During a Jan. 21 special meeting, the Archuleta School District (ASD) Board of Education (BoE) voted 4-1 to choose the uptown site for a proposed new building for pre-kindergarten through eighth grade (PK-8).
A press release from the district explains the uptown site is located on the corner of Vista Boulevard and Park Avenue and “offers an expansive campus with multiple access points, ample open space, and opportunities for future walking and biking connections.”
The district considered building a new school at the Vista site or downtown on the high school campus property, and began its process in evaluating the two sites in the summer of 2025.
The press release explains that either site would feature a 140,000-square-foot PK-8 building with a two-story academic wing and a capacity of approximately 1,200 students, including a separate PK-K area and dedicated drop-off zone.
Process review
During the Jan. 21 special meeting, BoE president Bob Lynch explained that with it being a special meeting, there would be no public comment portion.
Superintendent Rick Holt provided an overview of the district’s process, noting that it first began in April 2024 when reviewing the district’s master plan.
He explained that the district engaged with three firms, ultimately choosing RTA Architects, who conducted a facilities review of all of the district’s buildings.
Meetings with staff and other community meetings were then held before the Master Planning Advisory Committee (MPAC) was created.
The MPAC held its first meeting in January 2025.
Holt commented that the MPAC was used to share findings and get feedback “about what else [the district] should be looking into.”
The MPAC received the facilities assessments and began understanding “academic adequacy,” Holt noted, and invited a demographer to look at trends for Pagosa Springs over the next few years.
In February 2025, the MPAC began looking into school financing.
Holt explained that daily operations of schools are funded through property taxes, whereas capital projects are funded through bonds, “which are mills added to the property for a shorter period of time, not indefinite.”
Holt noted this is when the MPAC also began looking into the pros and cons of building a new building versus renovating existing buildings.
Initial assessments estimated that the repairs required would cost around $85 million, Holt noted.
The MPAC also discussed the lifespan of school buildings during its March 2025 meeting, Holt mentioned, adding that the middle school buildings are over 100 years and 75 years old, and the elementary school is over 55 years old.
Holt explained that the MPAC did a building option activity and began looking at a PK-8 building option “because we were looking at two buildings that were in great need of repair.”
During the April 2025 MPAC meeting the group suggested to the BoE consider a PK-8 model, “rather than building two separate facilities, combine them into one facility,” Holt said, noting that would provide an estimated $20 million in savings.
“It seemed like that was a fiscally responsible thing to do,” Holt said.
He also commented that PK-8 school models are “very efficient and effective,” and are a good way to deliver education.
“Any time you can eliminate a transition into one building into another, that helps students out,” he said.
Early site data was gathered in April 2025 and the MPAC then began looking into pursuing a Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) grant.
The district then conducted a community poll over the summer of 2025, working with Hansen Communications and New Bridge Strategies, “to see what people would tolerate in terms of bonds,” Holt explained.
He further explained that early estimates indicated that a new PK-8 building would cost around $123 million, and at that time poll responses were “nominal,” with about 53 percent of respondents indicating they would support a bond, “even with the whole amount.”
Holt also indicated that, according to the poll responses, once informed about the possibility of a BEST grant funding up to 45 percent of the project, people were asked if they would support a bond, “and that number jumped up significantly.”
Holt explained that became critical and is why the BoE needed to pick a location, “so we can get after this BEST grant.”
The MPAC reconvened in August 2025, with the group reviewing the poll results and starting to look more in depth at site analysis of the two locations, looking at safety and security, as well as traffic concerns.
Holt explained that a professional presentation was given on safety and security of both locations and that what the district needs to be concerned with is “about traffic flow.”
“That’s where most accidents on campus happen, from car collisions,” Holt added.
Holt then explained that the district contracted with SGM Engineering to conduct further site analysis to look at things like soil composition, utilities, drainage and wildlife.
The BoE held two listening sessions in December 2025, one for community members and one for ASD staff.
Holt praised the work done by the MPAC, BoE and other community members who got involved with the process and provided input.
“It felt good to have people show up and express their concerns and their interests,” he said.
Holt also spoke about how choosing a site has been a difficult decision, but that his hope is that “everyone will be able to get behind what initially drove this, which is, our kids need high-quality places to learn and to be.”
BoE comments
Prior to voting on the matter, each BoE member commented on how they were basing their decision.
BoE member David Iverson was the first to comment, describing the process as being “kind of a rollercoaster,” but commended the transparency and community engagement that was involved.
Iverson noted the seven criteria in which the board developed to guide its decision as the driver of the whole process.
“Anything would be a big upgrade to what we have,” Iverson said, explaining that he had some security concerns with the high school site with teen drivers being around younger students.
Iverson noted that the Vista site offers more space to design drop-off and traffic patterns.
Iverson commented that those could potentially be mitigated at the high school site, but would still be a concern for him.
He also spoke about evacuation concerns at the high school site, noting that “isn’t really solvable.”
Iverson commented on the BoE’s criteria of being fiscally responsible with its decision, noting that at the Vista site the district would essentially end up with “more for less,” explaining the high school site “is more expensive.”
As for providing high-quality learning, Iverson noted that could be achieved at either location, but noted that feedback from district administrators almost unanimously favored the Vista site.
Iverson went on to mention that he leaned toward the Vista site in regard to the district’s flexibility for the future, “with the high school site being pretty much completely full.”
Iverson also commented that the project has “obviously gotta be supported by the community,” acknowledging the community sentiment around the schools being located downtown.
He explained that initially the high school site makes sense, but that after working through the trade-offs that would be caused, “then it starts to not be so clear anymore.”
When considering access to after-school activities, Iverson explained that the high school site offers more with its proximity to parks and other resources, but noted that the school would be more than a mile away from the downtown area if it were built on the high school property.
He suggested that the district could facilitate transportation with buses running downtown from the Vista site.
“I don’t think we’re gonna … abandon the downtown,” he said.
BoE member Amanda Schick spoke next, prefacing her comments by stating, “ultimately my vote is for a school — unanimously for a school.”
Schick explained that the two sites prioritize different things and, based on conversations she had with community members, “the biggest risk is in the limitation of our collaboration.”
She further explained that when thinking about which site prioritizes the students, she leans heavily into the “community cohesion” of the downtown site.
Schick added that she believes schools are “civic anchors,” noting that building the high school campus downtown was intentional.
“My priorities align more with the … downtown location,” she said.
BoE member Butch Mackey commented that the most important thing for the district is to provide safe, high-quality learning spaces for its students, along with being fiscally responsible as the second most important thing.
“And it does cost more to build downtown, and that’s a huge concern to me,” Mackey said.
He explained that the district has other needs as well, and the extra money spent to build a school at the downtown location would take away the district’s ability to address its other needs.
“And that’s a concern to me, huge concern,” Mackey reiterated.
Mackey also acknowledged the community sentiment of keeping the schools downtown and that it’s been expressed to him that Pagosa Springs is downtown, “but Pagosa Lakes is Pagosa Springs, too.”
He also mentioned either location would be controversial to someone, but encouraged everyone to “get on board with getting an appropriate facility for our students.”
Mackey commented that the existing buildings are no longer suitable for the district and that “it’s time to do something new.”
BoE member Tim Taylor noted that the high school location “is not truly downtown,” but rather at the southern edge of town limits, more than a mile away from the downtown area of Pagosa Springs and is “substantially” different from the current middle school location.
Taylor noted that because of this, either site would have an “equivalent” effect on the downtown economy.
Taylor also mentioned that a positive attribution of the high school site is the support of the community for that location, noting there has been a “clear preference” for the high school site expressed by those who have spoken at meetings.
“We all know that proximity,” he added, in reference to parks, trails and other downtown amenities for students to utilize after school.
Taylor then expressed multiple “major concerns” with the high school site, with No. 1 being the “sheer population” of students and staff that would be placed on the high school site.
Taylor noted that the current high school has a population of roughly 600 and that adding the PK-8 school would make for a total of roughly 1,600 students and staff, adding that it would be “crowded from the start.”
The second major issue discussed by Taylor had to do with traffic congestion concerns, noting the school would “almost certainly overwhelm” the throughways of the downtown area.
Taylor commented that workarounds could be considered and that he looked into this issue in-depth, “and I just didn’t find a very good solution.”
Another issue brought up by Taylor had to do with safety and security at the high school site, referencing concerns raised by Pagosa Springs Police Chief Bill Rockensock, calling it a “target-rich environment” with a greater risk of accidents simply with the higher number of people and cars in the area.
Taylor also commented on the loss of field space that would come with building at the high school site, noting the district would be immediately at capacity with its athletic fields.
Taylor then mentioned that a new wastewater treatment plant is being planned in the area, noting that is “certainly not an attribute.”
Taylor mentioned that potential conflicts between younger and older students was a concern raised by district staff.
“This concern was voiced by several of our district administrators,” he said.
Taylor also noted that with a two-year-long construction timeline, building at the high school site would disrupt more students.
He explained that he initially wanted the high school site to work.
“Although the high school site is attractive for several reasons, in my assessment, it’s not the most prudent option,” he said.
Taylor also provided his analysis of the Vista site, noting that he inferred from local law enforcement that they’ve expressed a clear preference for the uptown site.
Taylor commented on the uptown site being fiscally responsible, noting that it would provide approximately $6.4 million, or 5 percent, in savings, and how those savings could be used for other needs the district has such as renovating the high school baseball field and expanding San Juan Mountain School.
Taylor also expressed that in his own accounts, he’s rarely seen elementary to middle school aged kids taking advantage of downtown parks after school.
He explained that if the district were to choose the uptown location, he felt it’d be incumbent upon the district to provide transportation downtown for after-school activities.
Taylor also referenced an email he received that states, “This process is challenging … often the loudest voices represent only a small portion of the community” and that the district rarely hears from parents in the Hatcher, Vista and Trails neighborhoods where many families live, and that many kids do not participate in after-school activities and simply just go home after school.
“Broadening access and increasing participation is what truly serves kids, not simply making things more convenient for those already involved,” Taylor read.
Taylor also mentioned that all eight of the ASD’s administrators have expressed a strong preference for the uptown location, referencing a note from one administrator that said, “Please don’t pin us in,” in reference to the high school site.
Lynch was the last to provide comments on the matter, explaining that initially he wanted the new school to be built at the downtown high school location.
Lynch mentioned that he attended Pagosa schools and that his family has been deeply rooted in Pagosa Springs since the 1800s.
Lynch noted that he kept asking himself how the district could make the new PK-8 building work at the high school site.
“That’s what I wanted,” Lynch said.
He explained that after receiving data and site analysis, it got harder to “square the idea” of how much money the district would spend and what it would get out of the downtown location, and the secondary effects of that decision.
Lynch explained that he approached the decision by first considering the school itself, noting the building would be identical at either site and that the Vista location would be several million dollars cheaper.
He then considered what would be available right outside of the school building for student athletics and play spaces.
Lynch explained that if the district were to build at the high school it would not improve its field accessibility.
“We’re short on space now,” he said.
Lynch explained the third thing he considered were the “ancillaries” around the school, noting the high school location is “better” in that regard, but mentioned that the district could potentially compensate for that by offering bus services downtown form the Vista site.
“I think we can,” he said.
When working through the “trade-offs” of building at the downtown location, Lynch mentioned that he “started shifting” in his thinking, and that the Vista site would be better for students.
Lynch then spoke about how the Town of Pagosa Springs is planning on building a wastewater treatment plant at Yamaguchi Park South, explaining that it’d be hard for him to back that decision “knowing full well” about the town’s plans.
Lynch also noted that the district’s other needs, such as expanding the San Juan Mountain School and adding a gym at the high school, could be accomplished with money saved from building the new PK-8 campus uptown.
“All of us need to chip in, pay our fair share and have better facilities for our kids, then I hope we can come together around that,” Lynch said.
Taylor then motioned for the district to select the Vista site uptown for a new PK-8 building, which was seconded by Mackey.
Prior to voting on the matter, more discussion was held, with Schick explaining that she did not think younger students being near high school students was a legitimate concern.
“I do not think that that is a valid point to hold there,” she said.
Schick also acknowledged that the reasons for building at the Vista site hold merit, and that the site does present some strengths, though she noted the only polling the district did reflected the community was slightly in favor of the high school site.
The motion was then approved by a split vote of 4-1.
Next steps
According to ASD’s press release, the next district will apply for a BEST grant in March.
“If awarded, the grant would require a local match, typically around 50% of the total project cost. While school districts receive annual funding from the Colorado Department of Education to support general operating expenses such as staffing, classroom resources, transportation, and day-to-day maintenance, major facility construction and renovation projects require separate funding sources. Local match funding is typically generated through a voter-approved bond, a one-time property tax-based investment dedicated to capital improvements. ASD currently has no existing bond debt; the district’s last bond supported construction of the high school in 1996 and was fully paid off in December 2020,” the press release states.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>