001Tech team, we're ready to start. President Harden, before you begin today's meeting, I would like to read a few announcements. Good morning. Welcome to the December 29th, 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 use 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 wave the attention of one of our security officers. Please mark your calendars for the upcoming meetings. The next ARC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 14th, 2026 at
00210:30 a.m. The next board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 29th, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. 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 cpsb.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 the Chicago Board of Education special meeting. Today is December 29th, 2025, and I'm President Shan B. Harden. On behalf of my fellow board members, thank you for joining us today. We're holding today's special meeting in
003the 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 virtual if they've opted to do so and registered observers are joining us in person. Special meeting of Monday, December 29th, 2025 is hereby called to order. Board secretary, please call the role. >> Member Smith, >> present. >> Member Lopez, >> present. >> Member Vez, >> present. >> Member Bole >> here. Member Wallace who's joining us virtually via Zoom. >> Present. >> Member Kuster >> present. >> Member Pope >> here. >> Member Rosenfeld. Member Rivas >> present. >> Member Brown. Member Rio Sierra >> present. >> Member Bannon >> present. >> Vice President Bautista >> present. >> Member Gutierrez
004>> present. >> Member Vigs >> present. >> Member Thodura >> present. Member Blae >> present. >> Member Zachor >> here. >> President Harden >> present. >> Member Lozano >> present. >> 20 members present. There is a quorum. I'd also like to recognize Dr. Meline 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 2026 tax levy based on projections that were available at the time. As a governing body with limited options for
005raising 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 dispersements to CPS and compounding interest from our lenders is totaling $33 million with more acrewing 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
006limit 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 his 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
007scenes 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 hardearned winter break. The order of the meeting will be as follows. Public participation recess will reconvene from recess. There'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 participation session. Thank you for joining to share your comments with the board. In compliance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act, public 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 public participation is the time for the board and CPS senior
008leadership 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, public 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
009cpsb.org if you want to meet with the 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 5 minutes to speak before public participation and any elected officials will be allotted 5 minutes to speak after the conclusion of public participation. Board secretary, please share the rules of public participation. >> Thank you. Um, before I start with the rules, I do want to note for the record that member de Barry has joined the meeting at 10:39 a.m. uh 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
010prefer to attend by 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 the 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 or mailed to 42 West Madison Street Garden level. Written comments received between the day the public agenda was posted through 5:00 p.m. 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 will call your name
011and 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 2-minut timer. When there are 30 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, know 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 uh begin with the speakers list and we we will begin with Kenneth Newman, speaker number two. Good morning board members. President Harden, CEO King. Um, I really appreciate this because this meeting was not publicly advertised on the board front page website calendar when I looked at it after
012hearing about the meeting on the news on Friday. So, this meeting did not get good PR last week. So, something's got to somebody dropped the ball. So, are you aware that um Gateley Stadium is going to be renovated this this coming spring and Gateley 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
013east 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 30 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. Uh there are other issues. Chicago State University, I heard, is going to wants to use that stadium for their new football team. Well,
014I don't know. CPS teams don't have enough time inside that stadium. How are you going to 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 Gaitley Stadium and our other stadiums that need to be uh solved and I stand by to assist you in this issue. Thank you, >> President Harden. That concludes public participation. >> Your mic? We'll now move into a short recess. Remember Rio Sierra, do you have motion MO1? >> That I move that the board take a 40-minute recess. >> I second. >> Thank you. I'll proceed with a roll call. Member Lozano. >> Yes. Member Smith. >> Yes. >> Member Lopez. >> Hi. Member Veles. >> Yes. >> Member Bole.
015>> Yes. Member Wallace. >> Hi. >> Member Kuster. >> Hi. >> Member Pope. >> Yes. >> Member Rosenfeld. >> Yes. >> Member Rivas. >> Yes. >> Member Brown. >> Member Rio Sierra. >> Hi. >> Member Bannon. >> Hi. >> Vice President Bautista. >> Yes. >> Member Gutierrez. >> Hi. >> Member Biggs. >> Yes. >> Member Thorakura. >> Yes. >> Member Blae. >> Yes. >> Member Zachor. Yes. Member deberry. >> I >> thank you. 20 eyes, zero nays. This motion is adopted. This meeting will now go into a 40m minute recess. For the people who don't No. Uh, The meeting of the board of education has reconvened. We'll now proceed with the business portion of the meeting. Interim superintendent CEO Dr. King, we are ready for your presentation. >> Good morning. We will have a presentation
016by CFO Chief Acting Chief Wall-E. >> 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. Um, this is for fiscal year 26 and we're here today to discuss amending the tax levy itself. So, I'm going to 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 uh the presentation screen here. And it depicts fiscal year 26 and fiscal year uh 25 cash
017flow. And uh we ended fiscal year 25 with negative 339 339 million um of of cash flow. and uh fiscal 25 was u $485 million worst than 24. So it's trending in a wrong direction for us. Um there's significant pressure on our financials. As you know, we've discussed this um with our budget process and everything that's u on the table. A big part of uh what's occurring here is the loss of esser money. So um that was phased out in fiscal 25. there's no more esser money remaining and we're we're working through that problem. Um the the chart here um has a line running through it and [snorts] um you know there's a significant portion in 26 towards the right which is trending lower. Um so we haven't been able to get above a positive
018cash position and you may ask yourself well how do you how do you exist in a negative cash position? Uh 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. Um ideally, it's coming in in March and in August. And um going back since the year 2000, uh COVID the county has been delaying uh the timing of the tax levy. So in in 2000 2001 it was delayed by um the both installments were delayed by 3 months and [snorts] then we we moved into a upgrade of their computer system past COVID and they started delaying as a result of implementation and other um matters that um were administrative in nature. Uh currently um this
019year the taxes that should have been due in August have still not uh been paid to us. Um the bill was due December 15th and we've only received uh 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 million is my calculation and interest expense. Um 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 get when we give them the
020money, we owe them interest on the investment loss that they had and that's 6 and a half%. So, that's pretty painful. Um just to look at in terms of property taxes and what they represent uh they are largest source of revenue for the for the board. Um they were about 50% of of what we take in. So um for fiscal year 26 budgeted uh uh revenue was 8.657 657 billion and uh the property taxes were uh 4.156 or 48% of the total. This is just a simple pie chart with fiscal year 25 and 26 I think um you know there's property taxes look like they went up by 3% but really what happened there is in 25 uh we had the federal co money and that kind of got flushed out of the system so
021then it kind of changes the percentages uh slightly there. If I could just take a minute to talk, we hear a lot about tax caps and what they mean, but um I wanted to uh again sort of show you um a historical uh consumer price index table here and some of the factors that lead into uh our limitations on the tax cap. So, uh, you know, for all school districts also, by the way, uh, property taxes are the largest source of revenue. That's not just that's not just Chicago. That's just a state, uh, function. You know, we do receive state revenue, but like if you look back at that that chart that I had, the state aids only 25 27%. So, uh, by and large, school systems in Illinois rely on property taxes. Um, not
022every county in uh 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, uh, for the upcoming year, this levy that we're talking about, it's 2.9%, right? [snorts] But there's also, uh, 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 kind of 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. Um, I know there's a lot of concernation about CPS and
023um, in general property taxes, but um, 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. um only in 21 and 22 did we have some higher numbers but this still brought us back to um 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 uh walk through it but I wanted to just sort of lay out kind of um what's been happening with the timing things uh in terms of the delay and just how the overall process works. So each uh fiscal
024year on this calendar all the way over to the left we think about our budget our tax levy also the tax anticipation notes uh being authorized at the beginning of the fiscal year in July and then the tax levy is filed with the county um done you know right after that in August and then it's [snorts] eight months really until we start to receive any of those property taxes. So, when you think about the cash flow and 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? Um, and the first tax bill, by the way, is supposed to be 55% of the prior year. Um, and uh we did receive that on time um going back uh a year
025ago. There's talk that that will be delayed coming up in the upcoming year. Um but then um just in terms of going back to this cycle here, it's really 11 months after the levy is finalized that the county actually determines the a calculation on property taxes and what the levy will be. Um and and so the the levy that you're were 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 uh May or June of next year. What's happened here and kind of 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
026think about the timeline we were needing to approve our fiscal year 26 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. Um, and the assumption, uh, was an average of where it's been at. Um, a little bit on the higher side. And there was actually a lot of new property growth. And the tax base grew uh, 10% and our assumed rate was close to three uh, a little less than 4%. So, there's some upside when you look at the tax cap calculations and what happens there. Um, but going back to this chart again, 13 months after the fiscal year begins is when ideally we're supposed to start receiving that second installment of property taxes. Again,
027that didn't happen. It's 4 and a half months late. Uh, was due. People paid their taxes on December 15th and we've only received 20% of that money. So, it's still a discussion. we're still owed uh over $1.3 billion and we still have the short-term borrowing outstanding that is uh affecting our our cash flow and the cost. So, um, here is a a a table that kind of looks at what we had projected, what the final was, uh, for the the the current year that's in the process of being collected, and then the proposed extension for fiscal year 26, uh, which was originally based off of the projection, um, but now once we know the final, we're asking for the amendment. So, it's roughly $40 million more than what the board approved in August. And considering
028an estimate of the the property tax cap calculation that the county will do, I believe that's somewhere between 25 and $30 million of additional revenue that the board could receive by amending um this levy today. Um, 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. Um, you know, it's just interesting when you think about how I talked about um the cost of this, the TANS, $33 million. 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. Um, right now, that's still a work in progress. We know there's a
029pressure 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. >> Um, but things do occur during the course of the year that kind of take us o away uh from being balanced or or not. So, this is certainly helpful towards that that cause. And then just you know the three main components uh of the tax levy themselves so it could be grounded in what the purposes are. The teacher pension levy. Uh so uh we're asking for an 11 this this amendment considers an 11 million increase in the teacher pension levy. It was $612 million. The amount requested will be um changed to $623 million. We know we pay uh over a billion dollars coming up in fiscal year 26
030to the teachers pension. The state pays uh you know basically a third of that. The lion share of it is coming off of the property tax levy. So we do have an operating uh expense budgeted for the teachers pension levy. So every little additional dollar that we can uh levy helps offset that. Uh another major portion of the tax levy is the capital improvement tax levy which goes for capital projects across uh the district. There's no change in that. Um 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 up $29 million. And um I like to think of that as being considered
031the education portion of the levy, the tort uh unemployment uh portion. And then uh we're also asking for a special education transportation levy um to to help offset costs there. [snorts] So then in conclusion here, um the revised uh FY26 tax levy is 4.126 billion. Um it would represent a 4.78% increase over the prior year's final levy. Um 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 um overall this this gross levy this 4 bill126 um 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 um iterations of that. If it's a
032$500,000 home it's just simply 16 times or 8 * 2 equals 16. And um that would conclude my presentation and open it up for any questions. Thank you. You have any questions or comments? >> Member Smith? >> Yes. Uh my question is uh 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. >> Um would would that be if I could just clarify in terms of the the delays and what they're costing us? >> Uhhuh. um to a certain to a certain extent. Of course, the county is a big a big body um a lot of different elected officials, a lot of different appointed officials
033and um we have we have raised it on a number of different uh fronts with individuals. We've also been contacted by the press and also uh made that um a recent talking point that's been picked up by certain media outlets. So, I'm um we're probably a little bit uh we've always been asking the county, by the way, to not do this. Um 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 um trying to elevate that here to you all today to the extent you have relationships and >> I guess what I mean is, you know, they have leaders, they have a president of the uh Cook County Board. Uh we have leaders, we have a president of the board. Uh
034have we s had sufficient meetings with the county uh municipality to municipality to uh help work this out? Uh because I guess what I'm hearing is, you know, kind of loose leaf talks with certain members, but you know, has the leadership uh talk to each other? you know, and 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 and the computer system dysfunction that's been occurring here. >> So, we so so the answer is no, we haven't tried. Um, [sighs] the the second thing I want to ask is uh do you believe that an appeal to uh our state treasurer to um help front us the money on the interest would be helpful? I mean, I guess I'm trying to get to,
035you 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 uh handle this? whether it's the state treasurer, whether it's meeting with the Cook County uh board president to solve this before we shifted the burden. So, would an appeal to uh our state treasurer be helpful? >> Well, there's really two separate issues there that I think 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
036it's not not directly connected to the borrowing that we're doing short term, but it is tangentially, you know, connected. Um, so the um the the levy the levy itself really again it's it's more of a separate separate matter and um Yeah. >> Yeah. And then my last question is, do we know or would you know how many non-mandatory payments has CPS made to city agencies uh over this last year? >> So non-mandatory payments um most of the payments that we make to the city are governed by intergovernmental agreements that have been approved. So, um, they're all the cadence of those has to do with reimbursements, um, for expenditures that occur. So, I I think the non-mandatory nature of what you said, I don't quite understand that, but there's certainly payments that go back and forth
037between, uh, the CPS in the state. >> And and what you're saying is that every payment that goes back and forth uh is mand mandated by uh, 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 those reasons. 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 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'd have to
038have 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 million, and we we've borrowed over 1.6 billion. So we >> yeah I I just think that it would be in our best interest to come up with some policies uh to make that happen uh ra rather than squeezing property owners. But I I think that's something that we have to look into uh as a body. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Member Bannon. >> Um CFL stock. Could you talk about um some of the budget cuts that were made during the budget process to guard
039against um uh having to increase the property taxes or to I I guess what I'm saying is there are a lot of people who saying that we need to be protective of uh 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 uh deficit there and we worked diligently to to to close that gap. Um there were um a lot of um administrative contracts, different department um efficiencies that were garnered in order to help close that gap. Um we also uh refinance a considerable amount of our debt um to help uh close the
040gap as well. Um we also use some existing uh 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 we'll have our work cut out for us as we get into fiscal year 27. Um I mean I don't want to wax on too much. Much of much of what it is that we've done is um is very much [clears throat] documented in the budget book. Um to be specifics about it. Um but um 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 um the delay of of you know the taxes is
041is certainly one of those things. additional um uh facilities needs, additional special education needs, um charter schools. So, there's been a variety of things that have come up that have also put pressure um on the budget to try to keep it balanced and we're still working through those. I think we'll be back to the board with some things still early in the fiscal year. Um you know, I reported um to you um the first quarter ended. Um we're optimistic that, you know, we can we can pull the ship into port and and be balanced, but there's still certain pressures um primarily through the first quarter. Some of the revenues we're 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,
042which is just ending, um we'll have some more information for you as well, but we're certainly working on that end. Um, and and 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 want to talk about something different. I want to 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 highquality education to every student in CPS that we need. We are short
043money 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 uh cheaply. And we have every reason to anticipate with his dismantling of the uh 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 right sizing what happened in August. We're not really trying to come up with a new tax assessment, but we are trying to get what
044we are entitled to, what we need for the schools. I'll also point out that we have lost over $30 million in a combination of interest payments and uh money that we had to take out uh TAN's loans on bridge loans on because of the county as of now as Mr. Stock 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
045were huge were not generated by this tax levy. This tax levy is a very minimal amount. Someone with a half million dollar home is going to 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 Thor. >> Thank you, Chief Stack, for your presentation. I have a few questions. Um, how many consecutive years have we increased uh the levy? >> As long as I've been watching CPS, uh, and and looked back, I mean, 20 more years, the board has consistently increased the tax levy. So,
046uh, it's there 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 um the increase. So, 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 um I'm sure it's come up from time to time. Um, this year I think is just a little bit more painful with uh and a little
047bit uh more thought consuming with just the reassessment that's occurred throughout the city of Chicago. Um, and and it just has everybody thinking about this, I think. >> Thank you. Um and could you please provide a projection because my understanding is that um if we don't take on this levy increase, it's not just an impact for this fiscal year, it's also for future fis fiscal years because um the rates at which we can levy in the future, it would be compounded by what we can take on this year. Correct. So is do you have a projection of like lost revenue for five years out, 10 years, 15 years or anything to that extent that we could consider? >> Sure. Let me see if I can um summarize that here here quickly and and make it
048make it a little easier to understand. So um if you think about the the operating levy and I um if we were to just receive $10 million extra there, right? Um 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 5 years out and that would be 5 time 10 million $50 million. 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 2 to 3% per year, you would you would lose that amount. So it's a few hundred,000 on top of that. But it's primarily um because these are tax capped
049funds 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 million lower then you lose that that going forward. That that's what's occurring here. And then for the pension levy um 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 0.567 times the 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 um inflation or CPI is at 2.9%. Um, and the reason
050that 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 uh at the rate of which our own expenses are increasing. Could you speak to that like the cost increases internally for CPS um 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, uh one of our major expenses is is um payroll and our contract with our teachers, which we take very seriously. Um 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.
051So that's right there is 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. Um in those there's certainly external pressure. CPI is lagging. Um so we'll see where CPI ends up for the current year, but we're kind of 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 Stack. 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 um revenue to meet those needs. Thank you. >> Go. >> Thank you, board president. Thank you, Chief, for the presentation. I know oftent
052times whether it be this board and we keep hearing that we are living in unprecedented times from your perspective and you already presented some of the new challenges. uh 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 uh nuanced to to to get into I know um certainly the one obvious thing that has been more publicized is the the magnet school assistance uh program loss of um you know in excess of 10 $10 million there um affecting the black student success plan that we've had. So there's certainly um that's I think that's the tip of the iceberg um there. We're we're hopeful
053that you know it doesn't get much worse than that. Um our other title one title two monies um those have all been kind of we're working through that. I 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 kind of help alleviate some of the things that are going on on those. I think again those are rather nuanced, but um 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 uh funding
054for community schools in particular after school programming that has impacted several this is across Illinois with other school districts but also impacted uh the here in Chicago and that being said at least one of the schools is in my district 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 is adding the pressure at the local level for our communities to step up and be providing those you know services that are needed. Um but I also wanted to mention or ask you know since August and thank you for that update regarding budget you know additional co pressures to our budget uh given this moment which programs or services are most
055at risk for our students if this instability continues to happen are there any particular programs raises Dr. 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 quite 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 challenged. There's a lot of resources that go into um after school programs um special education needs um and it's difficult it's difficult for us to to find the resources to kind of keep doing that. We're mandated to do that um and uh we're certainly been trying to keep any kind of cut out of the classroom and
056that's a kind of our our northstar um and still a work in progress to to follow through on that. My last question is if you had one message for families, community members, um 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, um we have very few levers that I try to say it a different way. 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 um at at the state of Illinois to try to get increased in in funding um from the state, but this is just like all
057school districts, this is this is one of the full few levers that that we're able to do. So, um I think it's this isn't going to alleviate all the pressure that we have going forward. Um, but it's, you know, it's $25 million is no small uh 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. Um just want to 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 I you know think about what else can we be doing to help to help continue fighting for those communities. You know
058when I go back to my district often even hearing today another family got up back there 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 this city. Doesn't matter if our students are from the north, the southwest side, the west side, southside, east side, they all should have the right to in [clears throat] be successful in their education. And so oftentimes that's what I keep thinking about when I'm voting on these items. And again, because the Trump administration keeps coming after our communities, now is adding pressure for the local governments to step up. Thank you,
059>> member Gutierrez. >> So, I don't have a question, but really I'm going to read a prepared statement that I've written. Um, 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 in 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%.
060These 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, forced families to sell their homes, and hollowed out workingclass neighborhoods. We all believe in investing in
061students, but there is a difference between investments and an over reliance 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 100 students
062and also figuring out ways because in less than 13 months the city and CPS will disentangle and what does that look like it is tonedeaf of us as a board to ask and support this increase >> member Barry. >> Hi. I just wanted to um come in and say that um 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. um school closures, absorptions, these things are undeniable. We don't know um exactly what it's going to cost to make sure our students are secure, but we know that it's going to cost us a lot more than we thought it would. and we cannot have them in limbo for what most homeowners would pay
063um 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. Um 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. >> Member Rosenfeld. >> Yep. Um, so I understand that voting to max the levy appears to be a fiscally sound decision and I've taken a lot of time, more time than I even thought I would to understand the implications of this.
064Um, 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 million. Let's start with efficiencies. Let the public and the board see the initial $50 million in cuts that we promised. Most importantly, we must learn to live within our means and rightsize 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. I 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 Kuster. >> Thank you, board president. Today's levy vote is an investment in
065our 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
066about responsibility and about stability and it's about standing up for our students today and for the years ahead. Thank you. >> Member Rivas. >> Uh thank you, Mr. President. Um I initially uh wasn't uh going to speak on this today, but I think that something that we're missing from this discussion that hasn't been brought up um by this board uh is the fact that for so many families on especially the south and the west side uh southwest side uh that member Gutier has brought up uh we've seen uh tremendous increases in property taxes um over the years. I'm very thankful that um you know I was able to buy something in my neighborhood. Um as you know we all face pressure uh with gentrification uh in my area. Uh my property taxes only went up
067$600 this year. Um and uh which is only a 7% increase. But for so many neighbors in especially um in the community south of me and west of me um they had historic huge increases thousands of dollars um in their property taxes that they simply cannot afford. Um as I was growing up um I heard of many families in my area who left uh simply because of the pressures of increasing values um as the neighborhood changed as gentrification changed the neighborhood. um those increasing values weren't because houses were remodeled but simply because um 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
068on the west side have increased dramatically uh leading to dramatic tax increases which force families out of our city. Um, and so, uh, for that reason, um, and simply put, this is something that, uh, even if it is $16 on my home, um, it is something that lots of families can't afford and it just adds, uh, 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. RS1 resolution authorize authorizing and approving the amendment of board report 25828 RS3 resolution levying property taxes and
069authorizing 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 Harden, 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 remember uh 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 Veles. >> Yes. >> Member Bole. >> No. >> Member Wallace. >> I >> member Kuster. >> I member Pope. >> Yes. >> Member Rosenfeld. >> No. >> Member Rivas.
070>> No. >> Member Brown. >> Yes. Ma'am. >> Member Rio Sierra. >> I. >> Member Bannon. I >> vice president Bautista. >> Yes. >> Member Gutierrez. >> No. >> Member Biggs. >> Yes. >> Member Thodakura. >> Yes. >> Member Blae. >> I >> member Zachor. >> Yes. >> Member Derry. I >> 15 eyes, five nazs. 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 adjurnn? >> Is there a second? >> Second. All in favor? >> We are. Thank you, everyone.