A team of seasoned facility planning experts from

MGT of America worked in collaboration with SPS

leadership to conduct a comprehensive

assessment of schools and other buildings.

To be successful in providing for the needs of all learners, we

must work together to match needs to resources.

The purpose of a facility master plan is:

• To develop a long-range vision for facilities that will best

support our students' current and future educational needs.

• To provide high quality learning environments for all

students.

50-79 Years

Bingham

Bissett

Cherokee

Cowden

Delaware

Disney

Field

Fremont

Glendale

Hillcrest

Holland

Mann

Parkview

Pershing

Pittman

Pleasant View

Portland

Sequiota

Shady Dell

Sherwood (Prior)

Twain

Watkins

Weller

Westport

Wilder

FACILITY AGE

80 Years or OlderBowerman

Boyd

Campbell

Central

Doling

Jarrett

Phelps

Pipkin

Reed

Robberson

Rountree

Study

Sunshine

Tefft

Weaver

Williams

York

<10 YearsSherwood

Harrison

Hickory Hills

6%

10-19 YearsMcBride

McGregor

Shining Stars EC

Wilson’s Creek

7%

20-49 YearsCarver

Gray

Jeffries

Kickapoo

Truman

9%

46%

31%

Hickory Hills

SherwoodMcGregor

Wilson’s Creek

Harrison

Carver

McBride

Shining Stars EC

TrumanGrayJeffriesKickapooMann

Sequiota

Wilder

Cowden

Pittman

Glendale

Fremont

Weller

Parkview

Shady Dell

Bingham

Pershing

Twain

Field

Cherokee

Westport

Bissett

Delaware

Watkins

Disney

Sherwood (Prior)

Hillcrest

Holland

Pleasant View

Portland

Bowerman

Campbell

Sunshine

Williams

Phelps

Weaver

Pipkin

Study

Jarrett

ReedTefft

Doling

Rountree

Boyd

York

Central Robberson

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

FACILITY MASTER PLANNING PROCESS

Assess & Score Facilities

Building Condition

Site Condition

Educational Suitability

Technology Readiness

Public Engagement & Community Collaboration

Interactive public community meetings

Online survey

Develop Options

Option 1- maintain current grade configuration

Option 2- elementary/middle combined campus

Process

SCORE

Building Condition (50 points)Based on amount of deferred maintenance in buildings’ major systems.

Educational Suitability (40 points)Based on how well the facility supports educational programs.

Site Condition (5 points)Based on amount of capital needs or deferred maintenance at site (driveways,

walkways, parking lots, playfields, fencing, etc.).

Technology Readiness (5 points)Based on capability of existing infrastructure to support information technology

and associated equipment.

Each building was assigned a combined score based

on the average weighted score of these four factors.

Good/Excellent (80-100)Fremont

Harrison

Hickory Hills

Sherwood

Weaver

Weller

Westport

Wilson’s Creek

15%

Fair (70-79)Carver

Central

Cherokee

Disney

Glendale

Gray

Holland

Jeffries

Kickapoo

McBride

McGregor

Parkview

Phelps

Pleasant View

Sequiota

Shady Dell

Shining Stars EC

Study

Truman

Watkins

Wilder

39%

Unsatisfactory/Poor (<70)Bingham

Bissett

Bowerman

Boyd

Campbell

Cowden

Delaware

Doling

Field

Hillcrest

Jarrett

Mann

Pershing

Pipkin

Pittman

Portland

Reed

Robberson

Rountree

Sherwood (prior)

Sunshine

Tefft

Twain

Williams

York

46%

ASSESSMENT

RESULTS

FACILITY MASTER PLAN

OPTIONS

Maintain fiscal responsibility

Provide district-wide program equity

Expansion of pre-school opportunities

Address schools with highest needs

combined score of 70 or less

specific program needs at high schools with combined score between 70 – 80

projected utilization over 110% and under 70%

Consistency in school size to the degree possible

Consistency in grade level alignment to the degree possible

Master Plan Drivers

Maintain Current Grade Configuration

OPTION 1 CHARACTERISTICS

Grade configuration to remain as it is currently.

Construction of new/renovated middle/K-8 schools featuring capacities of 850 – 1,000 students.

New/renovated elementary schools featuring capacities of 500 – 600 students.

Replacement or renovation of schools with a combined score of 70 or less except where facilities can be combined.

Address specific program needs at high schools with combined scores between 70 – 80.

Current Grade Configuration

2 new middle schools (Pipkin, Reed) / 1 new K-8 (Pershing)

1 K-8 renovation (Pleasant View)

5 new elementary schools (2 in Hillcrest attendance area, Bingham, Bissett/York, Rountree/Delaware)

7 elementary additions (Field, McGregor, Sunshine, Sequiota, Truman, Weaver, Weller)

8 elementary renovations (Cowden, Field, Sunshine, Mann, Pittman, Sequiota, Twain, Wilder)

Improvements at all high schools

600 student pre-school expansion

Repurpose surplus buildings

OPTION 1 FACILITY CHANGESCurrent Grade Configuration

OPTION 1 BUDGET

OPTION 1 BUDGET ESTIMATES

K-8 Schools $227,842,400

9-12 Schools $70,860,600

Pre-school $16,000,000

TOTAL $314,703,000

Current Grade Configuration

Costs are estimated in 2016 dollars

Elementary/Middle School Combined Campus(Schools identified as combined campuses are provided as examples and could change as final plans are developed.)

OPTION 2 CHARACTERISTICSElementary/Middle Combined Campus

New/renovated middle and elementary/middle combined campuses

New/renovated elementary/middle combined campuses featuring capacities of 800 – 1,050 students

– K-5 capacity of 300 - 350

– 6-8 capacity of 500 – 700

New/renovated elementary schools featuring capacities of 400 – 500.

Replacement or renovation of schools with combined score of 70 or less, except where facilities can be combined.

Address specific program needs at high schools with combined score between 70 – 80.

OPTION 2 COMBINED CAMPUSConcept Example

OPTION 2 POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES

Two independent schools, with separate identities, on one campus creates convenience and access.

Opportunities to share spaces otherwise unavailable.

Easier transition for students from elementary to middle school due to familiar environment.

Reduced building area and shared mechanical systems.

Reduced site costs, i.e. total drive lanes, bus loops and parking.

Elementary/Middle Combined Campus

4 new elementary/middle combined campuses (Robberson-Reed*, Boyd IB-Pipkin IB*, Portland-Jarrett*, Pershing)

*Schools identified as combined campuses are provided as examples and

could change as final plans are developed.

1 K-8 renovation/addition (Pleasant View)

3 new elementary schools (Bingham, Bissett/York, Williams)

3 elementary additions (Rountree, Sunshine, Twain)

10 elementary renovations (Cowden, Field, Mann, Pittman, Rountree, Sequiota, Sunshine, Twain, Watkins, Wilder)

Improvements at all high schools

600 student pre-school expansion

Repurpose surplus buildings

OPTION 2 FACILITY CHANGESElementary/Middle Combined Campus

OPTION 2 BUDGETElementary/Middle Combined Campus

OPTION 2 BUDGET ESTIMATES

K-8 $217,883,800

9-12 $70,860,600

Pre-school $16,000,000

TOTAL $304,744,400 Costs are estimated in 2016 dollars

OPTION 1Current Grade Configuration

OPTION 2Elem/Mid Combined Campus

Grades K-8 $ 227,842,400 $ 217,883,800

Grades 9-12 $ 70,860,600 $ 70,860,600

Pre-school $ 16,000,000 $ 16,000,000

TOTAL $ 314,703,000 $ 304,744,400

BUDGET SUMMARYComparison of Options

Costs are estimated in 2016 dollars

DELIVERING THE PLAN

PHASE 1

$150+ MillionTHE PLAN

$300+ Million

PHASE 2

$150+ Million

TIMEFRAME

10-12 Years

DELIVERING THE PLAN

$100,000 home = $46 per year additional taxes

Monthly increase = $3.84

24¢

TAX COMPARISON

Public School District Debt Service Exceeds SPS

Nixa $1.07 $0.52

Republic $0.94 $0.39

Willard $0.93 $0.38

Logan-Rogersville $0.87 $0.32

Ozark $0.85 $0.30

Lebanon $0.84 $0.29

Strafford $0.70 $0.15

Branson $0.70 $0.15

Springfield $0.55 $0.00

ACTION vs. STATUS QUON

um

be

r o

f S

ch

oo

ls

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Unsatisfactory/Poor Fair Good/Excellent

(<70) (70-79) (80-100)

Combined Score Categories

Status Quo Take Action

MGT of America identified

the funds required to

increase “fair” sites with

Combined Scores between

70-79 to 85.

Estimated Investment

$31,253,100 with

investments for individual

sites ranging between

$1.1 million to $4.6 million.

Board of Education Meeting

November 1, 2016 Update

SITEDisney Elementary

Gray Elementary

Holland Elementary

Jeffries Elementary

McBride Elementary

Truman Elementary

Carver Middle

Cherokee Middle

Phelps Center

Shady Dell Early Childhood

Shining Stars Early Childhood

Study Alternative Center

• Collect community feedback regarding which

option is preferred from community members,

parents, staff and students.

• Board of Education adopt a Facility Master

Plan providing guidance for planning.

TIMELINEIn

Pro

ce

ss

TB

D

• Design potential bond projects and Board of

Education vote on bond project proposal.

• Taxpayer consideration for the bond proposal.

• Implementation of the projects if bond issue passes.

Facility master plan decisions will impact SPS

students for generations to come.

Your feedback will help our Board of Education

make decisions that benefit all students.

Submit your questions to communications@spsmail.org.

FAQs are listed at plan.spsk12.org

PROVIDE YOUR FEEDBACKplan.spsk12.org