In its 2018 report, Oak Park’s Taxing Bodies Efficiency Task Force warned plainly that our six coterminous taxing bodies too often operate “as if in a vacuum,” failing to coordinate spending, long-term planning, or the cumulative tax burden placed on homeowners.
Among its most important recommendations was the development of shared 5-year financial plans built on common assumptions, along with the publication of combined tax-impact projections. Residents, the task force argued, deserve to understand the total cost of local government, not just the portion presented by each individual district. The report emphasized that acting independently, without transparency about community-wide consequences, had already produced “unsustainable tax increases” and was eroding affordability.
Yet today, the Park District of Oak Park is pursuing a stand-alone bond referendum; District 200 is preparing its own for Part 3 of its facilities improvement project; the village is evaluating nearly $90 million in capital projects; and District 97 has unveiled a 10-year facilities master plan costing $86 million. There has been no joint planning, no shared financial modeling, no exploration of cost sharing, and no forecast of the combined tax impact. This is precisely the fragmentation the 2018 task force identified as a major driver of our growing tax burden.
The task force also recommended a moratorium on new referenda through 2030 to help slow tax growth after years of increases above the rate of inflation. Its message was clear: Oak Park must break the cycle of escalating levies by coordinating across jurisdictions, not by continuing to raise taxes independently.
Instead, the park district has chosen to place its referendum in a low turnout, off-cycle election, contrary to the task force’s call for all tax-increase questions to appear during fall general elections to ensure broader voter participation.
The issue is not whether Oak Park should invest in its public facilities; it is whether we can continue doing so in a fragmented way that ignores the cumulative effect on homeowners, renters, seniors, and families. The task force warned that the status quo was already undermining affordability and long-term community stability. That warning is even more pressing today.
Before Oak Park voters are asked to approve another major bond issue, we deserve a full and transparent picture: the combined tax impact of all planned referenda, a coordinated capital plan across taxing bodies, and an honest evaluation of alternatives, including shared facilities or cost sharing. Without that, the Park District’s referendum represents not responsible stewardship, but a return to “business as usual,” the very pattern the task force urged our community to leave behind.
Athena Williams, Bill Planek, Mike Fox, Marty Noll, Paul Beckwith, Frank Pellegrini, Gary Collins, J. Michael Williams, John Hedges, & Julianne Piotrowski
Business and Civic Council of Oak Park