is, you guys have an opportunity to work with your neighbors.

You have an opportunity to get out ahead of this. And the administration, the administrator and the attorney have an obligation to make sure that they keep these trustees out of trouble and make sure they do the right thing. And if that includes being rude to a developer that shows up here to speak beyond 3 minutes at this podium, I strongly urge that the professionals in this room do that.

Because I’ve been in that seat and I’ve often said, I’m not a professional politician. I manage a pension fund for a reason. So those of you that are paid to keep these guys out of trouble, please do your job next time. Don’t allow that to ever happen again. And please, Village President, communicate with me because I need to know what’s happening when I reach out to you. He did, he gave me communication, but I need details so I don’t have to come here and find out.

I appreciate all the work that you guys do. Thank you.”

A transcript of the proceedings from the January 26th Board Meeting, including all public comments described in the January Board of Trustees Minutes, voted on and approved by the Board, can be found here. The audio recording from the meeting can be found here.

Editorial note: We found the comments of Trustees Hoffman and Ekstrom, who each stated that they were unaware that the Data Center pitch and guest speaker would be addressing the Board at the December 15th Board Meeting, particularly interesting. McClary, in her agreement with Hoffman, appears to had been similarly left in the dark.

Related: “Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 1),” “7 things to know about Illinois data centers,” “Data Center group concerned over pause,” “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”

Read Full Post »

Do you trust our Board of Trustees? We don’t. But you decide for yourself once we have finished. (Part 1)

Posted in AI, Audio Recordings, Data Center, Ethics, FOIA, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Disconnection, Land Use, Minutes, OMA, OP/Ed, Open Meetings Act, Plan Commission, Politics, Privacy, Property Taxes, Public Safety, Real Estate, Simple Minds, Topics Of Interest, Transparency, Village Board, Village Code, Village Director of Administration, Village Government, Village President, Zoning Board on March 4, 2026| 2 Comments »

Village of Barrington Hills board members (l-r) JC Clarke, Laura AB Ekstrom, Brian Cecola, Marsha McClary, David Riff and Jessica Hoffmann. Not pictured: Thomas Strauss.

On December 22, 2025, the Observer posted an article: “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board.” If you’ve not read the post, please do so before proceeding.

There are some points we should have included but didn’t because of our desire to post before the holiday. Those added points include:

  • Anyone, whether a Village resident or not, is allowed to make Public Comment at the beginning of Board meetings. The Board rules have limited these Public Comments to three (3) minutes (see December 15, 2025, Agenda & Notice of Meeting: “Be advised that public comment at the meeting is limited to three (3) minutes per person…”). There were no public comments that evening.
  • The twenty (20) minute “110 Acre AI data center” pitch was made following Agenda Item 6.1, Planning, 29 minutes into the meeting and well after Public Comment concluded. As such, no procedural rule limited the guest speaker’s time.
  • The “110 Acre AI data center” pitch was not identified anywhere on the December 15th In fact, just prior to the guest speaker’s introduction by President Cecola as a guest who “we invited to come speak,” the Planning Committee Chair reported that the Plan Commission had not met and she had nothing to report. (The Zoning Committee Chair similarly reported that the Zoning Board had not met and she had nothing to report.)

The Minutes from the December 15th meeting, which were approved and voted on unanimously by the Board at the January 26th meeting,  summarize the twenty (20) minute “110 Acre AI data center” pitch” as follows:

We have no doubt a significant amount of extra time, expense effort was devoted to this since the Observer provided residents a heads up in its article 110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board, and, before the December minutes were approved, the Village posted what follows on its Facebook Page and Website on January 16th:

“Special Plan Commission Meeting to Welcome Resident Input

For the Consideration of a Possible Data Center Development

A data center developer has approached the Village regarding a large property within the Village, at the edge of its southwest boundary (see figures A & B). As an informational step, the developer provided a brief overview presentation to the Board of Trustees at its December 15, 2025, meeting. The PDF of the presentation may be viewed by following this link: Data Center Overview

During the presentation, the developer stated that, if a data center were ultimately built, the Village would experience a significant financial impact, including increased annual utility tax revenue in the millions for the Village and a reduction in residents’ property tax contributions. The developer estimated that the site’s property tax could increase from approximately $3,000 annually to as much as $20 million annually after reaching full operation. These figures were presented by the developer and have not been independently reviewed or verified by the Village.

A data center is not a use contemplated in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Trustees believes that any consideration of such a proposal should begin with a public information session and meaningful input from its residents.

Importantly, no decisions have been made, and the Village is not endorsing or approving a data center development. At this time, the Village is seeking resident input. As a preliminary and exploratory step, the Board has asked the developer to make a public presentation at a Special Meeting of the Plan Commission.

Residents are encouraged to attend the presentation at a Special Meeting of the Plan Commission:

Monday, February 2, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.
Countryside Elementary School
205 W. County Line Road
Barrington Hills, IL 60010

Questions or comments before or after the meeting may be submitted to datacenter@vbhil.gov.

The primary purpose of this meeting is to allow the developer to present its concept and potential benefits, and to give residents and the Plan Commission an opportunity to share their initial thoughts, questions, and concerns regarding whether the Village should consider this type of development.

Following the presentation, the Commission and members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments and ask questions. It is expected that many questions will require additional review and follow-up. Any responses would be provided at a future meeting or through other forms of communication.

If, after the presentation and public input, it is determined that the Village is willing to consider the proposal, the Village would then work to define a transparent process that will include additional opportunities for public engagement. The structure and scope of any such process have not yet been determined. The developer has committed to covering the costs associated with the review process, including the Village’s use of outside consultants, facilities, or experts, as such reviews may occur.”

The Village Website doesn’t allow for comments, but their Facebook post was commented on 56 times and shared 44 times.

With all of this unexpectedly hitting the fan for the most part in less than a month, one might assume many residents would appear at the January 26, 2026, Board of Trustees meeting. Well, they did.

In our next post we’ll share what those residents had to say.

Related: “7 things to know about Illinois data centers,” “Data Center group concerned over pause,” “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”

Read Full Post »

7 things to know about Illinois data centers

Posted in AI, Ethics, Hoffman Estates, Illinois Policy Institute, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Disconnection, Land Use, Politics, Privacy, Property Taxes, Public Safety, Real Estate, Taxes, Topics Of Interest, Transparency on March 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »

The state’s data center boom is reshaping energy, water use and taxes. Here’s what residents should know about the costs, jobs and incentives involved.

By Brennan Park | Illinois Policy Institute

Data centers are expanding across Illinois amid the tech industry’s rising demand for cloud computing. Supporters say the facilities bring investment and jobs, while critics worry about rising energy costs, environmental effects and tax incentives.

Illinois lawmakers are considering passing more stringent regulations on the growth and operation of data centers, with bills recently introduced in the House and Senate. These bills would require “hyperscale” data centers to expand renewable energy and “strengthen equity, transparency, and labor standards in clean energy initiatives,” among other new rules.

Here’s what every Illinoisan should know about the data center boom and tradeoffs the state makes to be a part of it.

1: Illinois is already a major data center hub, with the growth accelerating

Illinois boasts the fourth-highest number of data centers in the country, at 244 sites. That’s because the state provides much of what data center developers need: energy, environment and space.

These facilities need large amounts of reliable, clean electricity. They also require a cool, stable climate and ready access to water to prevent overheating. Illinois’ weather, rivers and proximity to Lake Michigan provide those conditions.

Flat land and industrial sites also make it easier and cheaper to build large-scale facilities. Illinois has a lot of both.

Most of the current development is concentrated in Chicago and its suburbs, with new projects from companies such as STACK Infrastructure, Prime Data Centers and Prologis.

Aurora is home to Prologis Project Steel, with 24 completed data center buildings, and Project Cardinal, with 14. Southern and central Illinois are also proving attractive. CyrusOne is slated to host a 600-megawatt data center campus in Springfield, one of the largest proposed in the state.

Article continues here.

Related: “110 Acre AI data center campus pitched to Village Board”

Read Full Post »

McLaughlin’s press conference video recording regarding Pritzker’s proposed municipal zoning powers grab posted

Posted in BACOG, Commodius Maximus, Elections, FUBAR, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Land Use, Lennie, Plan Commission, Politics, Pritzker’s Rules of Order, Privacy, Public Safety, Real Estate, South Barrington, Springfield, Taxes, Topics Of Interest, Transparency, Village Code, Zoning Board on February 27, 2026| 1 Comment »

Screenshot via Facebook

“Rep. McLaughlin Hosts Press Conference with Northwest Suburban Mayors – February 26, 2026

Thank you to Mayors, Paula McCombie, Debby Sosine, Eleanor Sweet McDonnell, Dominick DiMaggio, Brian Cecola, and Richard Hayes”

The roughly sixteen minute recording can be found here.

Related: “‘It’s just a bad idea’: Suburban officials oppose Pritzker’s plan to reduce local control over residential zoning”

 

Read Full Post »

‘It’s just a bad idea’: Suburban officials oppose Pritzker’s plan to reduce local control over residential zoning

Posted in BACOG, Commodius Maximus, Daily Herald, Dinky, Land Use, Lennie, Plan Commission, Politics, Press Release, Pritzker’s Rules of Order, Property Taxes, Real Estate, South Barrington, Springfield, Zoning Board on February 26, 2026| 1 Comment »

Republican state Rep. Martin McLaughlin of Barrington Hills spoke out against Gov. JB Pritzker’s plan to reduce local control of residential zoning rules Thursday during a news conference in South Barrington. Flanking him are Algonquin Village President Debby Sosine, left, and South Barrington Mayor Paula McCombie. | Brian Hill/bhill@dailyherald.com

By Russell Lissau | Daily herald

Saying it will increase public safety and infrastructure costs and change the aesthetics of their communities, leaders of several Northwest suburbs gathered Thursday to oppose Gov. JB Pritzker’s plan to reduce local officials’ ability to control residential construction.

The proposed changes, which Pritzker unveiled during his recent State of the State address, address minimum lot sizes, residential density rules, parking requirements, inspections and other aspects of residential construction. They could increase development of apartments, condominiums, two-flats and other types of multifamily housing.

They also could allow homeowners to build additional, free-standing residential buildings on lots designed for single-family homes. Pritzker dubbed the plan Building Up Illinois Developments, or BUILD.

During a news conference Thursday, South Barrington Mayor Paula McCombie urged legislators to reject Gov. JB Pritzker’s proposed zoning reforms. Republican state Rep. Martin McLaughlin listens. | Brian Hill/bhill@dailyherald.com

In a news conference at her community’s village hall, South Barrington Mayor Paula McCombie urged state legislators to reject the package of bills that comprise Pritzker’s plan, some of which already have been introduced. Zoning regulations exist to support property owners, McCombie said, and these proposed changes would “strip away that local control.”

The minimum residential lot in nearby Barrington Hills — an upscale community where many residents keep horses on their properties — is five acres, and the land is full of riding trails. Forcing the village board to allow smaller lots or multifamily housing “will destroy our town,” Village President Brian Cecola said (Wow! He actually showed up!).

Article continues here.

Related: “McLaughlin and Local Mayors to Discuss Pritzker’s Zoning Proposals Coming to Local Government Thursday”

Read Full Post »

McLaughlin and Local Mayors to Discuss Pritzker’s Zoning Proposals Coming to Local Government Thursday

Posted in Commodius Maximus, Dinky, Land Use, Lennie, Plan Commission, Politics, Press Release, Pritzker’s Rules of Order, Privacy, Property Taxes, Public Safety, Real Estate, South Barrington, Springfield, Taxes, Village Code, Village President, WTF, Zoning Board on February 25, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Who: State Representatives Martin McLaughlin (R-Barrington Hills), Mayors and Administration from communities of South Barrington, North Barrington, & Lake Barrington (Not Barrington Hills??).

What: This press conference will address Governor Pritzker’s recently proposed efforts to drastically change zoning authority at the municipal level. The Representative and Mayors will discuss how these proposals directly impact the ability of municipalities to govern and plan for your communities.

When: Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 2PM

Where: Village of South Barrington Village Hall | 30 Barrington Rd., South Barrington, IL 60010

With questions, please call Mark Revis at 815-557-0252

Related: “Pritzker to propose statewide zoning laws to spur homebuilding, limit local control”

Read Full Post »

New residential development floated for Barrington’s Golden Triangle

Posted in 220, Daily Herald, EJ&E/Canadian National, Property Taxes, Real Estate, School Districts on February 24, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Rendering of The Residences at Liberty Commons | Courtesy of the Barrington Development Co.

By Steve Zalusky | Daily Herald

Barrington’s Golden Triangle could be the site for another large residential development.

Michael Fleck and Nick Marrocco of the Barrington Development Co. unveiled the concept for The Residences at Liberty Commons before village trustees Monday night.

The proposal for the estimated $100 million project comes as another portion of Barrington’s Redevelopment Area #1, also known as the Golden Triangle, will undergo a facelift with a retail and residential project in the works by Joe Taylor III of Compasspoint Development.

Fleck and Marrocco, who founded Gateway Development Partners in 2012, have assembled eight parcels near the corner of Liberty and Hough streets.

The proposed site plan for The Residences at Liberty Commons | Courtesy of the Barrington Development Co.

“I really love this community. It’s wonderful. The schools are great, but I think there could be some more vibrancy to downtown,” Fleck said.

“We need to bring some density and multifamily to support the downtown area,” he said, emphasizing the transit-oriented nature of the project.

It is a half mile from the train station and within walking distance of downtown.

Article continues here.

Read Full Post »

Village Board of Trustees meets Monday

Posted in Aunt Blabby, Building Department, Dumb and Dumber, ePacket Agendas, Ethics, Finance Committee, Financial Reports, Insurance Committee, Intergovernmental agreements (IGA), Little Duck Butt, Minutes, Pension Funding, Plan Commission, Police Pension Board, Police Reports, Politics, Property Taxes, Public Hearing, Public Safety, Real Estate, Roads & Bridges Committee, Taxes, Unions, VBHPD, Village Attorney, Village Board, Village Clerk, Village Code, Village Director of Administration, Village Engineer, Village Government, Village President, Village Treasurer, Zoning Board on February 22, 2026| 1 Comment »

The Village Board of Trustees will be conducting their regular monthly meeting tomorrow evening, February 23rd, beginning at 6:30 PM. Topics on their agenda include:

PUBLIC HEARING

PUBLIC MEETING

A copy of their agenda can be viewed and downloaded here.

Read Full Post »

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VILLAGE OF BARRINGTON PLAN COMMISSION

Posted in Barrington High School, IDOT, Land Use, Property Taxes, Public Hearing, Real Estate, Transparency, What the Ficke (Bradford)? on December 29, 2025| 1 Comment »

DOCKET NUMBER: PC 25-07
SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS/DESCRIPTION: 616 W. Main Street, Barrington, IL 60010
PIN(s): 13-35-401-068, 13-35-401-069, 13-35-104-006, 13-35-104-001 AND 13-25-104-022
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOTS 26 AND 34 IN CHICAGO HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF SECTION 26, 27, 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 43 NORTH, RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 27, 1901 AS DOCUMENT 81144 IN LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY AND LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY AND NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF HART ROAD EXCEPT THAT PART OF LOTS 26 CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF LAKE PER DOCUMENT 7461083 RECORDED JANUARY 31, 2018;
TOGETHER WITH LOT 33 IN SAID CHICAGO HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION EXCEPT ALL THAT PART FALLING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND ALSO EXCEPT ALL THAT PART THEREOF FALLING NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY AND ALSO EXCEPT THAT PART DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO WITH: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 33 AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE FOR 302.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 531.0 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON ROD; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY FOR 265.1 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 33; HENCE NORTH 448.09 FEET TO THE POINT OFBEGINNING OF SAID EXCEPTION;
TOGETHER WITH LOT 42 IN SAID CHICAGO HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION EXCEPT ALL THAT PART FALLING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY;
TOGETHER WITH LOT 14 IN WALNUT GROVE SUBDIVISION BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PART OF LOT 2 IN THE COUNTY CLERK’S DIVISION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35 IN TOWNSHIP 43 NORTH, RANGE 9 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 14, 1924 AS DOCUMENT 244450, ALL IN LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
HEARING DATE: January 13, 2026
TIME: 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the Agenda permits.
LOCATION OF HEARING: Village Board Room, Village Hall Second Floor, 200 South Hough Street, Barrington, IL 60010
OWNER OF RECORD: Barrington School District 220, 616 W. Main Street, Barrington, IL 60010
APPLICANTS: Sarah Lager, 616 W. Main Street, Barrington, IL 60010 and Carrie Matlock, DLA Architects, Ltd., Two Pierce Place, Suite 1300, Itasca, IL 60143
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend the existing special use planned development previously granted pursuant to Ordinance Nos 98-2759, 99-2789, 01-2936, 08-3432, 12-3690, 18-4020, and 22-4184 in order to seek approval for several building and site modifications including two building additions, an outdoor classroom addition, renovations of the existing building, new monument and building signage, reconfiguration of the parking area in front of the main entrance, and other site improvements including landscaping. The Petitioner is also seeking approval of the revised layout for the potential future signalized entrance, subject to IDOT approval. The Petitioner is requesting exceptions from: ZO Table 9.12 Maximum Building Height; ZO Section 4.11-19.C Internal Parking Lot Landscaping; ZO Table 4.16-B-1 Permanent Freestanding Signs – General Requirements; ZO Table 4.16-B-4 Permanent Monument Signs – District Specific Requirements; ZO Table 4.16-D-1 Permanent Wall Signs General Requirements; as well as other such zoning permission relief as may be related to this application as discovered in the public hearing process on the subject property legally described above. The subject property is zoned P-L: Public Lands District and is located in Neighborhood 4. The 2021 Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property for Public/Institutional.
Copies of each of the applicable documents are on file and are available upon request. The Village of Barrington is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or the Village’s facilities, are requested to contact the Village Clerk’s Office at 200 S. Hough Street, Barrington, Illinois 60010 or call at (847) 304-3400 promptly to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons.

ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED TO BE HEARD.
Dan Hogan, Chairperson
PLAN COMMISSION
200 S. Hough Street, Barrington, Illinois 60010
Published in Daily Herald Dec. 29, 2025 (316852)

Read Full Post »

Build 220 Deserves the Same Transparency Taxpayers Are Being Asked to Fund

Posted in 220, Barrington Education Association, Barrington High School, Board of Education, Deception, District 220 referendum, Education, Ethics, Illinois Federation of Teachers, Letters to the Editor, Look For The Union Label, New Normal?, OP/Ed, Politics, Property Taxes, Real Estate, School Districts, SNAFU, South Barrington, Taxes, Topics Of Interest, Transparency, Unions, What the Ficke (Bradford)? on December 28, 2025| Leave a Comment »

To the Editor,

As Barrington 220 considers additional tax levies and future capital commitments, the community deserves a clear, accessible understanding of how recent voter-approved funds have actually been spent. Over the past several months, I have reviewed hundreds of pages of publicly available contracts, FOIA disclosures, construction work orders, and financial ledgers related to the Build 220 program. Several findings stand out and merit broader public awareness.

First, district records show that construction management overhead for Build 220 projects significantly exceeds common industry benchmarks. For K–12 CM-at-Risk projects, management overhead and fees typically fall in the 10–15% range. However, Barrington 220’s own Project Work Orders (PWOs) show overhead levels ranging from approximately 23% to as high as 28%, with some smaller project segments exceeding 30% (See: Build 220 — Construction vs. Overhead).

Key takeaway: On approximately $33 million of PWOs, overhead and soft costs account for an estimated $7–9 million. These percentages are nearly double typical industry norms and warrant closer public review

On just four major PWOs totaling roughly $33 million, this translates to an estimated $7–9 million spent on management reimbursables, contingency stacking, insurance loadings, fees, and pre-loaded allowances rather than direct construction labor or materials. A visual summary of this comparison is attached for readers.

Second, architectural and engineering fees have exceeded the district’s own contractual cap. The master agreement with the district’s architect set a limit of 7.4% of the construction budget, which equates to approximately $9.5 million based on the district’s budget reconciliation. Yet the district’s accounts receivable ledger shows approximately $11.7 million paid to date — an overage of more than $2.2 million (See: Build 220 — Architectural & Engineering Fees).

Drivers of the overage include: duplicated planning across firms, over-scoped civil engineering bundles later credited back, optional enhancements not included in referendum language, and avoidable redesigns

This increase appears tied to duplicated planning work across multiple firms, over-scoped civil engineering packages later reduced through credits, optional enhancements not included in referendum messaging, and avoidable redesign costs. At no point has the community been presented with a cumulative report showing how or why the 7.4% cap was exceeded.

Third, many costs that function like change orders were embedded directly into base contracts as lump-sum allowances — including webcams, temporary occupancy setups, traffic control, and other vaguely described “reimbursables.” Without a publicly released change-order ledger, taxpayers cannot easily determine which allowances were actually used, which were not, or how final project costs compare to what voters approved.

These findings do not allege wrongdoing. They do, however, raise legitimate questions about financial discipline, cost control, and transparency — especially when the district is asking the community to support additional levies.

Before requesting more taxpayer dollars, Barrington 220 should provide the public with:

  1. A complete Build 220 change-order ledger for each Project Work Order;
  2. A clear breakdown of construction dollars versus management and overhead costs;
  3. A reconciliation of architectural and engineering fees against the 7.4% contractual limit; and
  4. Plain-language summaries that allow residents to understand where their money actually went.

Barrington residents have consistently shown they are willing to invest in their schools. That willingness depends on trust, and trust depends on transparency. Clear financial reporting is not an obstacle to progress — it is the foundation of it.

Sincerely,

Sam Mehic
South Barrington

Related: “The Real Issue in Barrington 220 Isn’t Parking or Levies — It’s Leadership Culture”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »