The Archuleta School District (ASD) Board of Education (BOE) held a work session prior to its regular meeting on Tuesday, May 13, at which members of the district’s Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) shared an overall review of what the committee has been doing and discussing over the past four months.
The MPAC began meeting monthly in January to review the district’s facilities assessment performed by RTA Architects and begin looking into possible options for how the district could address needs identified in RTA’s assessment.
The committee reviewed school funding options ranging from grants to mill levies and bond issues, while also looking into different options of building a new school or performing major renovations on the district’s existing buildings.
During the regular meeting, the BOE unanimously approved a motion made by BOE president Bob Lynch for him and BOE member Tim Taylor to work with ASD Superintendent Rick Holt to consult with Lynea Hansen to develop a survey to gauge the community’s perception on the facilities master plan.
Holt explained that Hansen previously worked with ASD to 2023 in surveying the community on a mill levy override, which was approved by voters in November 2023.
“I think we need some time to talk,” Lynch said before making his motion, explaining the BOE will likely need to “workshop” the topic more, suggesting that in the meantime a public poll could be administered to get a reading on the community’s perception of the district’s needs.
Holt commented, “That’s the missing piece. That’s the next piece that we don’t have.”
He explained the BOE can take results from the public poll and compare it with information gathered by the MPAC.
During the work session, Lynch explained, “We have no agendas planned other than to listen.”
He also mentioned, “We know the current state isn’t so great,” adding that the district needs to look for a path to the future of its facilities and what that path entails.
MPAC chair Lisa Scott provided the BOE with a summary of what the MPAC discussed during each of its meetings.
Scott was joined by eight volunteers from the MPAC during the work session, while she noted that there were approximately 35 community members that showed up to each MPAC meeting.
She explained that the eight volunteers were made up of a diverse group from the community with varying age and interests.
The goal was to start with the facilities assessment report from RTA and review it for additional information, Scott explained, noting the committee was looking to “really understand our facility needs” and provide potential solutions for the aging facilities.
Scott also reminded the BOE that the MPAC is an advisory committee and that the BOE will make final decisions on how to address the district facilities.
“This is an advisory committee,” she said. “We are not the decision makers.”
Scott then explained the first MPAC meeting in January reviewed the four categories of the facilities assessment: urgent needs, important needs, necessary needs, and beneficial and long-term needs.
She also mentioned that enrollment projections and historical populations of Archuleta County show a “stagnant population,” noting that is the probable case for the foreseeable future.
Scott also noted that the committee worked with a demographer that informed the group that “the more affordable housing we have in this community, the better — the more robust our community is going to be.”
The committee also began looking into how schools receive their funding, Scott explained, commenting, “It is very complicated how schools get their money and where it goes.”
The committee also learned about Building Excellent Schools Today, or BEST, grant opportunities through the state, which provides an annual amount of funding in the form of competitive grants to school districts to be used for the construction of new schools or renovations.
During the February MPAC meeting, the committee explored more options for school funding, reviewing its mill levy along with discussing what a bond could do for the district, Scott explained
Scott noted that a BEST grant “is not a total solution,” explaining it is a competitive process with no guarantees of receiving funding.
She explained that the committee also developed an extensive pro and con list for building a new school versus renovating existing buildings.
“And then, through this, the concept of a PK-8 school was introduced as a possibility, and the reality there is building one school is just cheaper,” Scott said.
During the March meeting, the MPAC looked into the lifespan of the district’s facilities, with Scott commenting that just because a building is old that doesn’t necessarily mean it needs to be knocked down.
The committee also played “Schoolopoly” during its March meeting, during which five small groups were able to incorporate real costs and begin prioritizing the district’s needs.
Scott commented that the Schoolopoly activity gave people the chance to “realize the enormity of the expense.”
Scott also mentioned that there are multiple needs within the community, with Archuleta County considering going to voters for support in building a new administration building, the Town of Pagosa Springs also considering a tax increase to help fix its sewer systems, and needs of the medical center and the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District.
“The financial needs of our facilities outweigh what this community can afford, and there are competing priorities within the various municipalities,” Scott said.
Scott explained that the April meeting involved the committee reviewing the results of the Schoolopoly activity and looking into where the majority of students in the district live within the county.
According to Scott’s presentation, 68 percent of ASD’s students live “uptown,” or west of Piedra Road, while 32 percent live “downtown,” or east of Piedra Road.
She also noted that RTA presented options for the district showing that a new building can be built on any of the properties the district currently owns.
The committee also ranked five options for the district to build a new building, perform major renovations or a combination of both.
According to Scott’s presentation, the committee ranked the option of building a new PK-8 building as the top option, followed by building a new elementary and a new middle school. The third-ranked option was to build a new middle school and renovate the elementary school, followed by the opposite for the fourth-ranked option. The fifth-ranked option from MPAC is to renovate both the elementary and middle school buildings.
Scott also mentioned that “there really needs to be an analysis of priority” in identifying what the district can fund first.
“We are definitely gonna have to make some hard choices,” she said.
Scott noted that no matter what the BOE decides to do, “you have just got to engage your community, in a very intentional way,” explaining that will be crucial in getting anything approved by voters.
BOE members Butch Mackey and David Iverson both attended and participated in the MPAC meetings.
Mackey explained that the members of the MPAC were serious and dedicated to the task at hand, while also acknowledging other statements about how the district’s needs outweigh the amount of funds available.
“We got more needs than we’re gonna have money,” Mackey said, noting the district has some “drastic needs” that need to be addressed.
Iverson commented that educating the community on school funding will be important.
MPAC member Lawrence Rugar commented that the committee “heard from a diverse group of people” exploring many avenues while leaving “no stone unturned.”
He mentioned the general consensus seemed to be, “Let’s do the best we can for what little we may have for the best outcome for the kids.”
MPAC member Ronnie Doctor also commented that if the community understands how difficult it will be to get funding, that’s a better starting point than before.
MPAC member Bill Hudson noted that as much as the committee was able to do, there are still many details that need to be worked out, adding that the MPAC could continue assisting in this process.
Hudson also mentioned that getting community support for the project will be crucial, specifically as to how much the community is willing to support the project financially.
He suggested that if the district looks to go to the voters, it should wait until the November 2026 election in order to put together a successful campaign.
“I want this to succeed, whatever the school board comes up with,” Hudson said.
Scott provided more insight on costs associated with building a new school, explaining that the PK-8 option started to gain traction, with it costing around $125 million, while building a new middle school and elementary school would each cost around $75 million.
RTA Principal Doug Abernethy explained that beyond the facilities analysis, RTA also included educational adequacy scores in its report, noting that the district has buildings with classrooms with no windows, small cafeterias and small libraries.
County Commissioner John Ranson was also in attendance and provided an anecdotal story of a constituent changing their mind from being against a bond to supporting it once the personal impact was broken down into a monthly cost.
RTA had previously presented information indicating that the impact on homes in the community valued at $500,000 for an approximately $70 million bond translates to approximately $20 per month on a single household, while a $125 bond has an approximate monthly impact of $40 on a home.
One other public comment was heard on the matter during the meeting, with Mark Weiler suggesting the district could “consider researching alternative methods of providing education that do not involve massive investments in physical infrastructure.”
Weiler noted the Jordan Peterson Academy as an example.
All of the information presented at the MPAC meetings is available to view online at https://rtaarchitects.com/archuleta-fmp, along with notes taken by RTA for each meeting.
clayton@pagosasun.com
