The OPRF school board voted 5-2 last week to pay $712,500 to the school’s architectural firm, FGM Architects, for the creation of design documents for what school officials are calling Act 3, a major demolition and reconstruction of the southwest portion of the school to build new and larger classrooms and facilities for music programs, a blackbox theater and some physical education spaces as well as other upgrades.
However, one board member, Jonathan Livingston, who voted for the creation of the design documents, said he opposed moving forward with a tax increase referendum in 2027, the date that had been targeted, to ask voters to authorize the school to issue bonds to pay for Act 3.
“I do not think Spring of 2027 is a good option,” Livingston said. “I would definitely prefer spring of 2028.”
Livingston referred to the bad optics of doing a referendum next year, apparently noting complaints the school board has been receiving from equity activists complaining about how much money the school has been spending on capital projects while, in their view, shortchanging tutoring and academic support.
“I don’t like the optics on the timing,” Livingston said. “I don’t see the urgency right now.”
Livingston, along with Fred Arkin, Tim Brandhorst, Graham Brisben, and Audrey Williams-Lee, ultimately voted to approve spending $712,500 to create the design documents this year apparently swayed by the argument that that the design documents, the detailed plans for project, will be good for years to come and be useful whenever the board decides to authorize a referendum.
Josh Gertz, who last month cast the only vote against approving the schematic designs for Act 3, and Kathleen Odell voted against authorizing the creation of design documents. While Gertz thinks that the estimated $84.6 million cost of Act 3 is too expensive, Odell is, like Livingston, more concerned about the timing of the project.
“No, not now,” Odell said as she cast her no vote.
Odell and Livingston are very sympathetic to the concerns that equity activists have raised and seem to be concerned with spending so much on bricks and mortar at a time when academic support is such a compelling priority.
Before the vote Odell expressed her concerns.
“We just had a really robust conversation about teaching and learning interventions and I think one of the things we heard was some uncertainty regarding what the next steps are and how we’ll make the investments we need to make going forward in that program. And it’s going to take some time and given that I feel a little apprehensive about approving this $700,000 investment given that we have a lot on our plates now and it’s all really important,” Odell said.
Odell, who described herself as a strong supporter of the performing arts, said that although she wants the Act 3 project to be built, she wants to slow down the process a bit.
“I feel like we just might need a little bit more time to put all this together,” Odell said.
Brisben said that positioning spending on academic support and design development as competing priorities is a false dichotomy noting that the spending on the design documents is a one-time expense while spending on academic support is a continuing expense. Brisben said the issues with providing more academic support for students who need it is more a scheduling issue than a money issue.
Brandhorst noted that no decision on when to go forward with a referendum needs to be made until December and that the creation of the detailed design should not be delayed.
“I think that we should continue to work this project in the way that we promised the community that we would,” Brandhorst said. “We’ve done that on the design side, let’s do that on the financing side. Let’s talk about when to go to referendum at the right time which I think is going to be December. I think talk about the right time to take this to the community is way premature. We have a lot to talk about and a lot is going to change in the next five months.”