Bond Project Information

This Bond represents a significant step toward the Long Range Facility Plan, which the Board of Education adopted in December of 2025. Thank you so much to the McPherson community for supporting the plan! This page will be used to share updates about the bond projects as work progresses and also maintain the history of the plan development process.

Following the bond election, the project moves immediately into Visioning and Schematic Design — the phase where we turn broad commitments into a clear, buildable direction. The first step is visioning. During this phase, our architecture partners meet with building and district leadership to confirm needs. At the same time, building staff will be engaged, as appropriate, to identify strengths, pain points, and opportunities.

From this input, iDS will develop a detailed space program that defines what spaces are required, how large they need to be, and how they should relate to one another. This ensures the design reflects both instructional goals and day-to-day realities before floor plans are advanced. As program clarity is established, the process transitions into Schematic Design.

During this phase, preliminary floor plans, site layouts, and exterior concepts are developed and reviewed with leadership and targeted staff groups to refine specialized needs.

Throughout the process, cost estimators and engineering consultants validate the design against the bond budget to maintain alignment.

By the end of Schematic Design, the district will have defined floor plans, a site plan, exterior elevations, and a validated cost model — providing the Board with a clear understanding of scope, function, and budget before moving into detailed design.

See the process timeline below.

Public Information Session Overview

McPherson Public Schools hosted two public information sessions during the week of February 2nd for the community to ask questions and get more information about the bond. Each session included 5 stations around the room, with experts available to answer questions related to that specific topic. The documents and information shared by each station are provided below.

Station 1- Ask the Architect - Mr. Duane Cash and Ms. Ashley Markley from incite Design Studios shared the draft site plans and renderings for the plan.

Station 2- Financial Overview - Superintendent Dr. Shiloh Vincent provided information about the tax impact of the bond questions, as well as information about the budget shortfall cycle.

Station 3 - The Preventive Maintenance Program - Mr. Bill Frose, Director of Operations, provided information about the long-term plan to ensure ongoing maintenance is performed to protect taxpayer investment.

Station 4 - Educational Impact - Leaders, including Ms. Brandi Martinez-McWilliams, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, and building principals Ms. Inge Esping and Dr. Audrey Herbst, shared information about how facilities impact education. MHS Assistant Principal Mr. Alex Specht also joined to talk about the CTE programs at MHS.

Station 5 - Building Tours - Building leaders, including assistant principals Mr. Todd Beam and Ms. Melissa Beede, provided tours of the Middle School and High School.

Public Information Session Documents

Taxpayer Cost Calculator

USD 418 Taxpayer Cost Calculator

Two Questions, One Plan

Two Questions, One Plan

Question 1 - No Mill Increase - $62.5M
Uses the mill rate already being paid for an existing bond. Passing this question will not increase the current tax rate.

1. Renovate and renew the High School

New academic wing
Career and technology labs
Safety and Security Updates
Technology Upgrades
HVAC work
Electrical improvements
Roof improvements
Additional auxiliary gym
Demolish hexagons

2. Safe and secure entrances at Lincoln and Roosevelt

3. Pay off the existing leases for HVAC/energy improvements and turf field and track facility

McPherson High School might look like this...

Rendering concept: These images show a general idea of what the building could look like. Final design work will occur after a successful bond election, and details may change based on stakeholder feedback and needs.

Question 2 - 4.75 Mill Increase - $27M
Project 1 MUST pass for Project 2 to move forward.

The estimated tax impact for project 2 is 4.75 mills, or about $9.10 per month for the average homeowner ($200K house).

1. Addition and Renovations at existing Eisenhower Elementary to become Middle School

Secure entrance
Competition gymnasium
Performing Arts space
Science and Technology rooms

2. Renovations and Improvements at Lincoln, Roosevelt and Washington

3. Add restroom, concessions and additional bleachers to the athletic field at McPherson High School.

McPherson Middle School might look like this

Rendering concept: This image shows a general idea of what the building could look like. Final design work will occur after a successful bond election, and details may change based on stakeholder feedback and needs.

Why do the facilities challenges in McPherson Public Schools exist?

This challenge is not unique to McPherson. Across Kansas and beyond, the funding available to school districts does not keep up with the cost of maintaining and replacing aging buildings and systems.
In this video, Dave explains why regular school budgets are not designed to handle major facility replacements and why bond funding is a necessary part of school facility work.
Watch to learn how this funding gap developed and how planning ahead helps protect taxpayer dollars, strengthen schools, and support inspired students.

Emergency repairs cost more than planned projects.

When major systems in school buildings fail, the cost to fix them is often 30 to 50 percent higher than planned work done ahead of time. Here’s why:

Repairs must happen right away to keep schools open
Emergency work limits contractor choices
Urgent jobs often cost more
Repairs usually fix only one problem, not the whole system
Materials must be ordered quickly instead of planned ahead

Bond projects allow the district to replace aging systems before they break, not after. This helps avoid emergencies, lowers costs, and reduces disruptions for students.

Planning ahead helps protect taxpayer dollars and supports strong schools and inspired students.

Above, we’ve highlighted how short-term, emergency fixes are more expensive than preventative maintenance and yet the funding available for maintenance consistently falls short of the needs a district has. Because of those realities, McPherson Public Schools and districts across the state face a common challenge.

Here is how the cycle works:

Buildings age. Major systems reach the end of their life.
Needs grow faster than the budget. Annual budgets are designed to operate schools, not replace large systems all at once.
Short-term fixes are required. Repairs are made to keep buildings open and safe.
Emergencies cost more. Work must happen immediately, often at higher cost.
Less money is left for long-term solutions. Funds are used to respond, not to prevent.
Backlogs increase. More systems age, and the cycle repeats.

The budget shortfall cycle

The only way to break this cycle is with a larger, one-time investment through a bond. A bond allows the district to address major needs at once, reduce emergency repairs, and build a strong foundation for the future.

Breaking the cycle

Plan Element History and Cost Breakdown

Plan Element	Where It Originated	Priorities
Fix HS/Eisenhower flooding & drainage	Staﬀ/admin, community comments, committee analysis	Maintenance & Infrastructure, Equity Across Schools
Districtwide HVAC/roof/MEP upgrades	Staﬀ surveys, community raw data	Maintenance & Infrastructure, Equity Across Schools
Secure entries	Principals, staﬀ, community, polls	Safety & Security, Equity Across Schools
Storm shelters	Admin interviews, community poll, community raw data.	Safety & Security, Equity Across Schools
Consolidate to three PreK–5 elementary schools	Admin interviews, staﬃng/eﬃciency data, community input	Elementary Consolidation, Operational Eﬃciency, Equity Across Schools
Eisenhower becomes the 6–8 Middle School	Committee meeting No.1, poll results	New Secondary Schools, Modern Learning Spaces, Operational Eﬃciency
Renovate & expand the High School on its current site	Community poll, committee guidance	New Secondary Schools, Modern Learning Spaces, Operational Eﬃciency
Preserve stadium, PAC & Roundhouse	Community preference, fiscal stewardship	New Secondary Schools
Reduce operating costs & improve efficiency	Admin interviews, community feedback, committee fiscal themes	Operational Eﬃciency

Question 1
Renovate and Renew the High School
Remaining 108,000SF + Addition		$52,000,000
High School Building Updates		$4,000,000
Demolish hexagons		$870,000
Elementary Secure Entrances
Lincoln and Roosevelt		$1,000,000
Lease Purchase Payoffs
2017 Lease – Central Plant & Eisenhower Upgrades 2022 Lease – Outdoor Activities Facility 2025 Lease – HVAC Work at WES & EES		$4,630,000
		$62,500,000

Question 2
Reimagine Eisenhower site as McPherson Middle School
Existing building 52,000SF + Addition		$18,000,000
New Middle School building updates		$3,700,000
Elementary Building Updates
Modern academic spaces		$3,500,000
High School Improvements - Outdoor facility
Restroom, concessions, seating		$1,800,000
		$27,000,000

Ballot Language

The official ballot language is below:

Project No. 1. It is hereby deemed necessary and advisable to: (a) construct, furnish, and equip improvements, renovations and additions to the existing High School facility including new academic wing, auxiliary gym, career and technology labs, safety and security improvements, technology upgrades, HVAC, and electrical and roof improvements; (b) construct, furnish and equip safe and secure entrances at Lincoln Elementary and Roosevelt Elementary schools; (c) acquire and payoff the existing leases for HVAC/energy improvements and turf field and track facility; (d) make all other necessary improvements appurtenant thereto (“Project No. 1”); and pay costs of issuance and interest on the bonds during construction of Project No. 1, at an estimated cost of $62,500,000.

Project No. 2. It is also hereby deemed necessary and advisable to: (a) construct, furnish and equip improvements, renovations and additions to the existing Eisenhower Elementary School including secure entrance, gymnasium, and science and technology rooms in order to convert into a Middle School facility; (b) construct, furnish and equip improvements and renovations to Lincoln Elementary, Roosevelt Elementary, and Washington Elementary schools including infrastructure upgrades; (c) construct, furnish and equip restroom, concession and bleacher improvements at the existing High School; (d) make all other necessary improvements appurtenant thereto (“Project No. 2”); and pay costs of issuance and interest on the bonds during construction of Project No. 2, at an estimated cost of $27,000,000.

General Frequently Asked Questions

Why do we need a facilities plan now?

Our buildings are aging, and many systems are past their useful lifespan. Safety expectations have changed, and many spaces no longer support the way students learn today. Delaying action increases long-term costs and puts more pressure on aging facilities.

What does it mean for question 1 to be mill rate neutral? What is the tax impact of this plan?

If question 1 passes, it will not increase the mill (tax) rate levied by the district. The district is paying off an existing bond about 6 years early, so question 1, if successful, would continue the existing mill rate to roll into a new bond and fund these projects. The district is also adjusting the mill rate for its local option budget (LOB) to match the current need, which gives some additional room to cover the cost of this bond without increasing the mill rate.

Because question 1 must be successful for question 2 to move forward, question 2 then requires a mill rate increase of 4.75. This equates to $9.10/month ($109.20/year for the median homeowner in McPherson ($200,000) home.

How is this plan different from past proposals that failed?

In several important ways:

It serves all students, not just a few buildings.
It reduces the number of buildings in the long term.
It invests in what we already own, rather than building more than we need.
It keeps middle school and high school separate.
It addresses flooding at both secondary campuses.
It provides secure entrances at all schools.
It is more affordable and more aligned with community priorities.

This plan directly reflects what our community said the last plan did not address.

Why is it 2 questions?

Presenting the bond in two questions allows voters to clearly see how needs are prioritized and how later improvements depend on the success of the first phase. While both questions reflect essential long-term needs, Question 1 is intentionally positioned as the starting point, with Question 2 contingent upon its passage.

Why is question 2 contingent on question 1?

Question 1 addresses the district’s most urgent facility needs and establishes the foundational work and financial structure for the bond. It reflects the Board’s highest priorities and continues the district’s existing mill rate into a new bond, creating a responsible and stable funding base. For transparency, the district is clearly showing the community that these top-priority needs can be addressed with no mill levy increase.

Question 2 builds on that foundation. It focuses on resolving the district’s middle school challenges, which represent a secondary but still critical need. It is designed to move forward only if the work and financial framework established through Question 1 is in place.

Will this plan reduce long-term costs?

Yes. Consolidation and modernization reduce:

Utility costs
Staffing overhead
Maintenance expenses
Major system failures
Long-term capital needs

This plan is both educationally strong and fiscally responsible.

How are potential budget overages handled if the bond passes? 

Strong cost controls, phased design, and regular cost checks with independent estimators are used throughout the process to keep projects on budget.

The bond program is developed using conservative cost estimates and includes built-in contingencies to account for unknown conditions that are common in renovation projects. A standard construction contingency—typically in the range of 5–8% depending on project type and risk—is included in the overall budget, along with separate allowances for escalation and unforeseen conditions.

If unexpected issues arise, the district’s first approach is to adjust scope within the approved budget, prioritizing safety, code compliance, and educational impact. Any significant changes beyond the approved budget would require Board action, and the district cannot exceed the voter-approved bond amount.

How will the updated buildings be maintained?

As part of the long-range facility plan, the district is working on creating a Preventive Maintenance Program.
This program is comprised of strategic actions to protect community investment and ensure long-term sustainability
As the district modernizes its instructional facilities, the next essential component of the long-range plan is the development and implementation of an ongoing, districtwide preventive maintenance program. This program will be built on predictable annual funding and multi-year maintenance contracts to ensure buildings remain efficient, safe, and functional for decades.
The district will establish dedicated annual budgets and service agreements in the following areas:

Asphalt & Pavement Systems: Routine sealing, patching, and resurfacing to extend pavement life and reduce costly failures.
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing (MEP) Systems: Scheduled inspections, filter service, mechanical tune-ups, and system calibrations to improve efficiency and extend system life cycles.
Roofing Systems: Annual inspections, repairs, and membrane maintenance to protect against leaks, water damage, and premature replacement.
Interior Finishes & Building Components: Cyclical updates to flooring, paint, casework, ceiling systems, and other finishes that impact learning environments and long-term durability.

A formal preventive maintenance plan strengthens the district’s ability to protect capital investments, reduces unexpected repair costs, and creates more predictable budgeting year to year.

Why is the full Preventive Maintenance Program not available before the election?

The Preventive Maintenance Program is a key part of the district’s long-range facility plan, but it cannot be fully outlined until the bond work is underway. Many details depend on final designs, updated facility assessments, and the scope of improvements approved by voters.

For example, the district can plan to dedicate a consistent annual amount to roofing maintenance, but it cannot accurately determine how much will be spent each year or enter into long-term roofing contracts until building designs are finalized and the condition of each roof is fully assessed as part of the bond work. The same is true for mechanical systems, pavement, and interior finishes.

As bond projects move forward, the district will be able to define specific systems, timelines, and long-term maintenance needs with greater accuracy. More detailed information will be shared as this work progresses and the preventive maintenance program is finalized.

Why are lease purchase payoffs included in Question 1?

Question 1 includes paying off three existing lease purchase agreements that were used to address urgent facility needs when past bonds did not pass. Including these leases in the bond is a strategic financial decision for three key reasons.

It frees up nearly $400,000 per year for preventive maintenance.
Once the leases are paid off, those annual payments are no longer required. This allows the district to redirect nearly $400,000 each year toward preventive maintenance, which the community identified as a top priority. Preventive maintenance helps reduce emergency repairs and improves the reliability and safety of school facilities.
It helps break the cycle of deferred maintenance.
Without paying off the leases, the district would continue using limited operating funds to manage multiple short-term loans. Including them in the bond allows the district to shift from reacting to emergencies to planning for long-term facility needs.
It saves taxpayers money in interest.
Based on information from the district’s financial partners at Piper Sandler, including the leases in the bond is expected to save about $295,000 in interest. The remaining interest on the leases is currently about $995,000. The leases will be paid off in the first five years of the bond, making the total interest to be paid about $700,000.

Bottom line:

Including lease purchase payoffs in Question 1 improves long-term financial stability, redirects dollars toward maintenance, and reduces interest costs, helping the district responsibly care for its facilities.

What are the leases being paid off?
Here are the three leases being paid off through the bond:

2017 Lease – Central Plant & Eisenhower Upgrades

Cost: $1,592,273
Purpose: Updated McPherson High School’s central plant and Eisenhower Elementary, including the hot water boiler, HVAC controls, and valves for efficiency
Benefit: Made systems more efficient, saving the district about $78,036 per year
About $250,000 in interest remaining through 2037

2022 Lease – Outdoor Activities Facility

Cost: $3,105,000
Purpose: Built a space for outdoor activities at MHS for soccer, football, track, and band
Background: McPherson College was previously used, but growth in programs made that space insufficient
Community donations of $1.2 million helped equip the facility
About $470,000 in interest remaining through 2037

2025 Lease – HVAC Work at WES & EES

Cost: $675,000
Purpose: Replaced aging HVAC systems that were past their expected life and had no backup
Background: These systems could fail at any time, potentially closing classrooms
About $275,000 in interest remaining through 2040

I see above that the images shown on this page are rendering concepts. What does that mean?

The images show a general idea of what the buildings and spces could look like. Final design work will occur after a successful bond election, and details may change based on stakeholder feedback and needs. While the renderings are not final blueprints, they are also not just ideas that could completely change. They reflect the real scope of what the community is being asked to consider.

At this stage, the location, overall size, grade configuration, and major spaces are outlined. Those pieces are what the project budget and bond language are built around, and they guide the work moving forward.

If the bond is approved, the next step is a detailed design phase. That process is where room layouts, interior finishes, and specific features are refined with input from staff and students. The need for the design phase is why final designs aren’t yet available.

Middle School Frequently Asked Questions

Why not build a brand-new middle school like the 2021 plan proposed?

A brand-new middle school would require significantly more money (more than twice the amount) without improving educational outcomes more than this plan. Instead, we repurpose and expand Eisenhower—the district’s newest and most efficient building—saving millions in construction and long-term operating costs.

Why was the Eisenhower site picked?
The idea to use the Eisenhower site as the new Middle School came directly from community input during our community committee meetings. The idea quickly gained traction because the Eisenhower site is the only property in the district that has enough space to renovate for a new middle school. It is also located next to the existing Grant sports complex, which creates an opportunity for continued partnership with the McPherson Recreation Commission to provide athletic facilities for the middle school students without building additional spaces.

What happens to the existing Middle School?

Once the Eisenhower campus is completed and home to the Middle School, the old Middle School campus will be taken offline, creating major operational savings.

How will transportation be handled? Many students currently walk to the middle school because it is centrally located.
The district is actively reviewing transportation needs to ensure that all students have a safe way to get to school. The district currently operates an in-town bus route to support students and, as the process continues, we will look at this route to see how it needs to be adjusted to meet the changing needs.

Why not just maintain what we have?

Deferred maintenance would cost tens of millions and still would not:

Modernize learning environments
Improve safety
Reduce operational expenses
Support today’s teaching methods

Maintenance alone is not a long-term plan.

How will learning improve for students?

This plan:

Creates modern Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics labs, Career and Technical Education facilities, and collaboration spaces
Enhances safety and well-being
Modernizes classrooms

Better buildings → better learning experiences → better outcomes.

Why keep the Middle School and High School separate?

Parents and staff were very clear: They want age-appropriate campuses with separate identities, separate traffic, and separate safety zones. Building a 7–8 school on the high school campus was one of the biggest reasons voters opposed the 2021 plan.

High School Frequently Asked Questions

Why does the High School plan include another auxiliary gym?

The additional auxiliary gym is included primarily to meet modern life-safety building codes, not because of enrollment growth. Current codes (ICC-500) require major school additions to include a storm shelter capable of protecting the entire student population, and a gymnasium is the most practical and cost-effective way to provide that hardened, windowless space.

Gymnasiums are also a high school’s largest classrooms, used by most of the students throughout the academic day for instruction, wellness, testing, and activities. The new auxiliary gym allows the existing auxiliary gym to be repurposed for wrestling and the weight room to be relocated into the former wrestling space, which returns classrooms currently used for weight training back to academic instruction. This approach improves safety, uses space more efficiently, and avoids the expense of a separate stand-alone or distributed storm shelter.

This approach allows the district to:
Meet current life-safety codes
Improve how the existing space is used
Support academic needs without adding unnecessary square footage
Provide the most cost-effective solution on a consolidated campus

The plans mention CTE and technology labs. What will that entail?

The plan represents dollars allocated for these projects, but the exact scope and details will be determined during the design phase in partnership with the building staff in these departments. The goal will be to ensure that current programs and pathways have the spaces and equipment to thrive and also evaluate any additional or future needs so the building is truly future-ready.

What is happening with the agriculture/welding building?

No final decisions have been made regarding the ag/welding building, and no engineering analysis has been completed at this time.

As the district evaluates permanent solutions to the high school flooding concerns, one option being studied is whether the agriculture and welding program could be incorporated into the proposed high school addition.

If that approach proves to be the most practical and fiscally responsible option, it could allow the district to:

Permanently address flooding issues 
Improve safety and supervision by housing programs under one roof 
Share restrooms, HVAC, circulation, and utilities 
Strengthen alignment with other Career & Technical Education programs 
Reduce long-term maintenance associated with a separate facility

It is important to note that the instructional program and equipment would remain intact. The discussion is about the most effective long-term facility solution — not eliminating the program.

Engineering, cost comparisons, and campus planning analysis will guide the final recommendation.

Elementary Frequently Asked Questions

What updates will the elementary schools get as part of question 2?

The $3.5 million for Elementary Building Updates is intended for district-wide improvements at all three elementary schools, focused on deferred maintenance and learning-environment upgrades, not new construction.

Specific projects will be finalized during design based on building needs and staff input. Examples of improvements may include acoustical enhancements, replacement of worn carpet and interior finishes, and other targeted updates that improve classroom comfort, durability, and functionality.

All work will be prioritized to extend the life of the buildings, support student learning, and use bond funds responsibly.

Does saying no to the March 3, 2026 bond project 2 mean we will continue to have 4 elementary schools?
No, the district will operate in a 3-elementary system beginning in SY2026/27. The proposed bond will provide funding to most quickly execute the plan to transition the Eisenhower site into the Middle School but it will not change the elementary configuration.