A lawsuit seeking to reverse the Sangamon County Board’s April 7 approval of zoning to allow for construction of a data center could hinge on the court’s interpretation of the word “shall” within the county’s data center code.
Circuit Judge Adam Giganti, at the conclusion of an Oct. 30 hearing on motions to dismiss the suit, said he’s “going to take the matter under advisement and will render a decision as soon as possible.”
The July 6 lawsuit was originally filed against Sangamon County and the County Board by residents who live approximately a mile or less from the site. They are seeking to overturn the county’s approval of the project, claiming procedural violations and unchecked environmental concerns. The Sangamon County Board approved a conditional use permit on April 7 that would allow a data center to be constructed on 280 acres of farmland by a vote of 17-10, with one board member abstaining.
Amongst other things such as lack of a noise study and pollution concerns, the suit claims the approved zoning petition had insufficient documentation as required by the County Code’s own language stating “(t)he petition for a conditional permitted use for a data center shall include… letters from the serving utility companies indicating the availability and adequacy of utility services.”
The County Board approved the zoning petition despite the electricity utility letter submitted referencing a different data center project altogether and the water utility letter stating it was still reviewing CyrusOne’s application. The County Board’s lawyers argue that the Board was “conditionally approving the (conditional use) permit contingent on future submission of these materials.”
The Rural Electric Convenience Cooperative will-serve electricity letter, dated Aug. 26, 2025, makes no mention of CyrusOne but it does say the electric co-op will provide electricity to a different, substantially smaller project called the Diamond Core Data Center. The Jan. 29 Apple Creek Water Cooperative letter included in the zoning petition states the water utility is still reviewing CyrusOne’s application.
READ PREVIOUS ILLINOIS TIMES COVERAGE OF THE LAWSUIT HERE:
Data center lawsuit could be tossed out
County Board defends data center approval in court
Residents sue Sangamon County, CyrusOne
Illinois Times called and emailed both utility companies and Sean Middleton, president and CEO of RECC – who has been publicly supportive of the project – over the past three weeks asking if either company could provide updated will-serve utility letters for the CyrusOne data center project but neither responded to numerous requests. Apple Creek Water Cooperative referred Illinois Times to its attorney from Rammelkamp Bradney but multiple voicemails left for Bradley Wilson were not returned.
In court, the county’s lawyers from Champaign law firm Webber & Thies argued the plaintiffs’ “artful pleading” is because the residents are simply upset with the outcome of April’s vote. The lawyers say the county had plenty of reason for approving the data center through the potential for economic incentives, so the lawsuit should be terminated.
“The County Board here or the legislature or whatever legislative body it is has policy power. They have the right to legislate. They are making decisions. They are the people’s representatives. The ordinary citizen’s remedy – if they disagree with that decision – is political,” said attorney Daniel Thies during the Oct. 30 hearing. “We don’t want ordinary citizens who have lost in the political process to be able then to hold out the legislators.
“The county’s legislative body can decide that it’s going to value economic development more than the potential for a little bit of pollution. That is a prerogative of the people’s representatives through their elected body,” Thies said.
The county’s own staff report shows about $71 million of projected property tax revenue would go to three taxing bodies based in Macoupin County, with six Sangamon-based taxing districts expected to split roughly $27 million over a 20-year period, if all assessments go according to plan.
Sangamon County itself could expect to see just over $445,000 for 20 years in annual tax revenue, though some large data centers in northern Illinois and other parts of the country have later appealed for property tax reductions.
Meanwhile, no state or local sales tax will apply to any of the anticipated $500 million investment since CyrusOne secured a tax break before Gov. JB Pritzker’s executive order to pause a state program providing deals to developers went into effect.
As for property value concerns, Thies said the existence of a data center could lead to nearby property value increases with the potential for neighboring data center developments.
“There was testimony of a real estate appraiser who studied this question and determined that the surrounding property values, in fact, would not be depressed and very well could rise as they have adjacent other data centers that have been built around the country,” he said.
Chloe Russell, a Plainfield lawyer representing members of the Caruthers family, who have farmed land in southwest Sangamon County for close to two centuries, and Cathy Bettis, owner of Joette Kennel, argued Oct. 30 the complaint is not contending issues with the county’s reasoning but “it pleads the county’s violations” of “mandatory petition elements.
“On the utility letters, both defendants point to the conditions in the approval order requiring updated and definitive will-serve letters before a building permit is issued. Those conditions prove our point. If the letters had been adequate, no condition would have been needed,” she said, before pointing out how each will-serve letter does not comply with the county’s own code. “The ordinance says the petition ‘shall include,’ before the board acts. The statute presupposes a complete petition; it does not excuse an incomplete petition.”
Northwestern University professor Nadav Shoked, who teaches courses on local, property and regulatory law, said the County Board seemingly complicated things by approving a petition without realizing it was incomplete.
“It seems pretty obvious that (the County Board) view themselves as approving (the petition to purchase),” Shoked said. “You don’t have to be an extreme textualist to say, OK, there’s only one way of reading the word ‘shall;’ it has to mean that you have to do it. It doesn’t say ‘can,’ ‘at its choice,’ it doesn’t say anything like that; it says ‘shall.’”
Whether Giganti decides to allow the case to proceed or dismisses it, Shoked said opponents to the project could get their way – for at least a little while.
“If you think about it from the perspective of those opposing the project, they kind of get what they want, because it does mean that approval has not been granted yet. They’ll have to wait for those reports and only then get the approval,” he said. “It’s not about their own land – nothing has been permitted on their own land – it’s kind of like you suing the government for allowing your neighbor to build the second floor, blocking your views. For better or for worse, it’s something we can do in the U.S. on a state level, not on the federal level.”
Chinese propaganda.