McPherson board reviews $89.5 million long-range facilities plan, weighs two ballot questions and $1.75M in savings

The McPherson Public Schools board on Tuesday reviewed a revised long‑range facilities plan that would cost about $89.5 million and be split into two ballot questions: Question 1, a $62.5 million, mill‑neutral ask to build a new high school and address major campus needs; and Question 2, a $27.9 million proposal for a new middle school and safety and security upgrades.

Dwayne Cash, who led the facilities presentation, said the draft plan reflects community priorities — safety and security, building efficiency, and stronger PreK–12 learning spaces — and is intentionally conservative about scope. "Our plan right now is about 89 and a half million dollars," Cash said, noting the document is still in draft form and that some line‑item costs will depend on market bids.

Cash described a phased approach to reduce disruption: build a new academic wing adjacent to the current high school, move students into the new space, then demolish the aging Hexagon structure and reconfigure the front of campus. He said the plan would preserve campus features the community values, including the Roundhouse and athletic facilities, while adding modern classrooms and site improvements.

The administration proposed two ballot questions to give voters a choice. Cash said the $62.5 million option would be framed as a no‑levy increase; the district estimates that a 4.75‑mill increase would generate the $27.9 million tied to Question 2 if the board chose to ask it. "A 4.75 mill increase would equate to $9.10 per month for a $200,000 house," Cash said as an example of tax impact the public asked administrators to quantify.

Consultant Dr. Jared Tomlinson of Excellence K‑12 presented preliminary results from a phone survey of roughly 550 completed interviews. Tomlinson said Option 3 — the smallest, no‑tax‑increase set of urgent repairs and safety updates — drew the strongest immediate support in the sample, while a full new high school (Option 1) showed weaker net support when high price points were attached. He recommended framing cost impacts annually rather than monthly when communicating to voters and returning more detailed survey breakdowns to the community.

Board members spent significant time debating sequencing: whether a high‑school‑first approach (Question 1 primary) or a middle‑school‑first approach better addresses educational need and minimizes long‑term disruption. Cash and others argued that community feedback and concerns about the Hexagon make the high‑school project the strongest immediate priority; some board members cautioned that placing the high school as the primary question risks leaving the middle school in limbo if voters approve only Question 1.

Beyond facilities and ballot framing, administrators outlined a parallel fiscal strategy to stabilize district operations. Finance modeling presented by the administration identified a roughly $1.75 million recurring target in operational savings. Two scenarios were shown: without paying off current lease purchases, the district would need about $1.4 million in staffing reductions plus insurance and other savings (roughly 30 positions by the administration’s estimate); if lease‑purchase payoffs were included in the bond package, freeing about $388,000 annually, the number of positions affected could fall toward 20–22.

Superintendent‑level staff emphasized attrition and careful planning as the preferred approach: where possible the district would not create new vacancies and would seek voluntary retirements or reassignment before involuntary reductions. Still, several board members urged the board to decide as soon as practicable whether to transition from four elementary schools to three, both to align the long‑range plan and to give staff adequate notice of potential changes.

The board asked administrators to return at the Dec. 1 meeting with refined cost breakdowns, a pros/cons analysis for which elementary building(s) might be repurposed or closed, and clearer projections of staffing impacts under each fiscal scenario. The administration also committed to continuing the community engagement plan that includes a "thought exchange" digital feedback process and more accessible public reporting of the survey results.

No formal board action on the bond questions or school closures was taken at the meeting; the only formal motion recorded in these minutes was the routine approval of the meeting agenda at the outset.