Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Taxes School Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cook County board hears residents and school officials warn of sharp property-tax increases and delayed school distributions

Cook County Board of Commissioners · December 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Residents and school officials told the Cook County Board that last year’s steep property-tax bills and delays in county tax distributions have forced districts to borrow, liquidate investments and absorb millions in fees and lost interest. Speakers urged clearer communication, a forensic audit and repairs to the county’s tax-distribution technology.

The Cook County Board heard more than an hour of public testimony Tuesday from homeowners, municipal trustees and school leaders who said recent property-tax assessments and delayed fall tax distributions have caused severe financial harm.

Merle Huckaby, a trustee of Hazelcrest, opened the substantive public comment by calling the 2024 property-tax increases “obscene” and urging the board to seek remedies at the state level for seniors and homeowners who face foreclosure or forced sales. “Many of us were and still are in sticker shock,” Huckaby said, asking commissioners to “become part of the solution.”

School officials pressed the board with specific losses and operational impacts. Ben Collins, superintendent for Park Ridge–Niles District 64, told the board that school districts across Cook County have had to take tax anticipation warrants and liquidate investments; “We’re compiling data that will show millions of dollars in payments, fees, interest and lost investments,” he said. Diana McCluskey, chief school business official for Palatine SD 15, said her district issued $25,000,000 in tax anticipation warrants and expects roughly $450,000 in related interest and fees and about $1,200,000 in lost revenue. Mary Gore, superintendent of Mount Prospect SD 57, estimated countywide losses “upwards of $70,000,000” from lost interest and broken investments.

Speakers attributed the problem in part to delayed distributions tied to the county’s tax-distribution process and to a vendor implementation described in committee as a Tyler technology issue. McCluskey and Gore asked for clearer, timely communication from the treasurer and president’s offices and urged the board to convene a joint task force with school districts and county staff to resolve distribution timing.

Other members of the public described personal assessment problems and website errors. Colin McKinney said repeated certification-of-error requests and appeals tied to incorrect square footage remain unresolved, and Linetta Thomas, a 9th Ward resident, reported a 404 error trying to confirm a veterans exemption online.

Several speakers also demanded a forensic audit and threatened political action. Danielle Carter and others called for a forensic audit into where tax dollars go and urged a tax boycott if officials do not provide transparency. County leaders responded at the dais that the county has not raised its levy since 1996 and reiterated that some drivers of higher taxes—such as school, municipal and other local levies—are set by separate taxing bodies or by state processes.

Next steps: Commissioners acknowledged the urgency of the issue and several requested followup briefings. Multiple commissioners recommended improved county communication with school districts and municipalities; district leaders asked for a joint meeting with the president’s and treasurer’s offices and more detailed, public timelines for when tax distributions will resume.