Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Kenmore Project Finances topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Treasurer says Kenmore rebuild estimate rose to $76M; board and city LFI decision needed to proceed

5929495 · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During the June 9 meeting treasurer and superintendent briefed the board that the Kenmore project estimate rose to about $76 million, leaving a multimillion-dollar shortfall that depends on the city’s LFI funds; the board scheduled a finance committee meeting June 16 to review options and design changes.

The Akron Public School Board heard detailed finance and schedule updates on June 9, 2025, after Treasurer Dr. Ruth Thompson told the board a recent architectural update put the Kenmore rebuild project at $76 million—about $13 million higher than the original $63 million estimate. Thompson said the district has $42 million in certificates of participation (COPS), $15 million in ESSER funds reserved, and about $18.34 million in the city LFI account (local funded initiative), but the LFI amount is not guaranteed to come to the district in full.

“That number hit us just like it did you,” Thompson said, describing the $76 million estimate and explaining that inflation and extended timelines had increased costs since the original budget. She said the COPS balance increased modestly to $42 million due to interest and that the district is consulting arbitrage specialists to determine how much of the LFI money is available. Thompson warned the project cannot proceed with final designs until available budget is confirmed: “It’s critical that we work with the city as quickly as we can to determine the LFI funding, because otherwise the project is essentially at a standstill.”

Board members asked whether the district could proceed if the city does not provide LFI funding. Treasurer Thompson and Superintendent Mary Outley said the administration had presented several design/option alternatives to reduce the cost and that the district would need to scale or redesign parts of the project if LFI funds are not available. Vice President Alexander and others urged transparency and speed so the project could move forward without added delay.

Board members pressed for details on timeline and oversight. Member Molnar asked where the public should get information on progress; the superintendent said architects would produce an updated timeline and the administration had a committee in place to review design changes. Outley said the district would take revised plans to the finance committee and that the next finance committee meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2025.

Treasurer Thompson described the original funding mix as: $40 million in COPS (now $42 million), $15 million in ESSER set aside for the project, and an $8 million split LFI commitment in the original arrangement with the city that has since changed because the project estimate rose. Under some scenarios Thompson presented, if the district received a smaller share of LFI funds than originally projected, the district would face a $9–$19 million gap depending on assumptions. Thompson said the district’s plan included using construction-manager-at-risk (CMR) procurement to limit over-budget exposure and flagged the need to finalize arbitrage calculations for the LFI account.

Superintendent Outley said administration and architects were working to identify cost savings and said a design-review committee will meet next week; she also asked the architects to provide an updated timeline “as best they can” because continuing to update documents without a clear budget could add costs.

The finance committee report at the end of the meeting reiterated that the committee will meet on June 16 at 4:30 p.m. to review updated project information and that the committee expects to have material for the board to consider soon. Board members said they wanted a clear recommendation after that meeting so they could provide direction and avoid further delay.