Tech team are ready to start. President Harden, before you begin today's meeting, I would like to read a few announcements. Good morning. Welcome to the 12/29/2025 special board meeting. Before we start the meeting, I'd like to share a few safety points and next meeting announcements. Please note that the primary exit and entrance to the boardroom is the door which you used to enter this morning. If you're leaving the room, please use this door. The restrooms are outside the boardrooms to your left. During the meeting, we ask that you keep all aisles and exits clear. If you need need any assistance during the meeting, please waive the attention of one
of our security officers. Please mark your calendars for the upcoming meetings. The next ARC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 01/14/2026 at 10:30AM. The next board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 01/29/2026 at 10:30AM. The ARC and board meetings will be held at 42 West Madison Street, Garden Level Boardroom. For details on how to register to speak or observe at the meetings and to learn about the speaker lottery process, Please visit the Chicago Board of Education website, cpsboe.org.
If you have any questions about registration or public participation, please contact the board office for assistance. Thank you for joining us today. President Harden, we are now ready for you to begin the meeting. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Chicago Board of Education special meeting. Today is 12/29/2025, and I'm president Sean b Harden. On behalf of my fellow board members, thank you for joining us today. We're holding today's special meeting in the boardroom at the CPS Loop office, 42 West Madison Street, Garden Level. I'd like to note that the board members and senior leadership are physically present in
the boardroom. Registered speakers may join us in person or virtually if they've opted to do so, and registered observers are joining us in person. Special meeting of Monday, 12/29/2025 is hereby called to order. Board secretary, please call the roll. Member Smith? Present. Member Lopez? Present. Member Velez? Present. Member Boyle? Here. Member Wallace who's joining us virtually via Zoom? Present. Member Custer? Present. Member Pope? Here. Member Rosenfeld? Member Rivas? Present. Member Brown? Member Rio Sierra?
Present. Member Bannon? Present. Vice president Bautista? Present. Member Gutierrez? Present. Member Biggs? Present. Member Thodakura? Present. Member Blaze? Present. Member Zachor? Here. President Harden? Present. Member Lozano? Present. 20 members present. There is a quorum. I'd also like to recognize doctor Macklin King, interim superintendent chief executive officer, and Liz Elizabeth Barton, acting general counsel. Let me take a moment to explain why we are convening a special board meeting today during the district's winter break.
We're here today to vote on an amendment of the school and capital improvement tax levy, which authorizes the district to levy property tax revenues. Last August, in addition to approving the budget, the board separately approved its fiscal year twenty twenty six tax levy based on projections that were available at the time. As a governing body with limited options for raising revenue, the tax levy is an essential lever for Chicago Public Schools. For more than a decade, the board has consistently approved the district's recommendation to raise
the property tax levy to its legal limit. The reality is we are here today in part because the county's modernization efforts have resulted in delayed disbursements to CPS, and compounding interest from our lenders is totaling $33,000,000 with more accruing daily. And beyond the immediate impact the amended tax levy would have this year, there are implications for the district's fiscal outlook for years to come if the board chooses not to approve the levy increase as will further as will be further explained by the
district's acting CFO and treasurer. In addition to losing revenue for the current year, whenever the property tax levy is less than the legal limit under the tax cap, the district stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars and compounding revenue in future years that cannot be recaptured. The board takes its fiscal responsibility seriously and took the time necessary to resolve outstanding questions prior to taking a determinative action today. We've arrived at that point, and today's special meeting ensures the board's decision is established
prior to the state deadline for finalizing the property tax levy. So with that, I'd like to take a moment to really express deep appreciation for everyone who made today possible. Safety and security team, thank you very much. IT, facilities, as well as the district's finance, face communications, the CEO teams, and, of course, the board office team without whom this public meeting would not be possible. Your support, which includes the incredible workload behind the scenes leading up to and following
today, ensures that this essential board business gets done and done well. We'll keep today's business concise so everyone can get back to a hard earned winter break. The order meeting will be as follows. Public participation, recess, we'll reconvene from recess. It'll be a short presentation, discussion on public agenda item, vote on public agenda item, and then adjourn. We'll now proceed with today's public participation session. Thank you for joining to share your comments with the board.
In compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act, poll participation, sometimes referred to as public comment, is a portion of the board meeting or hearing that grants district stakeholders the opportunity to address the board with their concerns and comments. Note that poll participation is the time for the board and CPS senior leadership to listen and hear from you rather than a time for dialogue with board members during or after your remarks. And while we can't discuss personnel matters, poll participation is a key component of transparent
governance, and it provides us as board members as well as senior leadership an opportunity to listen to everyone who has signed to speak. The board takes equity of voice seriously. And while we may not address your concerns directly during public participation, CPS leadership is always present at our meetings and are able to address concerns as follow ups after the meeting. As a district and as a board, we also have many other spaces for authentic dialogue. For example, each and every one of our board members host board office hours so
that we can have a conversation. So please use our website, cpsboe.org, if you want to meet with a board member during office hours. We encourage you to take advantage of the opportunity to meet with board members outside of a board meeting. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Lastly, as a reminder, union representatives will be allotted five minutes to speak before poll participation, and any elected officials will be allotted five minutes to speak after the conclusion of poll participation. Board secretary, please share the rules of poll participation.
Thank you. Before I start with the rules, I do wanna note for the record that member De Berry has joined the meeting at 10:39AM, virtually via Zoom. Thank you. Members of the public who registered to speak were given the option to attend in person or via an electronic format. For those who prefer to attend via an electronic format, they were given information to access this meeting by dialing a number and using their phone. We did this so that speakers with limited or no access to Internet or who
may have weak Internet Internet connection could still participate using their phones. Also, members of the public may submit written comments for Board of Education meetings via the written comments form on the board's website at cpsboe.org or mailed to 42 West Madison Street, Garden Lovell. Written comments received between the day the public agenda was posted through 5PM the day after the Board of Education meeting will be submitted to the board and published within five business days on our website at cpsboe.org. Speakers, please listen while I provide directions for public participation.
I'll call your name and number when it is your turn to speak. Once you hear your name, please state your name for the record. I will then start the two minute timer. When there are thirty seconds remaining, I will inform you so that you can proceed to conclude your remarks to allow for the next speaker to begin. For anyone standing with the speaker, note that in order to comply with the city's fire code, please stand along the glass partitions on the marked spots to keep aisles clear. Thank you. We'll now, begin with the speakers list, and we'll we will begin with Kenneth Newman, speaker number two. Good morning, board members.
President Harden, CEO King. I really appreciate this because this meeting was not publicly advertised on the board front page website calendar when I looked at it after hearing about the meeting on the news on Friday. So this meeting did not get good PR last week. So something's gotta somebody dropped the ball. So are you aware that, Gately Stadium is gonna be renovated this this coming spring? And Gately Stadium needs to be open to all sports teams, football, soccer, and lacrosse.
But there is a problem with the width of the field. It's only 62 yards wide, and, frankly, it should be 70 to 75 yards wide for soccer. Soccer and football were never made to be played on the same type of field in terms of the width. This renovation plans, I have seen the beginning of them because I was at the construction summit a week and a half ago. Well, I want you to stop the renovation until the east bleachers are cut down so that there is more space for soccer.
You need to have all of our stadiums open to all of our sports. And there are other issues with the stadium, including when I was there on Friday morning, I spent about an hour walking around the outside of the stadium. I saw several issues, obviously, that may get fixed during the renovation, but there are also other problems that have to be You have thirty seconds remaining? So, anyway, very quickly, there's a storage shed for CPD, park district workers, under the stands on the west stands, and those people won't have access to the stadium when
it's being renovated. There are other issues. Chicago State University, I heard, is gonna wants to use that stadium for their new football team. Well, I don't know. CPS teams don't have enough time inside that stadium. How are you gonna allow Chicago State to rent the stadium and for their football team when they don't even provide for their own soccer teams either? So there are a bunch of issues concerning Gateway Stadium and our other stadiums Please continue remark. That need to be, solved, and I stand by to assist you in this issue.
Thank you. President Harden, that concludes public participation. You're mic. We'll now move into a short recess. Remember, Rio Sierra, do you have motion m o one? Not that we I move that the board take a forty minute recess. I second. Thank you. I'll proceed with a roll call. Member Lozano? Yes. Member Smith? Yes. Member Lopez? Aye. Member Velez? Yes. Member Boyle? Yes. Member Wallace? Aye. Member Custer? Aye. Member Pope? Yes. Member Rosenfeld? Yes. Member Rivas? Yes. Member Brown? Member Rio Sierra?
Aye. Member Bannon? Aye. Vice president Bautista? Yes. Member Gutierrez? Aye. Member Biggs? Yes. Member Thodokura? Yes. Member Blaze? Yes. Member Zachar? Yes. Member Deberry? Aye. Thank you. 20 ayes, zero nays. This motion is adopted. This meeting will now go into a forty minute recess. For the people who don't know, The meeting of the Board of Education has reconvened. We'll now proceed with the business portion of the meeting. Interim superintendent CEO, doctor King, we are ready for your presentation. Good morning. We will have a presentation by CFO chief acting chief Wally.
Good morning, everybody. I'm Wally Stock, district treasurer and acting CFO, and thank you for convening today to talk about amending the property tax levy. As you know, we passed the property tax levy in the budget in August. This was for fiscal '26, and we're here today to discuss amending the tax levy itself. So I wanna give you some background information on just financials, the tax levy process, what's been occurring to help you be grounded in your decision today.
I think the most important thing to think about is just the cash flow pressures that the board has been facing. And so I have this slide here that's up on, the presentation screen here, and it depicts fiscal year twenty six and fiscal year, '25 cash flow. And, we ended fiscal year twenty five with negative $3.39, 339,000,000, of of cash flow. And, fiscal twenty five was, $485,000,000 worse than '24.
So it's trending in a wrong direction for us. There's significant pressure on our financials. As you know, we've discussed this, with our budget process and everything that's, on the table. A big part of, what's occurring here is the loss of Esser money. So, that was phased out in fiscal twenty five. There's no more Esser money, remaining, and we're we're working through that problem. The the chart here, has a line running through it, and, you know, there's a significant portion in '26 towards the right, which is trending lower.
So we haven't been able to get above a positive cash position. And you may ask yourself, well, how do you how do you exist in a negative cash position? Well, we do that by borrowing, short term borrowing. So we're borrowing against our tax levy before before we receive it. The tax levy comes in in two times of the year. Ideally, it's coming in in March and in August. And, going back since the year 2000, COVID, the county has been delaying, the timing of the tax levy.
So in in 2000, 2001, it was delayed by, the both installments were delayed by three months, and then we we moved into a upgrade of their computer system past COVID, and they started delaying as a result of implementation and other, matters that, were administrative in nature. Currently, this year, the taxes that should have been due in August have still not, been paid to us. The bill was due December 15, and we've only received as of Friday, we did
receive 20% of the money. The the county made a little bit of a push, but 80% of the money is still missing. And it's been costing us $33,000,000 is my calculation and interest expense. It's $220,000 a day, and it falls into both two parts. It's the the money that we've borrowed on the short term loans, and it's also money that we owe the pension fund. So we don't actually have to take a loan out luckily for the pension fund, but because they were owed their money and we haven't paid them, we have to
when we give them the money, we owe them interest on the investment loss that they had, and that's six and a half percent. So that's pretty painful. Just to look at in terms of property taxes and what they represent, they are our largest source of revenue for the for the board. They were about 50% of of what we take in. So, for for fiscal year twenty six, budgeted, revenue was 8,657,000,000.000, and, the property taxes were, 4.156
or 48% of the total. This is just a simple pie chart with fiscal year 2526. I think, you know, there's this property taxes look like they went up by 3%, but really what happened there is in '25, we had the federal COVID money, and that kinda got flushed out of the system. So then it kinda changes the percentages, slightly there. I could just take a a minute to talk. We hear a lot about tax caps and what they mean, but, I wanted to, again, sort of show you, a historical consumer price index table here and some of
the factors that lead into, our limitations on the tax cap. So, you know, for all school districts also, by the way, property taxes are the largest source of revenue. That's not just that's not just Chicago. That's just the state function. You know, we do receive state revenue, but, like, if you look back at the the chart that I had, the state aid's only 25, 27%. So, by and large, school systems in Illinois rely on property taxes. Not every county in, the the state of Illinois is tax capped, but Cook County
is tax capped. So what that means is our levy certain levies that we have, like our operational levy, can only increase by the lesser of 5% or the consumer price index. And so, for the upcoming year, this levy that we're talking about, it's 2.9%. Right? But there's also, a consideration for new property growth. So we often ask for a little bit larger than the the consumer price index so that we can kinda get back to what we're allowed under under the tax
cap. But these are the CPI factors, and you can see that they've over the last you know, since 2008, they've been fairly low. I know there's a lot of consternation about CPS and, general property taxes, but, despite the thing that's happened with certain tax bills and reassessments of property, we we have never had a windfall of receiving 10% or 50% or 15% more than what we had in the prior year's levy. It's always been limited and kind of anchored in this consumer price index. Only in 'twenty one and 'twenty two did we have some higher numbers, but this
still brought us back to, you know, close to 5% as well in those years. So this is kind of a complicated slide, and I'll I'll try to, walk through it, but I wanted to just sort of lay out kind of, what's been happening with the timing things, in terms of the delay and just how the overall process works. So each, fiscal year on this calendar all the way over to the left, we think about our budget, our tax levy, also the tax anticipation notes, being authorized at the beginning of the fiscal year in July.
And then the tax levy is filed with the county, done, you know, right after that in August. And then it's eight months, really, until we start to receive any of those property taxes. So when you think about the cash flow in that first chart that I showed in the negative, it's it's because 50% of our revenue doesn't arrive until eight months into the fiscal year. Right? And the first tax bill, by the way, is supposed to be 55% of the prior year, and, we did receive that on time, going back, a year ago.
There's talk that that will be delayed coming up in the upcoming year, but then, just in terms of going back to the cycle here, it's really eleven months after the levy is finalized that the county actually determines the a calculation on property taxes and what the levy will be. And and so the the levy that you're that you approved in in August, the amendment that you're being asked to consider today, that really won't be finalized by the county until, ideally, May or June of next year.
What's happened here and kinda the main reason why we're back today asking you to do this is the county, it took four about four and a half months late for them to finalize what the tax levy was. So when and you think about the timeline, we were needing to approve our fiscal year twenty six budget and the tax levy, and we didn't have all the information about what the the existing year was going to be. So we had to make an assumption, and the assumption, was an average of where
it's been at, a little bit on the higher side, and there was actually a lot of new property growth and the tax base grew, 10% and our assumed rate was close to three, a little less than 4%. So there's some upside when you look at the tax cap calculations and what happens there. But going back to this chart again, thirteen months after the fiscal year begins is when ideally we're supposed to start receiving that second installment of property taxes. Again, that didn't happen. It's four and a half months late, was due.
People paid their taxes on December 15, and we've only received 20% of that money. So it's still a discussion. We're still owed, over $1,300,000,000, and we still have the short term borrowing outstanding that is affecting our our cash flow and the cost. So, here is a table that kinda looks at what we had projected, what the final was, for the the the current year that's in the process of being collected,
and then the proposed extension for fiscal year twenty six, which was originally based off of the projection. But now once we know the final, we're asking for the amendment. So it's roughly $40,000,000 more than what the board approved in August. And considering an estimate of the the property tax cap calculation that the county will do, I believe that's somewhere between 25 and $30,000,000 of additional revenue that the board
could receive by amending, this levy today. With doing nothing, the increase over the prior year would be roughly 3.8%. And with this amendment, it's 4.78. It's still below 5%. It will be reduced further by the calculation that the county does. You know, it's just interesting when you think about how I talked about, the cost of this, the TANS, $33,000,000. Yes. We had some of that budgeted, but there's some additional expense there.
So this can go to help offset some of that. We don't know where these dollars will go. Right now, that's still a work in progress. We know there's a pressure on the budget with a lot of things that come up during the course of the year. Of course, we we passed a balanced budget. Okay. But things do occur during the course of the year that kind of take us away, from being balanced or or not. So this is certainly helpful towards that that cause. And then just, you know, the three main components, of the tax levy themselves so it could be grounded in what the purposes are, the teacher pension levy.
So, we're asking for an 11 this this amendment considers an $11,000,000 increase in the teacher pension levy. It was 612,000,000. The amount requested will be changed to $623,000,000 We know we pay, over a billion dollars coming up in fiscal year twenty six to the teacher's pension. The state pays, you know, basically a third of that. The lion's share of it is coming off of the property tax levy. So we do have an operating, expense budgeted for the teacher's pension levy, so every
little additional dollar that we can, levy helps offset that. Another major portion of the tax levy is the capital improvement tax levy, which goes for capital projects across the district. There's no change in that. That's very well grounded in the bonds that are there, and there's a separate calculation that has no effect there. And then the third is the op what I what I grouped is the operating funds tax levy, and that's being revised of $29,000,000 and, I like to think of that as being considered the education portion of the levy, the tort unemployment, portion, and
then, we're also asking for a special education transportation levy, to to help offset costs there. So then in conclusion here, the revised, FY twenty six tax levy is 4,126,000,000.000. It would represent a 4.78% increase over the prior year's final levy. The levy request is slightly higher than the 2.9% allowed under the consumer price index to accommodate for an allowance of new property growth.
These are the various components in the table here. And, overall, this this gross levy, this $4,000,000,001.02 6, we calculate as an estimated tax impact on a $250,000 home in the city of Chicago at $8. And if if you you could take and do different, iterations of that, if it's a $500,000 home, it's just simply 16 times, or eight times two equals 16. And, that would conclude my presentation, and I'll open it up for any questions.
Thank you. Do you have any questions or comments? Member Smith. Yes. My question is, do you know if CPS has sufficiently raised this issue of the lack of property tax assessment with the county and the consequences of it, and have we gotten any response from the county about this? That's the first question. Would would that be if I could just clarify in terms of the the delays and what they're costing us. Uh-huh. To a certain to a certain extent, of course, the county is a big a
big body, a lot of different elected officials, a lot of different appointed officials, and, we have we have raised it on a number of different fronts with individuals. We've also been contacted by the press and also, made that, a recent talking point that's been picked up by certain media outlets. So I'm, we're probably a little bit, we've always been asking the county, by the way, to not do this, but it's been more on a subtle subtle basis. But I I think it's getting a little bit little bit more traction and certainly,
trying to elevate that here to you all today to the extent you have relationships and can operate. I guess what I mean is, you know, they have leaders. They have a president of the, Cook County board. We have leaders. We have a president of the board. Have we had sufficient meetings with the county, municipality to municipality to, help work this out? Because I guess what I'm hearing is, you know, kinda loose leaf talks with certain members, but, you know, has the leadership, talked to each other?
You know, and not not not to challenge you on this, but, frankly, I'm not sure that that would change the outcome based on what's been happening in the computer system dysfunction that's been Okay. Occurring here. So so so the answer is no. We haven't tried. The the second thing I wanna ask is, do you believe that an appeal to, our state treasurer to, help front us the money on the interest would be helpful. I mean, I guess I'm trying to get to you know, we're we're asking it seems as though we're shifting the burden. Right? We're we're we're trying to get a few extra dollars from property owners who, in
my community, I've seen have to recently sell their properties because they can't afford the property taxes. But I'm wondering have we, as a municipality, done everything that we can to, handle this, whether it's the state treasurer, whether it's meeting with the Cook County, board president to solve this before we shifted the burden. So would an appeal to, our state treasurer be helpful? Well, there's really two separate issues there that I think you're you're you're speaking to. I mean, one is the the concept of the tax levy increase that we're we're
talking about here. And the nature of that just it's kind of not not directly connected to the borrowing that we're doing short term, but it is tangentially, you know, connected. So the, the the levy levy itself, really, again, it's it's more of a separate separate matter. And, yeah. Yeah. And then my last question is, do we know would you know how many nonmandatory payments has CPS made to city agencies, over this last year?
So non mandatory payments. Most of the payments that we make to the city are governed by intergovernmental agreements that have been approved. So, they're they're all the cadence of those has to do with reimbursements, for expenditures that occur. So I I think the nonmandatory nature of what you said, I don't quite understand that, but there's certainly payments that go back and forth between, the CPS and the state. And and and what you're saying is that every payment that goes back and forth, is man mandated by, IGA agreement.
Right? Yes. We we have no authority to pay anything without certain, you know, foundation principles of why why we're doing that. So the IGAs would be those Okay. Thank you. And and I guess also I'm I'm sorry. I I pause there. But in terms of asking others to help for, like, cover interest expense and and things like that, I mean, there's really limited legal options that we could pursue here. Right? So in in theory, you can come up with a concept that the state treasurer should loan us money to do this, but you you'd have to have an agreement
to do that, and you have to have some state law to be able to do that. The county itself set up a loan program to sort of help some municipalities with the delay in the property taxes, but CPS was not eligible for that. And furthermore, the size of that program was, I think, only $300,000,000, and we we borrowed over 1,600,000,000.0. So we Yeah. I I just think that it would be in our best interest to come up with some policies, to make that happen, rather than squeezing property owners.
But I I think that's something that we have to look into, as a body. So thank you. Thank you. Member Bennett. CFO stock, could you talk about, some of the budget cuts that were made during the budget process to guard against, having to increase the property taxes or or to I I guess what I'm saying is there are a lot of people who are saying that we need to be protective of, the taxpayer dollars, which I 100% agree with.
And could you talk about how we have been fiscally responsible with budget cuts leading up to the budget itself that was passed in August? Sure. The the budget itself that was was passed in August, you know, we we started with a large, deficit there, and we worked diligently to to to close that gap. There were, a lot of administrative contracts, different department, efficiencies that were garnered in order to help close that gap. We also, refinanced a considerable amount of our debt, to help, close the gap as
well. We also use some existing reserves, some philanthropic money that we had to help close the gap. It's still, I mean, a work in progress to still determine where some additional efficiencies may may may come and may lie, and I will have our work cut out for us as we get into fiscal year twenty seven. I mean, I don't wanna wax on too much. Much of much of what it is that we've done is, very much documented in the budget book, to to be specifics about it. But, you know, like I indicated as well, there's certain things that are just not
anticipated in the beginning of the year that have kind of come up. So, the delay of of, you know, the taxes is is certainly one of those things. Additional, facilities needs, additional special education needs, charter schools. So there's been a variety of things that have come up that have also put pressure, on the budget to try to keep it balanced, and and we're still working through those. I think we'll be back to the board with some things that's still early in the fiscal year. You know, I reported, to you, the first quarter ended.
We're optimistic that, you know, we can we can hold the ship into port and and be balanced, but there's still certain pressures, primarily through the first quarter. Some of the revenues were lacking, and and we're working working through some of these expenditure things. And I think as we get into the end of the second quarter, which is just ending, we'll have some more information for you as well. But we're certainly working on that end, and and we we we we don't I mean, this is very serious what it is that we're asking for, and we don't we don't do it lightly. Member Pope.
Good morning, and thank you for going through this and explaining it and your detailed slides to help us all who are not accountants or financial experts understand this clearly. I wanna talk about something different. I wanna talk about why it's important for us to take this levy on. It's important for us to take this levy on because we do not have all the resources we need to provide the high quality education to every student in CPS that we need. We are short money on the state formula.
We are short money now because we have had programs cut by Trump and the federal government. We are fighting lawsuits against Trump and the federal government, and fighting lawsuits, as we all know, does not come, cheaply. And we have every reason to anticipate with his dismantling of the, federal education department additional attacks on public education, which may undermine certain of our funding and financing. We attempted in August to pass a budget that would maximize that property tax levy.
And because of the county's tardiness, we were unable to guess exactly how much money that would be. So what we are really doing now is rightsizing what happened in August. We're not really trying to come up with a new tax assessment, but we are trying to get what we are entitled to, what we need for the schools. I'll also point out that we have lost over $30,000,000 in a combination of interest payments and, money that we had to take out, TANS loans on, bridge loans on
because of the county. As of now, as mister Stott just indicated, they still haven't paid the full payment to us of the monies that are due. So I'm a property tax recipient as well as a propagator of property tax. My property taxes will go up. I'm a retiree. I'm not super happy about it, but there is nothing more valuable that we're spending our property tax money on than the education of future generations of students. We're not talking about a burden that is going to be huge for anyone.
The property tax increases that were huge were not generated by this tax levy. This tax levy is a very minimal amount. Someone with a half million dollar home is gonna be paying what they would pay for going out for fast food once. And, really, this is not the problem in our economy. Ideally, I would like to see us taxing the rich and not having to rely so much on property taxes, but let's do this because this is the right thing for our children and our schools.
Member third of the court. Thank you, chief Stock, for your presentation. I have a few questions. How many consecutive years have we increased, the levy? As long as I've been watching CPS, and and looked back, I mean, twenty more years, the board has consistently increased the tax levy. So, it's it's there were there were some years where the consumer price index was very flat. It was less than 1%. We still got a small increase. We still requested, the increase.
So it's it's it's it's it's a nature. It's it's what the board has done each each year over and over to help balance the budget. Thank you. And why do you think that is that it's never really been that much of a question or a controversial thing to increase the levy to the maximum that we can? I wouldn't say that it's not been controversial. I'm sure there's been years. I don't know the history of everything, but, I'm sure it's come up from time to time. This year, I think, is just a little bit more painful with, and a little bit, more thought consuming with just the reassessment that's occurred throughout the city of Chicago,
and and it just has everybody thinking about this, I think. Thank you. And could you please provide a projection? Because my understanding is that, if we don't take on this levy increase, it's not just a impact for this fiscal year. It's also for future fiscal years because, the rates at which we can levy in the future, it will be compounded by what we can take on this year. Correct? So do you have a projection of, like, lost revenue for five years out, ten years, fifteen years, or anything to that extent that we could consider? Sure. Let me see if I can, summarize that here here quickly and and make it
make it a little easier to understand. So, if you think about the the operating levy and, if we were to just receive $10,000,000 extra there, right, So we would lose that money this year if if we didn't do that. And then going forward, that that would be basically lost going forward. So you could you could look at that five years out, and that would be five times 10,000,000, $50,000,000. There's also the compounding effect of that, which is actually less than the losing the
number itself. But if if you're thinking about these increases in in the tax levy at two to 3% per year, you would you would lose that amount. So it's a few $100,000 on top of that, but it's primarily, because these are tax capped funds, and the levy next year is based off of the levy this year, just like this year's levy is based off of last year's. And if it's $10,000,000 lower, then you lose that that going forward. That that's what's occurring here. And then for the pension levy, we would lose that money for the current year,
and then potentially we would have to go back and try to increase it by a larger percentage to make up for that. But on a on the pension levy, which operates at a flat rate, it's a point five six seven times EAV. We would just lose that in the current year, but it's really the operating funds that would be affected. Thank you. And my last question is that, inflation or CPI is at 2.9%. And the reason that we're capped at my understanding at inflation or 5% is so that these are these are just, like, modest increases that allow for us to levy,
at the rate of which our own expenses are increasing. Could you speak to that? Like, the cost increases internally for CPS, for for drivers of our budget, are they increasing at, above, or below that overall inflation rate of 2.9%? I I would say that they're increasing probably slightly higher than 2.9% if you just think at a high level. One of our major expenses is is, payroll and our contract with our teachers, which we take very seriously, and we work very hard to to solidify, but the increase
annually on on the teachers is roughly four to 5%, right, depending on the rate of inflation. So that's right there slightly more than the 2.9%. And then you have to look at all the other external factors and things that come into play for operations, and and those there's certainly external pressure. CPI is lagging, so we'll see where CPI ends up for the current year, but we're kinda tied to what it was looking looking back at that 2.9. But, yes, I would say the expenditure pressures are greater than 2.9.
Thank you so much, chief Sock. I think when our own expenditure pressures are greater than inflation, it makes sense for us to pursue the measure the one tool that we have to increase our own, revenue to meet those needs. Thank you. We're open. Thank you, board president. Thank you, chief, for the presentation. I know oftentimes, whether it be this board and you keep hearing that we are living in unprecedented times. From your perspective, and you already presented some of the new challenges, how can you talk a little bit about, in particular, the federal government Trump's administration and instability, and
what we already seen the impact on the district and potentially additional cuts the district might face? I think that's a little more, nuanced to to to get into. I know, certainly, the one obvious thing that has been more publicized is the the magnet school assistance, the program, loss of, you know, in excess of $1,010,000,000 dollars there, affecting the black student success plan that we've had. So there's certainly, that's the thing that's the tip of the iceberg, there. We're we're hopeful that, you know, it doesn't get much worse than that.
Our other title one, title two monies, those have all been kind of we're working through that. We haven't seen any delays there, but we know there's also, you know, just operational pressure that's been occurring with other things that we've been discussing in terms of additional security, additional counseling, additional just resources to kinda help alleviate some of the things that are going on. And those I think, again, those are rather nuanced, but, there's certainly pressures that we've been facing and and working through, but the magnet school assistance program is definitely the
one that that comes to mind at this point. Thank you. I also would like to add, I know at the state level, there was the act now of funding for community schools in particular after school programming that has impacted several this is across Illinois with other school districts, but also impacted, the here in Chicago. And that means that at least one of those schools is in my district. So I've been hearing directly from community. Of right now. You know, they're trying to figure out how they can get additional funding given that the Trump administration keeps cutting all the support systems, and now it's adding the pressure
at the local level for our communities to step up and be providing those, you know, services that are needed. I also wanted to mention or ask, you know, since I and thank you for that update regarding budget. You know? Additional cut pressures to our budget. Given this moment, which programs or services are most at risk for our students if this instability continues to happen? Are there any particular programs raised doctor King? I don't know if in particular, I'm thinking about our most vulnerable students from special education, bilingual learners, any other population that is potentially at risk of being fired or
impacted because of the cuts? I I think that you're spot on with the, you know, the most vulnerable are are definitely those that, you know, those programs will be will be challenges. A lot of resources that go into, after school programs, special education needs, and it's difficult it's difficult for us to to find the resources to kinda keep keep doing that. We're mandated to do that. And, we're certainly been trying to keep any kind of cut out of the classroom. And that's a kind of our our North Star, and still a work in work
in progress to to follow through on that. My last question is if you had one message for families, community members, you know, anything else for them to understand about the real consequences of taking action versus inaction given the item we're voting on today? Well, I I what we always aim for is is stability here. Right? And like I indicated, we have very few levers that I don't even try to say it differently. There's very full few levers that we can pull in terms of what we can do to to raise revenues.
We're obviously trying to advocate, at at the state of Illinois to try to get increased in in funding, from the state, but this is just like all school districts. This is this is one of the full few levers that that we're able to do. So, I think it this isn't gonna alleviate all the pressure that we have going forward, but it's, you know, it's $25,000,000 is no small amount of money, and it it will it will help on some some level. So that's why we've we felt that there was a need to bring this before
the board and have it discussed. Thank you, chief. Just wanna end saying that, at least for me, it's difficult to just sit here and seeing how the Trump administration keeps attacking the communities that we represent and, you know, think about what else can we be doing to help to help continue fighting for those communities. You know, when I go back to my district, often even hearing today, another family got up that they're just grocery shopping in their store. It that's not fair. Right? And I know that having been a graduate from Chicago Public Schools, because of my public education, I'm here today and always grateful and always thinking, how can I pay
this forward? You know? We are here in the city. Doesn't matter if our students are from the North, the Southwest Side, the West Side, South Side, East Side. They all should have the right to be successful in their education. And so, oftentimes, that's what I keep thinking about when I'm putting these items. And, again, because the Trump administration keeps coming after our communities, now is that in pressure for the local governments to step up. Thank you. Member Gutierrez. So I don't have a question, but, really, I'm gonna read a prepared statement that I've written.
I'm voting no on any further Chicago Public School property tax increases. The families I represent in Garfield Ridge, Clearing, and across the Southwest Side are already at a breaking point. Over the past two years, homeowners in our communities have experienced historic increases in property taxes, utilities, food, insurance, and housing costs, all while wages have not kept pace. On the Southwest Side, we're already absorbing some of the steepest property taxes increase in
the entire city. In just the past year alone, homeowners and clearing saw average tax bill increases of approximately 24%. Garfield Ridge rose by over 20%. Chicago Lawn by more than 21%. Gage Park by 20% and West Lawn by over 17%. These increases far exceed inflation and have added hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars to annual household expenses.
For our working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and small business owners, this is not sustainable. Our residents are not spectators. They are seniors on fixed incomes. They are working families trying to stay in homes they've lived in for decades. They are small business owners who already shoulder some of the highest burdens in the region. For them, another tax increase is not a budget line. It's the difference between stability and displacement. CPS already takes the largest share of every Chicago property bill tax.
Year after year, CPS has raised taxes to the legal maximum. This approach has pushed really people closer to foreclosure, force families to sell their homes, and hollowed out working class neighborhoods. We all believe in investing in students, but there is a difference between investment and an overreliance on homeowners as a permanent solution to structural budget problems. You cannot keep funding the system on the backs of the same families who are
already drowning. Before asking residents for one more dollar, CPS leadership must demonstrate real internal cost reforms, long term structural solutions, not annual tax escalations. Southwest Side families have done their part and more. Now leadership must do theirs. I will not support any further property tax increases. Our communities cannot afford it, and they should not be asked to carry it. Now let's move to the work of improving our teaching and learning and working to
address our chronic absenteeism rate, looking and studying how do we reimagine our school footprint as we have tons of schools that have less than a 100 students. And, also, figuring out ways because in less than thirteen months, the city and CPS will disentangle. And what does that look at? It is tone deaf of us as a board to ask and support this increase. Member Deberry. Hi. I just wanted to, come in and say that, as we are figuring out the
budget this year, there's so much that's taken place between the time when we thought we had a budget that would work for us and now. School closures, absorptions, these things are undeniable. We don't know, exactly what it's gonna cost to make sure our students are secure, but we know that it's gonna cost us a lot more than we thought it would. And we cannot have them in limbo for what most homeowners would pay, between 8
and $16 a year as it pertains to this levy. And so I just think that taking action now secures the futures of our students, not just today, but in years to come. And that we have to do all we can for our students now more than ever with federal dollars questionable, with state funding not being sufficient.
It's undeniable that we must do all we can in this moment. Thank you. Are there any other further comments or questions? We'll now open the floor for questions on the public agenda item. Thank you. Member Roosevelt. Yep. So I understand that voting to max the levy appears to be a fiscally sound decision. I've taken a lot of time, more time than I even thought I would to understand the implications of this. However, fiscal responsibility does not take place in a vacuum.
By voting yes, we are simply chasing a rabbit down a hole that we will never ever catch. We will face this exact same problem even after we receive another $25,000,000. Let's start with efficiencies. Let the public and the board see the initial $50,000,000 in cuts that we promised. Most importantly, we must learn to live within our means and right size this district. Putting more financial pressure on our families to foot this bill is simply irresponsible. This levy will not solve our underlying structural issues.
Promise you that until we address the root causes, more revenue from a property tax increase is a temporary fix to a permanent problem. Member Custer. Thank you, board president. Today's levy vote is an investment in our children and the future of Chicago Public Schools and I will always vote to fund our schools. This decision protects classrooms, supports our educators, and preserves core services that students and families rely on every day. At the same time, it strengthens CPS financial footing and positions the district for greater
long term stability. Importantly, this vote also reinforces our ability to advocate in Springfield for the sustainable, equitable funding that CPS deserves and we cannot efficiently, excuse me, effectively demand partnership from the State if we are unwilling to act responsibly on our own behalf. At a moment when Donald Trump and his allies are openly threatening public education and federal support for our schools, weakening CPS from within is simply not an option. Our students cannot afford instability and our educators cannot shoulder the uncertainty.
This vote is about responsibility and about stability and it's about standing up for our students today and for the years ahead. Thank you. Governor Reedus. Thank you, mister president. I initially, wasn't, going to speak on this today, but I think that something that we're missing from this discussion that hasn't been brought up, by this board, is the fact that for so many families on especially the South and the West Side, Southwest Side, that member Gutierrez brought up, we've seen tremendous increases in property taxes, over the
years. I'm very thankful that, you know, I was able to buy something in my neighborhood, as, you know, we all face pressure, with gentrification, in my area. My property taxes only went up $600 this year, and, which is only a 7% increase. But for so many neighbors and especially, in the community south of me and west of me, they had historic huge increases, thousands of dollars, in their property taxes that
they simply cannot afford. As I was growing up, I heard of many families in my area who left, simply because of the pressures of increasing values, as the neighborhood changed, as gentrification changed the neighborhood. Those increasing values weren't because houses were remodeled, but simply because, the values changed in the market. And so your property taxes are based on the perceived value of your home. So we know that homes in certain areas are more expensive than others.
While the perceived value of homes on the South and the West Side have increased dramatically, leading to dramatic tax increases, which force families out of our city. And so, for that reason, and simply put, this is something that, even if it is 16 on my home, it is something that lots of families can't afford. It just adds, to the compounding effect of the large increases in their taxes. Thank you. There being no additional comments or questions, we'll now proceed with the vote on the
public agenda item. Board secretary, please proceed. Thank you, president Harden. I'll proceed with the item on the public agenda. Read the board report number and title. This item does require a vote. R s one, resolution authorize authorizing and approving the amendment of board report twenty five zero eight two eight r s three resolution levying property taxes and authorizing and directing the filing of a controller certificate for the fiscal year 2026 for school and capital improvement purposes of the Board of Education Education of the City of Chicago.
President Harding, this amendment is necessary to incorporate the additional new property value. Is there a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. I'll proceed with a roll call. And just as a reminder, can board members please, turn on your mics when you do vote? The court reporter is not able to catch your vote. Member Lozano? Yes. Member Smith? No. Member Lopez? Yes. Member Velez? Yes. Member Boyle? No. Member Wallace? Aye. Member Custer?
Aye. Member Pope? Yes. Member Rosenfeld? No. Member Rivas? No. Member Brown? Yes, ma'am. Member Rio Sierra? Aye. Member Bannon? Aye. Vice president Bautista? Yes. Member Gutierrez? No. Member Biggs? Yes. Member Thodokura? Yes. Member Blaze? Aye. Member Zachor? Yes. Member Dee Berry? Aye. 15 ayes, five nays. This matter is adopted by the board. President Harden, there are no further items on the public agenda.
Thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn? Is there a second? Second. All in favor? And we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.