In the Zone: General Assembly Sends "People Over Parking Act" to the Governor

In the Zone: General Assembly Sends "People Over Parking Act" to the Governor

  Wednesday, November 05, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

During the recent veto session, the Illinois General Assembly passed a large mass transit bill (Senate Bill 2111) which, among other things, would create the "People Over Parking Act." If signed by the Governor, the Act would take effect on June 1, 2026, and restrict local authority to require minimum off-street automobile parking near public transit.

Prohibition on Minimum Off-Street Parking Near Transit

The fundamental effect of the Act is to prohibit local governments from setting requirements for mandatory off-street parking for automobiles in specific areas. With limited exceptions, a unit of local government may not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirements on a development project that is located within:

• one-half mile of a public transportation hub; or
• one-eighth mile of a public transportation corridor.

Definitions

“Minimum automobile parking requirements” means any law, code, or policy that requires a minimum number of off-street, private parking spaces for new residential and commercial developments. This would include the minimum off-street parking requirements that are common in many local zoning ordinances.

The Act defines “development project” broadly to include nearly any project undertaken for the purpose of development of land. “Development project” does not include a project where any portion is designated for use as a hotel or other specified types of transient lodging.

 A “public transportation hub” includes:

• a rail transit station,
• a boat or ferry terminal served by either a bus stop or rail transit station, and
• an intersection of two or more bus routes with a combined frequency of bus service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

A “public transportation corridor” means a street on which one or more bus routes have a combined frequency of bus service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The Act does not define “morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”

This means the Act could affect Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) stations, Metra stations, Amtrak stations, and certain CTA or Pace bus routes providing frequent bus service.

Impact on Local Authority (Preemption of Home Rule Authority)

The Act applies to home rule and non-home rule units of local government.

Reserved Powers and Exceptions for Local Governments

While minimum automobile parking requirements would be generally prohibited near transit under this Act, local governments would retain the authority to regulate other aspects of parking and development, including:

1. Maximum Parking: A unit of local government is not prevented from enacting or enforcing local laws that establish a maximum parking requirement.
2. On-Street Parking: The Act does not prevent a unit of local government from regulating access to on-street parking.
3. Bicycle Parking: The Act does not restrict a unit of local government from enacting or enforcing local laws that establish a minimum parking requirement for bicycles, including electric-assisted bicycles.
4. Regulation of Voluntarily Provided Parking: If a developer chooses to provide off-street automobile parking voluntarily, the local government may require parking spaces to be:

• made available for car-share vehicles;
• shared with the public; or
• made available only for a fee (a local government may not require voluntarily provided parking to be provided free of charge).

Application to Existing Agreement or Site Plan

The Act would not apply if the requirements conflict with a contractual agreement or approved site plan that was executed or approved on or before the effective date of the Act. However, the prohibition would apply to any amendment or extension to the contractual agreement or approved site plan, if that amendment or extension increases automobile parking requirements. The Act does not define “contractual agreement” or “approved site plan,” so local governments should consult their attorneys about whether the Act would apply.

Next Steps

Local governments may need to evaluate areas in their community near transit that could be affected by the Act, and analyze their current zoning regulations for those areas, specifically their current parking requirements.

If the Governor signs the encompassing transit bill, the Act will be effective on June 1, 2026. If the Act does become effective, local governments could still encourage developers to voluntarily provide more off-street parking by (1) requiring parking spaces to be shared with the public; or (2) adopting on-street parking restrictions. Local governments could also amend their zoning application forms to ask an applicant to proactively assert whether the Act applies, so planning staff can review the grounds for that claim. In any event, local governments should contact their attorneys to evaluate how the Act might affect areas served by public transit.

Post Authored by Daniel J. Bolin, Ancel Glink

Read More

Both Houses Pass the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act

Both Houses Pass the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act

  Tuesday, November 04, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois General Assembly passed a number of bills in the veto session that may be of interest to local governments, including HB 576 which creates the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act. While HB 576 was designed to protect certain state legislative and executive officials, and certain county officials (and not local government officials), the bill's ban on "government agencies" displaying or posting personal information about public officials who make a request that this information not be publicly disclosed expressly applies to units of local government and school districts. The bill has been sent to the Governor for signature.

If signed by the Governor, the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act would prohibit government agencies (including units of local government) from displaying, posting, or disclosing a public official's personal information if the government agency has received a written request from the public official to refrain from disclosing that personal information. It would also require government agencies to remove that content within five business days of a written request under the new Act. The Act also prohibits persons, businesses, and associations from publicly posting or displaying a public official's personal information online when the public official has made a written request that this information not be disclosed. 

"Personal information" is defined in the bill as follows:

"Personal information" means a home address, home telephone number, mobile telephone number, pager number, personal email address, social security number, federal tax identification number, checking and savings account numbers, credit card numbers, marital status, and identity of children under the age of 18.

"Public official" is defined in the bill as follows:

"Public official" includes 

(1) members or former members of the Illinois General Assembly;

(2) constitutional officers or former constitutional officers; 

(3) elected or appointed State's Attorneys

(4) appointed Public Defenders; and

(5) county clerks and members of the Board of Election Commissioners whose responsibilities include administering and overseeing elections.

The bill would also make it unlawful for anyone to knowingly publicly post on the Internet the personal information of a public official or his or her immediate family of the person knows or reasonably should know that publicly posting that information poses an imminent and serious threat to the health and safety of the public official or the public official's immediate family and if the violation is a proximate cause of bodily injury or death of the public official or family member. Violation of this provision would be a Class 3 felony. 

The bill would also amend FOIA to expressly exempt the personal information of public officials from disclosure. 

The would also make several other changes to various statutes, including the Election Code. First, the bill would amend a provision limiting expenditures by a political committee so that it does not apply to expenses relating to personal security services or cybersecurity measures for public officials. It also requires the State Board of Elections to redact the home addresses of public officials and current and past officers of political committees upon written request, and home addresses of candidates for public office upon expiration of the objection filing period, upon request. The bill would also amend the Vehicle Code and FOID card statute to allow public officials to use their work addresses rather than home addresses on their ID cards and vehicle registration applications.

Read More

Court Rules in Favor of Sheriff's Office in FOIA Challenge

Court Rules in Favor of Sheriff's Office in FOIA Challenge

  Monday, November 03, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a sheriff's office in a lawsuit challenging the sheriff office's response to a FOIA request submitted by an arrestee who had been detained in county jail. Staake v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Office.

Plaintiff was arrested, booked, and detained in a county jail on various criminal charges. While in county jail, plaintiff allegedly made statements to others over the jail's recorded phone lines about an order of protection his wife had against him as well as the criminal offenses that led to his arrest. Plaintiff filed multiple FOIA requests with the sheriff's office asking for those recordings, but the requests were denied by the sheriff's office. Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the sheriff's office claiming it violated FOIA in denying his FOIA request. The trial court ruled in favor of the sheriff's office, agreeing with the sheriff's office that the records were exempt from FOIA because plaintiff failed to establish how those recordings were "relevant" to his pending or potential claims or cases. 

On appeal, the Appellate Court reviewed section 7(1)(e-10) of FOIA, which exempts from FOIA the following:

(e-10) Law enforcement records of other persons requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, including, but not limited to, arrest and booking records, mug shots, and crime scene photographs, except as these records may be relevant to the requester's current or potential case or claim.

The Appellate Court analyzed whether Section 7(1)(e-10) applied to the plaintiff's FOIA request and determined that it did, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the requested records "may be relevant" to any pending or potential case or claim. Because he did not meet his burden, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of the sheriff's office.

Read More

In the Zone: Court Finds No Procedural Due Process Violation in Zoning Challenge

In the Zone: Court Finds No Procedural Due Process Violation in Zoning Challenge

  Friday, October 31, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois Appellate Court recently issued an opinion in a zoning challenge overturning a trial court's ruling that a city's zoning decision violated a neighboring property owner's procedural due process rights. Clark v. City of Galena.

In 2022, a developer filed an application requesting annexation and zoning approvals for a proposed mixed-use development on 80 acres of land in and adjacent to the city. The project included rental cottages, vineyard and winery, gardens, etc. The city's zoning board held a public hearing where the developer presented its application, and neighboring property owners and other interested parties spoke in opposition to the project. After closing the public hearing, the zoning board voted and sent its recommendation to the city council. The city council considered the zoning board's recommendation, and also allowed citizens to provide public comment on the project before voting in favor of both the proposed annexation and zoning approvals for the project. A few months later, the developer proposed amendments to the project, including annexation of additional property, and another zoning board hearing and city council meeting were held, and citizens were again allowed to provide testimony and public comment. The requested zoning changes and annexation of additional territory were approved by the city council.

A neighboring property owner who opposed the project filed a lawsuit against the city and developer to challenge the city's zoning decisions. She claimed that the zoning decisions violated various constitutional rights, including her procedural due process rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the city and developer on all counts except for the neighbor's claim that her procedural due process rights were violated. 

The city and developer appealed, and the Appellate Court overturned the trial court's ruling in favor of the neighbor on her procedural due process claims. The Appellate Court noted that zoning decisions are presumed valid, and that the neighbor had the burden to overcome that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the Appellate Court reviewed the process that was held by the city, including the two public hearings held by the zoning board where citizens were allowed to, and did in fact, speak about the project, including the neighbor who filed the lawsuit, and the multiple city council meetings on the project where the city council also allowed public comment, in which the neighbor participated as did other interested citizens. The Court found that both the zoning board and city council discussed the project in detail during that process, and went through the criteria for granting relief, before voting on the project.

The Appellate Court rejected the trial court's determination that the city's procedure deprived the neighbor of her procedural due process rights because the city failed to proactively offer her an opportunity to cross-examine the developer's witnesses. The Appellate Court held that the neighbor had an unlimited opportunity to pose questions about the project, and that she had not made a request to directly cross-examine the developer's witnesses, nor did the city deny such a request, so there was no deprivation of her due process rights. 

In sum, the Appellate Court found that the city's process was "thorough and allowed an interchange of evidence and opinions regarding the project," and that the city has an interest in an efficient process. The Court further found that the city was not required to proactively offer an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses without a request by a citizen, as that would impose an additional burden for little benefit given the process provided in this case. As a result, the Court held that the neighbor failed to meet her burden to provide by clear and convincing evidence that her procedural due process rights were violated by the city's approval of the project. The Court also noted that the neighbor's failure to raise an objection to the city's process at the hearing resulted in a forfeiture of that issue in court.

Read More

Local Government Law Institute 2025

Local Government Law Institute 2025

  Monday, October 20, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

It's that time of year for all of my local government lawyer readers and friends to register for this year's Local Government Law Institute hosted by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (IICLE). This year's conference will be held on Friday, December 5, 2025, from 8:55 to 3:45 pm. at the UBS Center in Chicago, with a cocktail reception to follow. The conference will be offered by webcast as well.

As always, the agenda for this annual conference is packed with educational and informational (and often entertaining) local government law topics, including the following "can't miss" sessions:

• Case Law and Legislative Update
• Development and Economic Incentives
• The First Amendment & Public Forum Spaces
• Federalism
• Local Government Attorney's Guide to What Not to Do in Employment Law
• Intergovernmental Cooperation: How to Work Together and Tips for Drafting IGAs
• Ethical Issues and AI in Local Government Law

More information about this year's conference and registration can be found on IICLE's website here.

Read More

Illinois General Assembly Passes Bill Amending OMA and FOIA

Illinois General Assembly Passes Bill Amending OMA and FOIA

  Thursday, October 16, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Both houses of the Illinois General Assembly passed SB 243 that amends the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act in a number of ways. The bill (which passed October 15, 2025) now goes to the Governor for his signature. If signed by the Governor, the bill states it would become effective on January 1, 2026.

1.    Meetings of Public Bodies Prohibited on Election Day

The bill would amend the OMA to prohibit public bodies from holding or scheduling a regular or special meeting on the day of a general, consolidated, or primary election. 

2.   Military Service as a Reason to Attend Meeting Remotely

The bill would also amend the OMA to add language allowing a member of a public body to attend a meeting remotely for the member's "performance of active military duty as a service member." Note that the bill did not change the requirement that a quorum of the public body be physically present to conduct a meeting.

3.     Township OMA Training Option

The bill would further amend the OMA to allow members of township boards to obtain the required OMA training through a course sponsored or conducted by an organization that represents townships created under the Township Code. This new provision is similar to provisions allowing members of municipal, school district, park district, fire protection district, soil and water conservation district, and drainage district public bodies to take training courses offered by organizations that represent those bodies rather than the electronic training offered by the Attorney General's office.  

4.    Immunity for Compliance with PAC Opinion

The bill would also amend provisions relating to the Public Access Counselor's office to clarify that officers and employees of a public body are immune from liability if they disclose records in accordance with an opinion of the PAC office.

5.    Section 4 FOIA Posting Requirements

Section 4 of FOIA currently requires public bodies to post certain information (description of the public body and its subdivisions, total operating budget, offices, number of employees, members of advisory bodies, FOIA procedures, etc.) at its administrative offices. This bill would amend section 4 to require posting only on the public body's website rather than at the administrative offices (unless the public body has no website, in which case the information must be posted at the administrative offices). 

6.    Junk Mail Excluded from FOIA Definition of Public Records

The bill would amend the FOIA to clarify that public records for purposes of FOIA expressly excludes "junk mail." Junk mail is defined as unsolicited commercial mail or email sent to a public body and not responded to by an official, employee, or agent of the public body. 

7.    Electronic FOIA Submissions Must Be in Body of Submission

The bill would amend FOIA to require that electronic FOIA requests include the request in the body of the electronic submission, rather than as an attachment or hyperlink, for cybersecurity reasons. If a public body receives an attachment or hyperlink request, it must notify the requester of the new requirement that requests must be in the body of the submission.

8.    Verification that FOIA Requester is a Person

The bill would amend FOIA to allow a public body that has a reasonable belief that a request was not submitted by a person to require the requester to verify orally or in writing that the requester is a person. The deadline for response would be tolled until the requester verifies that he or she is a person and if the requester fails to do so, the public body can deny the request.

9.    New FOIA Exemptions

The bill would also amend FOIA to add a couple of new exemptions for records held by a criminal justice agency and documents deemed sensitive by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Note that this bill has not yet been enacted into law - it needs the Governor's signature to become effective.

Read More

Homeowner Not Entitled to Compensation for Property Damage in Search of Home

Homeowner Not Entitled to Compensation for Property Damage in Search of Home

  Friday, October 10, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a homeowner's Fifth Amendment "takings" claim lawsuit brought against a city and county seeking compensation for damages caused by law enforcement officers who entered her home pursuant to a search warrant to search for a fugitive they incorrectly believed was inside the home. Hadley v. City of South Bend, Ind.

In 2022, law enforcement believed that a murder suspect was residing in a South Bend home based on social media posts and the suspect's IP address, and obtained a search warrant to search the home for the suspect. Although the homeowner informed the officers that she had no connection with, or knowledge of, the suspect, officers forcefully entered her home, breaking windows, launching 30 cannisters of tear gas, wrecking internal security cameras, punching holes in walls, ransacking furniture and a closet, and tearing down a wall panel and fan. The suspect was not found in the home.

When the city and county refused to reimburse the homeowner for the damages to her home, she filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city and county, claiming that law enforcement violated the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it damaged her property and that she was owed $16,000 in "just compensation." The district court dismissed her case, and she appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment did not entitle her to compensation, holding that the government is not obligated to compensate for property damage resulting from law enforcement officers executing a lawful search warrant. Because the warrant was lawful, the Seventh Circuit held that her lawsuit against the city and county was properly dismissed as she was not entitled to compensation for the property damages.

Read More

From The Workplace Report: Opinion Letter Issued by DOL on Calculating Overtime

From The Workplace Report: Opinion Letter Issued by DOL on Calculating Overtime

  Thursday, October 09, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In case you don't already follow Ancel Glink's employment law blog, The Workplace Report (and you should!), you may want to check out a recent blog post about a Department of Labor opinion letter clarifying that "emergency pay" premiums provided to firefighters and other non-exempt employees during declared emergencies must be included in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime premiums under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

You can read the blog post at the following link: Opinion Letter Issued by the Department of Labor on Calculating Overtime

Read More

Ancel Glink at the APA-IL Conference

Ancel Glink at the APA-IL Conference

  Wednesday, October 08, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

If you are attending the American Planning Association Illinois State Chapter's (APA-IL) Conference this week, be sure to stop by to check out one or more of the sessions presented by Ancel Glink attorneys:

Wednesday, October 8th 

2:15 pm -3:15 pm - Municipal Initiated Upzonings: Lessons Learned

Presenters: Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink), Katharyn Hurd (City of Chicago), Eric Van Buskirk (City of Champaign), and Meagan Jones (City of Evanston)

Thursday, October 9th

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm     Injunctions & Dragons: Planning Law Fantasy Adventure

Presenters:  Dan Bolin (Ancel Glink), Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink), Trevor Dick (Village of Lombard), and Phil Green (Village of Hoffman Estates)

3:30 pm - 4:30 pm     GovLove + APA-IL Live Podcast: Award-Winning Planners

Presenters: Dan Bolin (Ancel Glink) and Andy Cross (The Lakota Group)

3:30 pm - 4:30 pm     Small But Mighty: ADUs, Tiny Homes & Cottage Communities

Presenters: Greg Jones (Ancel Glink), Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink), David Silverman (Ancel Glink), Angela Mesaros (Village of Homewood), Falon Young (City of Chicago), and Samar Jha (AARP)

3:30 pm - 4:30 pm     "Wait" A Ride: Navigating the Regulatory Landscape of E-Bikes and E-Scooters

Presenters: Eugene Bolotnikov (Ancel Glink) and Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

Friday, October 10th

2:15 pm - 3:15 pm     E-Scooters, E-Bikes & Public Camping Regulations: Strategies for Municipal Planners to Avoid Legal Roadblocks

Presenters: Megan Mack (Ancel Glink) and Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

Read More

Workers Compensation Benefits Barred Where Pension Board Denied Line-of-Duty Benefits

Workers Compensation Benefits Barred Where Pension Board Denied Line-of-Duty Benefits

  Tuesday, October 07, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court recently held that a pension board's decision to deny line-of-duty benefits and award a police department employee a non-duty pension barred him from receiving workers compensation benefits for that injury. City of Zion Police Department v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.

A detective in a city police department filed an application for workers compensation benefits for bilateral wrist injuries he claimed he sustained while performing a “burpee” exercise during a firearms training event. The city argued that the employee's workers compensation claim was barred due to a prior decision by a pension board that had denied the employee's request for line-of-duty disability benefits and awarded him nonduty disability benefits for the wrist injuries. Both the arbitrator and the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission ruled in favor of the employee, finding that the issues litigated before the pension board were different than those presented in the workers compensation case. The city appealed.

On appeal, the circuit court reversed the Workers Compensation Commission's decision, and held that the employee was "collaterally estopped" from relitigating the issues relating to his wrist injuries, where that issue had already been decided by the pension board when it found that his wrist injuries were not caused by the training exercise. The employee appealed to the Appellate Court, which agreed with the circuit court that the employee was bound by the pension board's decision that his wrist injuries were not duty-related (which he did not appeal). As a result, the employee did not qualify for workers compensation benefits for the wrist injuries.

Disclaimer: Ancel Glink represented the City in this case.

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 97: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 97: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement

  Monday, October 06, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast recently released Episode 97: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement.

In this episode, Ancel Glink partner David S. Silverman, FAICP, provides an in-depth breakdown of the essential components and negotiation strategies for drafting effective Redevelopment Agreements (RDAs) from his presentation at the Southland Development Authority’s TIF Talk training session. David explains that the RDAs serve as a clear roadmap for the project, governing everything from development specifics to the flow of incentives and guarantees, requiring an internal logic that ensures it remains understandable for potentially decades. 

Read More

Involuntary Annexation Upheld by Appellate Court

Involuntary Annexation Upheld by Appellate Court

  Wednesday, October 01, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court recently upheld a municipality's involuntary annexation of property in Husky Trans, Inc. v. Village of Barrington Hills. 

After the village board discussed the possible annexation of two unincorporated parcels of land, it sent notice to the owner that the village board would consider annexing the parcels at a board meeting. The notice also informed the owner that the property would be rezoned to the R1 single family residential zoning district upon annexation. The owner's attorney sent a response to the village that the owner objected to the forcible annexation, arguing that the parcels did not qualify for annexation under section 7-1-13 of the Illinois Municipal Code because the parcels were not "wholly bounded" by one or more municipalities, forest preserve, or park district property. 

After the village board annexed the property, the owner filed a lawsuit, claiming that the village lacked authority to annex the parcels because, among other things, the territory was not “wholly bounded” by one or more municipalities or a forest preserve or park district as is required by section 7-1-13 of the Illinois Municipal Code. The owner argued that two "gaps" in the boundary of the annexed parcels abutted unincorporated territory, thus defeating the annexation. The village responded that the gaps abutting railroad right-of-way should be treated differently for purposes of annexation and, in any event, the minor gaps in the boundary were "de minimus" and should not support invalidation of the annexation. 

The trial court ruled in the owner's favor, finding that the gaps in the boundary invalidated the annexation. The village appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed, holding that the annexation was valid. The Court agreed with the village that the annexed territory was entirely surrounded as required by state statute except for two small gaps created by railroad right-of-way. Since those gaps represented only 4.7 percent of the total perimeter of the annexed property, the Court found them to be inconsequential and insufficient to defeat the "wholly bounded" requirement of the annexation statute. As a result, the Court held that the annexation was valid.

Read More