“I. A public hearing to approve a proposed property tax levy increase for Barrington Community Unit School District Number 220, Lake, Cook, Kane, and McHenry Counties, Illinois, for 2025 will be held on December 2, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. at Barrington CUSD 220’s Administrative enter, 515 West Main Street, Barrington, Illinois 60010.
Any person desiring to appear at the public hearing and present testimony to the taxing district may contact Sarah Lager, Asst. Superintendent of Business Services/CSBO, 515 West Main Street, Barrington, IL 60010, (847) 381-6300.
II. The corporate and special purpose property taxes extended or abated for 2024 were $156,153,482.
The proposed corporate and special purpose property taxes to be levied for 2025 are $163,300,000. This represents a 4.58 percent increase over the previous year.
III. The property taxes extended for debt service and public building commission leases for 2024 were $9,000,073.
The estimated property taxes to be levied for debt service and public building commission leases for 2025 are $13,948,798. This represents a 54.99 percent increase from the previous year.
IV. The total property taxes extended or abated for 2024 were $165,153,554. The estimated total property taxes to be levied for 2025 are $177,248,798. This represents a 7.32 percent increase over the previous year.”
NO. I am getting taxed out of my residence of 37 years.
Before asking taxpayers for a 7% levy increase, Barrington 220 must first demonstrate accountability for the funds it already controls.
The district’s own records and Board minutes show that major capital projects under the Build 220 bond program exceeded $74 million, yet key change orders were processed internally for nearly two years without public approval. At the same time, vendor financed equipment leases have ballooned from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $7 million despite healthy cash reserves that could have avoided interest costs.
Independent forensic review confirms:
• Millions in unratified construction change orders handled administratively, not by the Board.
• Architectural overlap between DLR and DLA firms, duplicating design fees.
• Energy contracts renewed without competitive bidding for four consecutive years.
• A pattern of vendor financing and lease premiums instead of cash purchasing, even with strong fund balances.
Until these procurement and transparency issues are corrected, the district has not earned another tax increase.
Taxpayers should see a full audit of construction change orders, public rebidding of energy and service contracts, and a moratorium on new installment debt before any new levy is approved.
Fiscal responsibility comes before revenue expansion. The community deserves performance metrics and proof of cost control not another automatic tax increase.
Well no one shows up at these meetings or writes to the Board of Ed asking why they’re misappropriating taxpayer dollars, not to mention completely ignoring the rules and policies to benefit their little darling, Erin Chan Ding, so they have no clue that people are pissed, despite the clear anger and outrage on blogs like this. Sandra and Winkelman do what they want because no one calls them out on it. So… get ready to take another tax hike up the you know what.
I’ve written to the district on multiple occasions about serious issues, from financial transparency and Board ethics to basic classroom professionalism, and the pattern has been the same: silence, deflection, or surface-level replies that never address the substance.
Here’s another example. After my wife respectfully asked a teacher a simple question about lesson structure during Back-to-School Night, the concern wasn’t the answer it was what happened afterward. We later learned comments were made to students during class about being “annoyed by parents asking these questions,” and families who raised concerns were told they just needed to “put in more effort.”
I documented this professionally and directly to the principal. My follow up email clearly asked for acknowledgment of three basic things:
That students should never hear dismissive or ridiculing remarks about their parents’ involvement during class from a teacher.
That feedback from students or families should be treated as constructive, not adversarial.
That the school should model respect and openness, not defensiveness and ridicule.
The response? None of these points were addressed. The only suggestion was to schedule a meeting as if the problem were a scheduling misunderstanding instead of a cultural one. I made it clear that a meeting without acknowledgment or accountability wouldn’t be productive, and unsurprisingly, the conversation ended there.
Inclusion, openness they say…surface performative nonsense.
This is the recurring theme across every level from the Board down to individual schools, when concerns are uncomfortable, the default response is avoidance.
Safety concerns during lockdowns? Ignored.
Policy and ethics violations raised with the Board? Ignored.
Professionalism and communication concerns at the school level? Dismissed.
When parents, students, and taxpayers repeatedly take the time to write respectfully, cite policy, and propose solutions and are consistently met with silence or empty gestures that’s not partnership. It’s apathy disguised as diplomacy.
At this point, it’s hard not to conclude that “collaboration” in Barrington 220 only works one way: feedback flows up, but accountability never comes down.