Elmhurst Tax Hike: D-205 Officials Differ On Issue

ELMHURST, IL — The Elmhurst school board on Tuesday gave preliminary approval for a 5 percent property tax increase, but two members disagreed with the decision.

Under the plan, the owner of a $500,000 house in Elmhurst School District 205 would pay $355 more next year. The district's portion of the local property tax bill makes up nearly 75 percent. The city is second at 7 percent.

The school board's debate was whether to reduce the portion of the property tax bill covering debt for school construction projects. Citing the pandemic, the board last year reduced the debt-related portion of the property tax levy by $3.1 million, a process known as abatement. That meant the taxpayers' payments for the debt would be spread out over later years.

Board member Jim Collins wanted to reduce the debt part of the property tax bill again this year. Officials said some of the highest debt payments are over the next two years.

Collins said that without abatement, the school's levy would increase 10 percent over the next couple of years. He suggested abatement during that time.

"My perspective is this community has been extremely generous with the school district. Whenever the school district asks for money for a good reason, the community has voted to approve it," said Collins, who has served on the board for a dozen years.

The district has $38 million in "excess funds," he said, so it could afford to reduce the tax levy to give relief to taxpayers.

"Our enrollment is declining, but we're going to increase our levy by 10 percent over two years. That doesn't make sense to me," Collins said. Reducing the levy would be a "goodwill gesture to our taxpayers to show that it's a two-way street. So my position is, I really can't vote for a tax increase, unless it's accompanied by abatement."

However, board member Chris Kocinski supported the staff's recommended tax increase. He said the district has increased the scope of a number of its construction projects, including at Field and Fischer elementary schools. Those increases are expected to come out of the district's reserve accounts.

"When we last debated this issue, we were close to the depths of the COVID crisis. We weren't seeing cost inflation issues, supply chain issues," Kocinski said. "We still have a lot of projects that we haven't broken ground on yet. It worries me. I don't want to be in a position of doing another abatement, and then we end up more resource-constrained than we expected to be."

He also noted the drop in students' academic performance, which would likely mean more spending to reverse the trend.

Board member Athena Arvanitis also said she supported the tax levy increase. She noted the $38 million in the district's accounts, but she said a lot of that is earmarked for construction projects.

"We are already seeing the indicator of what's to come," she said. "There are staffing shortages, there are construction costs, we own a lot of facilities and bricks and mortar that need maintenance over time. We haven't even begun to talk about student needs and the increasing expenses that come with student learning to the level our community expects."

She said she opposed abatement when the cash flow is at a low level.

Collins replied that the district's cash on hand was nearly double what experts recommend.

Board member Karen Stuefen agreed with Collins' position. She said the district talked about keeping the taxpayers' payments low for the nearly $170 million bond issue that voters approved in 2018.

"We've been talking about leveling our bond and interest since we started this referendum project," she said. "I can't support this tax levy. I'm not going back on my word."

The board voted 5-2 for the proposed levy increase, with Collins and Stuefen dissenting. The board has until March 1 to make a decision on abatement.