Pershing neighbors tell Springfield R‑XII board they were blindsided by new school site, urge transparency

Pershing neighbors used the board’s public comment period to press Springfield R‑XII leaders for clearer plans and more transparency after district designs showed a new, largely two‑story school placed nearer to private yards than the renovation many voters expected. Residents said they were told in earlier meetings the project would be a renovation; they now see a taller building with extensive windows and a relocated bus lane and track.

"We were patient, and we trusted," said Sharon Benton, a Pershing resident, who told the board repeated requests for site plans and view/sightline information were ignored. Benton criticized a design she said would allow "vision glass peering into our backyards," and said the changes undermine the trust voters placed in the district when approving roughly $220 million in bond funding tied to Proposition S.

Safety concerns were raised as well. "Why would you want to create such an unsafe environment in so many ways for our children?" Chad Page, a nearby neighbor, asked, citing Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidance and warning that placing an entrance and bus route near a blind corner on Cedar Brook would reduce natural surveillance and create hazardous pedestrian and vehicular interactions.

Other speakers tied the dispute to ballot language and legal limits on bond‑funded projects. "Tearing down a school and, on top of that, moving the school is not a course correction," said Melinda Wade Page, who referenced the community task force’s recommendations and Missouri legal principles that material alterations to voter‑approved bond projects may require another vote.

Patrick Mueller urged the board to share transparent, site‑specific drawings and to produce a cost estimate for keeping the new school in the current street‑side location with the track and parking placed on the field. Deborah McFarland, another Pershing resident, said she supports Proposition S in principle but not a design that places a two‑story, heavily glazed building and a busy bus lane adjacent to private backyards.

Board members did not engage with commenters during the public comment period. The board’s agenda later included ongoing Proposition S construction items; no formal action on Pershing’s site placement occurred during the meeting. Neighbors asked for follow‑up information and cost comparisons; several speakers said they would pursue additional channels if the district did not respond.

What’s next: The board and district staff have not yet provided the neighborhood a consolidated site plan or a publicly posted cost comparison for the alternative layouts described by residents. Commenters requested those materials and asked the board to consider whether the current plans represent a material change to the bond language presented to voters.