McPHERSON, Kan. — As the McPherson USD 418 Board of Education discussed what was learned at community meetings last week, a few things cleared up – but a lot more questions are being raised.
During a work session Monday night that also included Blaine Cash from incite Design Studios, it was reported a study committee is leaning towards a “rebuild and revitalize” concept based on what’s been presented as Option 2, which would replace the existing academic, or hex, part of McPherson High School, and convert Eisenhower Elementary School into a middle school
The middle school proposal would take 5th graders now in the elementary schools and include them in a separate area for 5th and 6th grades, which would utilize the existing Eisenhower space, and a new wing for 7th and 8th grade students.
There are a significant number of people who back building a new high school at a different site. This option was the most expensive of the three proposals presented during the Oct. 22 open house at the McPherson Museum, which 130 people attended between two sessions. Those who participated in meetings last week were generally not in favor of a third option which would make some improvements and not raise the property tax levy.
As the board discussed input from the committee and open house attendees, it discussed what would be involved in a new high school site if they were to pursue that option. Superintendent Shiloh Vincent said he would consult with a local realtor to obtain some cost estimates on land acquisition. In the planning process, it has been estimated an 80-acre site would be needed for a new high school.
Option 2, the “rebuild and revitalize” option, would require based on current cost estimates and valuations, a just over nine mill property tax increase from what the district currently levies.
The district is also in the process of having a phone survey conducted, which will begin Friday. Board members indicated they need more information, especially when it comes to cost as it relates to middle school ideas, before they can make a decision.
There’s also an opportunity available for those who didn’t attend the open houses to provide their thoughts on the concepts that were presented. The material from that event and an opportunity to share input can be found at www.mcpherson.com/apps/pages/facilityplanning.
There was also discussion about the potential of taking a phased approach to facility improvements along with the idea of submitting two questions to voters that some districts have utilized, especially when athletic facilities are involved.
The Board will continue facility discussions at their next regular meeting Nov. 10 and have set special meetings for Nov. 25 and Dec. 1 for the same purpose. If the Board decides to submit a proposal to voters in March, their current target, it would have to take action to place it on the ballot by Dec. 10.
