Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District 211 reviews 2024 tax levy scenarios as board seeks more lower‑levy options
Summary
District 211 administration recommended a levy close to the PTELL cap and outlined four scenarios including partial recapture of previously abated levies. Board members asked for additional scenarios below the PTELL baseline and pressed for clearer enrollment, revenue and expenditure assumptions.
District 211 administrators presented a recommended 2024 tax levy and multi‑year financial forecast, and board members asked staff to model additional, lower‑levy scenarios before setting a tentative amount.
Lauren Hummel, chief operating officer, and Bart Peterson, controller and treasurer, told the board the recommended levy reflects the 2024 consumer price index (3.4%) plus estimated new property growth (0.3%), and outlined four scenarios that vary by whether the district recaptures portions of a prior look‑back levy and the recapture levy assessed by Cook County. The presentation cited pressures on the budget including rising salaries (which account for roughly 85% of expenses), projected benefit increases and the end of ESSER federal relief, and said reserves will decline under several models without additional revenue or expenditure reductions.
The presentation emphasized the mechanics of Cook County’s Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL), the recapture levy and the look‑back levy; administration said the district has fully abated the recapture levy for the past three years and proposed spreading $3.6 million in previously abated dollars over two years to soften the taxpayer impact. Hummel and Peterson said collection assumptions (budgeted at about 99% of the final levy extension) and uncertain recapture amounts make precise projections contingent on year‑end county data.
Board members pressed for clarity. Miss Cavill sought confirmation that the five‑year projections incorporate positions added after ESSER funding ended; administration said those staff and safety positions are included. Mister Rosenblum and others asked why the presentation did not include levy scenarios below the PTELL baseline; Rosenblum said he wanted to see at least two below‑PTELL options so the board could compare outcomes. Administration responded that the base model at PTELL was designed to maintain the district’s fund balance above the board policy minimum and that lower scenarios would likely deplete reserves sooner. The board voted to request two additional levy scenarios below the base PTELL model (consensus to ask for those scenarios was recorded during the meeting).
Several trustees also raised alternative cost‑reduction options and questions about specific revenue volatility, including declining CPPRT receipts and utility cost increases; Trustee Dombrowski urged considering guaranteed state revenue (recapture) instead of uncertain PTAB recovery efforts. Trustees also discussed reinstating student instructional fees (administration’s projection assumed $170 starting in 2026) and sharing the enrollment assumptions that underlie the forecast.
The administration said the tentative levy must be set at the November meeting and the board will hold a public hearing in December before final adoption; the levy must be filed with the county by the last Tuesday in December. The administration offered to provide additional scenarios and more detail on enrollment projections and specific revenue assumptions at the next meeting.
