District 57 authorizes $7.5 million in tax anticipation warrants after Cook County billing delay

The District 57 Board of Education voted unanimously to authorize taxable tax anticipation warrants (TAWs) totaling up to $7.5 million to bridge a cash‑flow shortfall caused by delayed Cook County property tax bills.

Mary (superintendent) told the board the county’s delay and an ongoing systems migration left the district with “limited options” to fund an upcoming bond payment and payroll. She said the district and a coalition of nearby superintendents are pursuing coordinated advocacy with county and state officials and are evaluating legal options tied to the county’s contract with a vendor.

Jason, the district’s municipal advisor with PMA, explained how TAWs work and the terms the district planned to seek. “They are obligations that do not count as debt towards the district. They are borrowed in evidence of a need,” he said, describing TAWs as taxable, short‑term, by‑fund borrowings that the district would structure as callable so proceeds can be repaid when the delayed tax collections arrive.

Staff described two not‑to‑exceed amounts brought as separate resolutions: $6,735,000 for the education fund and $765,000 for operations and maintenance. Together those figures total $7,500,000, which staff said would cover a large bond payment due Nov. 28 plus routine payroll and operating needs until collections are received.

Board members and staff discussed timing and cost. Jason said banks’ taxable bids they had seen ranged roughly from 4.78% to about 5% and that the district had tentatively set a closing date of Nov. 20, when interest would begin to accrue. He said the district planned a March 1 maturity as a latest maturity date but that the TAWs would be callable when the county issues and the district receives its tax receipts. Staff estimated interest and fees for a short bridge on the order of $130,000 (approximate), and noted the calculation does not fully capture lost investment earnings on monies the district would otherwise have had invested.

Mary described parallel advocacy steps the district is pursuing, including a planned joint letter from multiple superintendents and meetings with state and county elected officials. She said Cook County’s tax‑billing migration to a vendor identified in the meeting as Tyler had created the current disruption and that some county commissioners had expressed frustration with the contract’s remedies for vendor performance.

At the meeting the board voted to adopt both resolutions. The education‑purpose resolution (not to exceed $6,735,000) was read aloud and approved by roll call; the operations and maintenance resolution (not to exceed $765,000) was read and approved by roll call. The motions passed with recorded “yes” votes from Member Faye, Member Kolcher, Member Leto, Member Nelson, Member Doerner and President Bennett Kelt.

Board members directed staff to bring a draft resolution and additional talking points to the next meeting and to continue inter‑district coordination on advocacy and any legal analysis. Staff noted attorneys are conducting preliminary review of potential contract remedies and that any legal action would require additional analysis of standing and statute‑of‑limitations issues.

The board also approved a short closed session following the public portion to address collective bargaining and certain personnel matters.

What the board approved: two separate authorizations to issue taxable tax anticipation warrants for tax year 2024 collections payable in calendar year 2025—up to $6,735,000 for education and up to $765,000 for operations and maintenance. The resolutions set parameters for officers to sell the warrants and delegate closing authority.

Details not specified in the meeting: the winning bidder(s) and final interest rate(s) (to be determined at bid), exact fees from bond counsel, and any final language of a multi‑district legal filing (if pursued).