The Archuleta School District (ASD) Master Planning Advisory Committee (MPAC) heard a presentation from SGM, a civil engineering company, during its most recent meeting on Monday, Nov. 17.
The company was asked to perform site evaluations of the two locations that ASD is considering to build a new school on, the high school site and Vista site, which looked at variables such as slopes and wetlands, transportation needs, drainage, foundations and utility access.
SGM Senior Engineer Dianna Rooney explained that they came up with a subjective ranking system to give each property scores with weighted and unweighted variables.
SGM Civil Engineer Owen Parker explained that, if the district were to choose to build on the high school site, that would require relocating some facilities, such as an athletic field, whereas if the district were to build on the Vista site no facilities would need to be relocated.
He indicated that another consideration was assessing the slope of each site, noting that is a “big piece” of developability in that more slopes mean more earthwork and retaining walls would be needed.
Parker noted that the Vista site has about 16 to 17 acres of “fairly buildable” land available, indicating that would be sufficient for the school, parking areas and an athletic field.
He also mentioned that there are wetlands on the property, but that all of the facilities could be built around the wetlands.
Parker noted that the high school site has “quite a bit of slope” in the undeveloped areas where a new school building would be placed.
When looking at buildable areas, “this area [the high school site] has less than the Vista site,” Parker said.
He then explained that potentially half an acre of wetlands would be impacted, noting that it is approximately a $360,000 expense when impacting wetlands.
Parker also mentioned that the high school site has a drainage area it would need to avoid as well.
“We see the Vista site, in terms of cost and engineering evaluation, being the more favorable of the two,” Parker said.
“The slopes on the Vista site are a lot more favorable than the high school site is,” Rooney added, noting that when comparing wetland impacts, it is “kind of a wash” between the two properties.
Rooney then spoke about transportation at both sites, explaining that SGM performed “basically a very low-level traffic study for both of these properties.”
She noted that the high school site has the “advantage” of being downtown with some infrastructure already in place with a grid road network and pedestrian pathways.
She mentioned that a turn lane would be needed on South 8th Street and Apache Street, along with adding sidewalks and widening the loop road that is currently on the high school property.
Rooney noted that the high school site “has a little bit of an advantage in this case.”
She went on to explain that there would be “a little bit more work that would need to be done at the Vista property,” probably with some improvements at the U.S. 160 and Vista Boulevard intersection, potentially adding a traffic light and turn lanes.
When looking at pedestrian facilities, “the Vista site is generally a bit lacking,” Rooney said, explaining that is a challenge that the district would need to overcome.
She explained that the high school site already has some sidewalks in place, noting the high school site as being a “little more favorable” for pedestrian access.
One audience member noted that there are some pedestrian pathways interconnected near the Vista site as well.
Another audience member commented that the Vista site is closer to where a lot of ASD’s students live and that if the district were to build a new school at the high school site it could triple the amount of traffic in that area.
Rooney indicated that 8th Street handles approximately 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles per hour, and that a new school would increase that traffic by roughly 1,000 vehicles.
Doug Abernathy from RTA Architects, also in attendance, noted that 68 percent of ASD students live closer to the Vista site.
Parker spoke more about the drainage concerns on the high school site, explaining, “The high school site has got a major drainage that runs directly through the main undeveloped region. So, it’s a big consideration.”
Rooney then spoke about possible foundations at each site, noting that more investigation is needed for exact details and that assessing all the challenges with foundations is difficult to fully understand at this level.
She noted that generally there are two foundation options — either a shallow foundation with a slab on grade or a deep foundation which usually has a higher cost impact.
Rooney explained that there are more “swelling clays” on the high school property than the Vista site, and that a deep foundation would likely be needed at the high school site, whereas a shallow foundation is a likely possibility at the Vista site.
Parker reviewed utility access at each site, ultimately indicating that “the sanitation on the high school site would be easier, cheaper, more feasible than it would be on the Vista site,” along with water.
Parker noted that both sites have power and fiber available, as well.
Rooney then reviewed the weighted and unweighted scores given to each property, indicating that the Vista site “seems to have a lot more opportunity.”
She added that there is a “little more of an edge” with the Vista property from an engineering and technical standpoint.
Rooney also indicated that outside of the cost to build the actual building, she predicts additional costs to build at the high school site at about $12.4 million to $18.4 million, whereas the Vista site would come with approximately $6.1 million to $9.6 million in additional costs.
Questions were raised by MPAC members in regard to the cost of relocating facilities and how that was factored into the projected additional costs, with someone also asking if other ASD-owned fields had been considered.
Abernathy explained that the analysis by SGM did not consider outside factors and only compared the two sites.
MPAC chair Lisa Scott explained that numbers presented are not absolute and that SGM was asked to perform this analysis to compare the two sites.
“There are a lot of other things that need to be taken into account as the school board makes this decision,” Scott said.
ASD Superintendent Rick Holt explained that the district’s next step will be to apply for the Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) grant, which has the potential to fund up to 45 percent of the project.
Holt noted that part of applying for that grant is showing the district did its due diligence in selecting a site.
Holt also encouraged people to support ASD’s Board of Education (BOE) in its decision, highlighting that the most important thing is having a new, quality school for its students.
Holt also suggested that a community-wide analysis of athletic field use and expansion may be valuable for the BOE as well.
One MPAC member suggested that the district could relocate its athletic fields to the Vista site and develop a sports complex there suitable for the whole community while keeping the schools at the high school site.
The meeting concluded with Holt asking a few “straw poll” questions of the MPAC members.
When asked if they had enough information at this point to feel comfortable making a decision on selecting a site, the majority of the approximately 50 MPAC members indicated “yes.”
Holt noted that the decision is ultimately up to the BOE.
When asked if they were “leaning” toward one site or the other, the majority of the MPAC members indicated “yes,” with more people favoring the Vista site than the high school site.
Holt indicated that the BOE is planning to hold a work session on Dec. 2, and that its next meeting will be Dec. 9.
He noted that the BOE will need to make a decision by its January board meeting in order for the district to move forward with applying for a BEST grant.
In an email to The SUN, Holt also indicated that ASD plans to engage students “when it comes to the building design (interior and exterior).”
clayton@pagosasun.com
>