The Archuleta School District (ASD) Master Planning Advisory Committee (MPAC) met for the first time on Monday, Aug. 25, after a four-month break. All members of the Board of Education (BOE) were present, as well.
The group heard polling results from a community poll that was conducted from June 18-28, which surveyed 300 ASD voters gauging the community’s knowledge and perception of the district and its facility needs, along with testing potential ballot language for voters to decide on a future bond issue.
The group also was also given initial site analysis information provided by RTA Architects that included potential design layouts, assessed access points, and weighed pros and cons of building a pre-kindergarten through eighth-grade (PK-8) building on either ASD’s property located uptown along Vista Boulevard or downtown on the high school campus property.
The BOE heard initial results from the survey during its work session in July, which were presented by consultant Lynea Hansen, who worked with a company called New Bridge Strategy to perform the survey.
Doug Abernethy, representing RTA, explained that a civil engineering company out of Grand Junction called SGM will be performing a deeper dive into the two potential sites the district is considering building on, which will “gather some of the technical information” that the MPAC has requested, such as the availability and cost of utilities and a having a professional traffic study performed.
“We don’t have all that data right now,” Abernethy said, explaining the goal is to have that information ready to present at the group’s next meeting, scheduled for the end of October.
In response to a question from the audience asking if the district has decided on building one or two new buildings, Abernathey stated, “We are right now pursuing, based on our last meeting, looking primarily at a PK-8, as one building for the solution at this point.”
ASD Superintendent Rick Holt explained that the BOE developed a set of criteria that will be the guiding principles to help with important decisions, noting the BOE’s decision will be “based on actual information, rather than opinion.”
He mentioned that the district needs to be “very careful this doesn’t become an opinion conversation.”
Holt commented that two things became apparent from the polling results that need immediate attention, explaining the site location matters.
“Where the school goes changes how people vote,” he said.
Holt went on to explain that the district is considering two potential building sites, either on the high school campus west of the current bus barn, “wedged into the hillside,” or on the Vista property located across from Veterans Memorial Park on Vista Boulevard.
He also noted that 67 percent of the district’s students live uptown, or west of Piedra Road, based on 2024 enrollment data.
“But, it became apparent to the board we really needed to do an analysis of both sites so we didn’t just pick a site based on our opinion,” Holt said.
He also commented that both sites pose some traffic challenges, but that, instead of speculating, “let’s invest the dollars into actually having a traffic evaluation.”
Holt mentioned that the MPAC will be making a recommendation to the BOE on which site the district should build on, similar to how it recommended building one PK-8 building.
“Ultimately, the board has to decide, but I think it’s a good idea to listen to the community members before we make a decision,” Holt said.
Abernethy explained that the district is likely planning on applying for a Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) grant, noting the district could go for a bond before or after applying for the grant.
He noted the district would apply in February 2026 and would be notified in May 2026.
Abernethy also mentioned the state is dealing with a $900 million shortfall in its budget and that it had not been determined how that might affect funding for BEST.
“We know that there’s a certain amount of money that’s set aside right now from the state legislature to fund BEST,” he said, noting that is about $80 million.
“Don’t expect that program to go away,” he said, noting that it is uncertain what might happen to the program’s funding.
He also noted that any BEST grant would be a 56 percent district match, meaning for every dollar the district gets from BEST, 56 cents will need to come from the community.
He explained that the MPAC is also recommending time to allow for proper planning and community education and engagement for a bond election, noting the district would plan to go for a bond in the November 2026 election.
Abernethy also noted that “construction on a $100ish million project is probably 18 to 20 months” out, indicating that if all goes according to plan, ASD would have a new school ready for the start of the 2029-2030 school year.
Presenting results from the survey this time was Kathryn Hahne from New Bridge.
The presentation included highlights that 51 percent of voters, or the “bare majority,” indicated that they would “definitely yes” support some kind of ballot measure to support the district’s project.
She noted that 25 percent of respondents indicated “definitely no” and 24 percent were undecided.
She also noted that, based on responses, the district has a high-level awareness in the community that its facilities need significant repairs and safety upgrades.
“There are safety concerns,” she said.
She also explained that voter turnouts in odd-number years often look different than voter turnouts in even-number years.
Hahne went on to explain that the survey tested language that presented the monthly financial impact on a household versus the annual financial impact, indicating that respondents were more likely to support a ballot measure when presented with language highlighting the monthly impact.
She also mentioned that respondents changed their minds when presented with information on the BEST grant opportunity that would help fund the project.
In response to a question from the audience directed to the BOE, Bob Lynch, BOE president, explained that there was not a “big decision” from the board to only pursue a ballot option that focuses on building a new school instead of fixing current facilities.
Lynch explained that based on the data the BOE has seen, “there wasn’t any sense; the smart way to spend money would be to fix the problem,” adding the current facilities have “a lot of unfixable problems.”
Holt commented that the survey “pulled out a couple things,” explaining that whatever the district can do to bring down the total cost would benefit a lot of families.
He added that, for school districts in Colorado, the state “does not fund capital projects, it relies solely on communities to fund capital projects.”
Data was also provided that indicated that in 2024 ASD had 552 students in kindergarten through eighth grade who lived uptown and 197 students who lived downtown.
Abernethy provided a brief site analysis of the high school site, explaining that it does not offer any “real good access points,” noting there are no possible access points on the south or west side of the property.
He also explained that when looking at pedestrian access, considering students who may walk or bike to school within a half-mile radius of the property, “we don’t have very many pedestrian connections to the high school site.”
He also noted that traffic to the site as a whole would more than double, explaining a baseball field would likely be replaced with a parking lot and a soccer field could be constructed in the hillside above the schools.
When reviewing the Vista site, Abernethy explained it offers access points on all four sides of the property and although there is no sidewalk currently, there is a trail that connects to residential areas that could be a “good option” for students living within a half-mile radius to walk or bike to school.
He noted one of the main concerns with the Vista site would be the intersection of Vista Boulevard and U.S. 160.
Safety and security
Following the site analysis and polling results presentations, the group then heard another presentation on safety and security from Ericka Everett with RTA.
Everett explained the concept of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, or CPTED, and that it is “a design philosophy that’s focused on the built environment and how it impacts and influences safety and space in the urban environment, in our case the school.”
She explained it involves a balanced approach to safety and security by using natural passive security measures to create “safe space,” instead of prioritizing using physical hard security measures like metal detectors and cameras, noting there is a need for those things, but that they might come at a cost.
Everett also explained that CPTED uses a layered approach that begins with district-wide view narrowing down to the property boundary, semi-public areas, the building perimeter, interior zones and into classrooms.
Everett stated her belief is that schools have the ability to be designed and built in such a way that it creates a positive social and cultural space, noting the goal is not to make the school feel like an “institution,” but that it’s meant to feel safe.
Everett’s presentation explains that the goal of CPTED is for “proper design and effective use of the built environment that can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the quality of life.”
She noted that CPTED focuses on using natural surveillance, natural access control and natural territorial reinforcement.
Abernathy explained that the premise of crime prevention through environmental design started as an urban design issue that law enforcement, planners and architects collaborated on over the course of 50 years, which is now being applied to the design of schools.
“This information really comes out of a basis of sociology and psychology that’s been around for 50 years,” he said.
Everett noted that the Vista site has a “buffer” of properties that could be developed in the future with either commercial or residential use, whereas the location of a PK-8 building on the high school site may be next to a future wastewater sanitation complex.
She then provided a grading scale of the two sites in eight different categories, which included: resource sharing, vehicular access, pedestrian access, adjacent property uses, topography, proximity to students, program accommodation and middle school exploratory opportunities.
Each property was given a score for each category that ranged from a quarter-circle to full circle, with the Vista site receiving a higher score in six of the categories. The high school site ranked higher in the resource sharing and middle school exploratory categories.
Abernethy added that RTA attempted to keep the comparison on the “simplistic side.”
The next MPAC meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Oct. 27 in the Pagosa Springs Middle School library.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>