Citizen Portal
Sign In

Board votes to demolish and rebuild Pershing Middle School after feasibility review

3043050 · March 26, 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

After months of study and a feasibility review, the board approved demolition and new construction of Pershing Middle School on its existing site; the board cited code, safety, schedule and long‑term cost considerations and identified an additional bond allocation need of about $12 million for new construction.

Following a multi‑month feasibility review and contractor input, the Springfield R‑XII Board of Education voted unanimously to demolish and reconstruct Pershing Middle School on its current site.

District staff, architects from DLR Group and Crossland Construction presented three options examined during the study: (1) full renovation, (2) a hybrid renovation/new construction and (3) full new construction on the existing site. Architects said the existing building — with portions dating from multiple additions and 21 years since the last work on some areas — presented code, envelope and height constraints that limited the effectiveness and longevity of a renovation.

The nut graf: the district recommended new construction because it produces a modern facility with full code compliance, improved safety and security sight lines, equitable learning spaces (classrooms, gym, cafeteria sized for the student population) and a longer lifecycle; staff said new construction can be phased so students remain on site while the new building is built and the old structure removed later.

Financial context: the district’s bond program currently shows remaining, unallocated bond funds of roughly $62 million (this figure includes proceeds, premium and projected interest and accounts for prior project allocations). Staff said the Pershing project as currently budgeted would require an additional roughly $12 million to build new rather than renovate; if the board approves new construction, the additional dollars would be taken from the remaining bond balance, leaving roughly $50 million for later projects.

Board members asked detailed questions about code compliance, the expected service life of a renovation (estimated 15–25 years with mechanical replacements) versus new construction (estimated 75 years), utility and operating cost implications and contract timelines. Architects estimated renovation hard construction at about $43 million (with soft costs making the total nearer $50 million) while the new‑construction budget scenario was higher; staff explained prior bond phase allocations, incurred costs (e.g., field project), and remaining project reserves.

The board then voted to demolish and reconstruct Pershing on the current site; the motion passed 7‑0. Staff said the construction manager at‑risk delivery method allows early packages to be bid to compress schedule and that the contract will incorporate liquidated‑damage language to protect schedule commitments.

Ending: With the approval to proceed with new construction, staff and design teams will finalize design, phasing and budget details to present early bid packages and contract documents to the board for subsequent approvals.