Committee weighs $750,000 Act Three design placeholder and a possible $84.6M referendum; members debate priorities

The Oak Park - River Forest SD 200 Community Finance Committee discussed a $750,000 design-development placeholder for a proposed 'Act Three' facilities project and considered funding pathways, including a potential spring 2027 referendum to issue bonds.

Staff presented schematic estimates: a construction cost in today's dollars of about $56.3 million, $74.8 million when escalation and indirect costs are included, and a total project estimate of roughly $84.6 million after fees and furniture. Two auditorium renovations were estimated at about $2.4 million and might be phased into the district’s 10-year capital plan.

Why it matters: the scale of Act Three would likely require voter approval and bond financing, and some committee members argued the district should more directly tie capital planning to instructional priorities and immediate student needs rather than schedule design spending without clearer connections to academic outcomes.

Members raised concerns that the $750,000 placeholder for design development could be perceived as diverting funds from direct instructional spending (tutoring, instructional coaches, intervention supports). One member noted, "only 64% of our students are meeting math proficiency," and urged that budgeting reflect urgent student supports. Staff responded that approving design development does not preclude instructional investments and that program design and targeted instructional work is already in motion; they said if the board approves the design-development phase the funding would primarily support schematic refinement and bond planning.

Staff and members also discussed funding timelines. Graham said a likely funding vehicle would be a referendum (capital bonds) and that, if pursued, the earliest ballot opportunity would be the municipal elections in spring 2027. He outlined steps the committee and staff should pursue concurrently with design development: refining design costs, modeling bond term scenarios and tax-levy impacts, and coordinating community engagement.

Next steps: the committee asked staff to continue aligning the capital plan with instructional priorities, to provide clearer program-connection documentation for design costs, and to model referendum scenarios for board review in coming months. If the board moves toward a referendum, staff said the decision must be made by December to meet ballot-timing requirements for spring 2027.