As expected the Oak Park and River Forest High School board voted unanimously on Jan. 15 to pay the school’s architectural firm, FGM Architects, $365,000 to develop schematic plans for what school officials are calling Act 3, the third major step in plans to transform the OPRF building.
Act 3, or some might say Project 3, will be designed to transform many performing arts spaces at OPRF including new band, orchestra and choir rooms as well as new music practice rooms, a Black Box theater and some new physical education spaces including a cardio gym, an adaptive PE gym and a multipurpose gym. The conceptual design of Act 3 was presented at the board’s Dec. 18 meeting.
The conceptual design projected transforming 93,906 square feet of space in the southwestern portion of the OPRF building on Scoville Avenue. Within that footprint 49,485 square feet of the space would be used for programming while 44,321 square feet is classified as other, meaning hallways, mechanicals and other such uses.
Once the architects finish the schematic design they will develop a cost estimate for Act 3. That cost estimate is expected to be shared with the District 200 school board in late May or June.
Then the school board will have to determine whether to go forward with the plans and decide how to pay for it. A timeline presented by the school refers to a potential April 2027 referendum to raise the money needed for the Act 3 project.
However, at the Jan. 15 meeting board member Graham Brisben questioned why the district specified April 2027 as the date for a referendum.
“It’s too early to project, oh it’s definitely April (2027),” Brisben said wondering if the November 2026 midterm election was also a possibility.
The November 2026 midterm election will likely generate a much higher turnout than the April 2027 election in which only school board and village races will be on the ballot. But Supt. Greg Johnson said he thought 2027 would be the earliest the district would be ready to present a referendum to the community.
“I do think November (2026) would be too ambitious,” Johnson said when Brisben asked why April 2027 was specified in official documents as a potential referendum date.
Tim Brandhorst, the board’s vice president, said OPRF should not be publishing any potential referendum date because cost estimates are months away and the board has not even begun to discuss how to pay for Act 3.
“I don’t think we should be getting out over our skis in talking about timelines,” Brandhorst said.
Board member Jonathan Livingston also said that talk of a date for a referendum was premature. But board member Fred Arkin disagreed.
“I don’t see any problem in saying this is a goal, not a hard, fast deadline,” Arkin said. “And I don’t see any harm in trying to follow this timeline. If it doesn’t work out, it doesn’t work out.”
Board member Kathleen Odell agreed with Arkin.
“We haven’t had any formal budget discussions meaning we haven’t decided anything but I do like having the referendum on the timeline,” Odell said. “It signals to the community that if they’re paying attention, that at some point there would mostly likely be a referendum.”
