Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pershing School Site Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to proposed Pershing School rebuild location, urge reuse of existing site
Summary
A group of Pershing School neighbors told the Springfield Public Schools board they were not consulted about a plan to relocate a Pershing rebuild closer to private yards and asked the district to place the new building on less intrusive land on the existing campus.
Sharon Benton, speaking during public comment for several residents who share a fence line with Pershing School, told the Springfield Public Schools board the community was surprised to learn that the Pershing project promoted in Proposition S would place a rebuilt school closer to private homes rather than at the school’s current footprint. “We are surprised and disappointed nothing has ever been mentioned to the neighbors most impacted with this change,” Benton said.
Benton said neighbors support “having a better facility for the neighborhood students,” but urged the district not to place a new building “imposing on our properties and our privacy.” She listed specific concerns: classroom windows overlooking yards, loss of the long‑standing buffer between homes and the school, increased impermeable surfaces and stormwater runoff, construction noise lasting as long as two years, night lighting, new fire lanes and increased vehicle/truck traffic, and possible declines in property value. She said some residents only learned about the proposed site in the past week and left a written list of concerns with the board.
Benton asked the board to “seriously consider our concerns and find a location on the existing property far more suitable to a school property surrounded by private residences,” and urged renovation rather than relocation where possible.
The board did not respond to Benton’s request during the public‑comment period; the district’s presentation later in the meeting focused on academic priorities, not site selection. No vote or formal board direction on the Pershing site was recorded in the meeting minutes.
What happens next: Benton said residents had submitted a list of comments to the board. The transcript does not record any formal response, staff assignment, or timeline for board consideration of the neighbors’ request; those details were “not specified” in the meeting record.
Ending: The public‑comment segment concluded and the board moved on to the consent agenda.
