On Monday, Aug. 25, Archuleta School District’s Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) and members of the Board of Education (BOE) will hear preliminary site analysis regarding possible locations for a future school building.
The meeting is set to begin at 5:30 p.m. in the Pagosa Springs Middle School library at 309 Lewis St.
The BOE discussed the matter at its Aug. 5 meeting, with Superintendent Rick Holt explaining the matter was on the agenda to give the board some time to discuss specific next steps and continue discussion on the matter.
He noted the board could choose to take action on going for a bond or could choose to continue to investigate and explore.
Holt noted that, since the matter was discussed in July, the district had engaged RTA Architects to begin looking at sites and traffic studies.
He noted RTA would not be able to finish those results until later in August, with the information set to be presented to the MPAC on Aug. 25, with that meeting noticed for the BOE to attend.
BOE president Bob Lynch then asked his fellow board members what they’ve thought about since leaving off in July and what they think about the prospects of a bond or a Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) grant.
Butch Mackey was the first to speak, stating his initial thoughts were that he was pleased with the results of the survey and that there is support to do something proactive about its facilities.
The BOE heard the results of a community poll on July 1. For more on those results, see http://bit.ly/3JmJh9C.
He indicated that, as much as he would like to try to be ready to go to the ballot this year, he doesn’t think that is feasible.
“Realistically, we have work that needs to be done to ensure that whatever we recommend is what’s in the best interest of the district and the taxpayers and the students and the staff and all those people that are involved,” he said. “I just think we need a little more time to work on that, personally.”
He noted he’s “all for” moving forward and doing analysis and design work to get ready to go for a BEST grant over the winter and be ready to make a decision about going to the ballot next year.
Board member Tim Taylor noted there was nothing final in his head, but that he was probably leaning the same way as Mackey.
He then noted he spent a lot of time reviewing the polling presentation and asked clarifying questions about the poll results before stating he was somewhat encouraged by the results, though he realized informing the community is more challenging than the way individuals were informed about the project during the poll.
Holt indicated part of the polling was about the site — at the high school campus or on the district’s property along Vista Boulevard — but that the location did not change the support of it.
He further indicated the district would be spending a big chunk of time informing the public about its reasoning for what location is chosen.
He later noted a preliminary traffic analysis would be done to look for glaring issues, then it would be up to the board if it wanted to spend the time and money for a full traffic study.
Taylor asked what the deadline to get a matter on the ballot would be.
Consultant Lynea Hansen stated Sept. 5 would be the final day to put a question on the ballot.
Taylor noted it would be tight to put something on the ballot after the meeting on Aug. 25, but that it would be possible.
He noted he was more pleased with the poll results after looking at them more, but that he understood where Mackey was coming from.
Board member Amanda Schick suggested the district has community support because of how strong its community awareness and engagement campaign has been, and the community understands the financial impact with and without the BEST grant.
“I think that the urgency piece is growing,” she said, speaking of the timeline for the ballot, as well as the timeline for meeting student and community needs.
Schick noted she thought the district could be intentional and strategic over the following month while deciding the location and if it should go on this year’s ballot or not.
“You know, the community, again, understands our needs and, no matter what, we’re gonna have people say that we have rushed this, we’re gonna have other people say we did this great or did this wrong, but I think that the cost of waiting is real for us,” she said.
She suggested that the board could potentially move its September meeting up to make a decision, noting she wasn’t sure how much additional information the board could receive in four weeks.
She added that if the location is the pivotal piece, the district could at least show it’s doing everything it can.
Lynch confirmed that Schick would like to “keep the decision alive a little bit here until closer until the final deadline,” particularly as additional information about the site comes in.
Board member David Iverson suggested he’s closer to where Mackey is, noting he does large project development for work and he couldn’t take a project with the current level of detail the district has to his board for approval and that he would need more.
He noted it could be done, but it would be a lot to ask.
He also asked if they would put the dollar figure assuming receipt of a BEST grant or not on the ballot, noting the grant funding seems to move people in favor.
He stated he is not opposed to keeping the option open if the board wants.
Lynch noted he is pleased with the community support and awareness, but that he would worry about numbers being “a little close” on the polling.
He also acknowledged the MPAC’s split over the possible location.
He noted he would want to pick the location and have a defensible reason, as well as the look and cost of the building.
He suggested trying for a BEST grant before asking the community to “foot the whole bill.”
If the board “congeals” around something, it could go with it, he noted, but that he was not in favor of that at that point.
Taylor noted he is fiscally conservative and that they don’t know where bond rates will be, suggesting things could possibly increase by 8 percent per year if things continue the way they are and that is his main concern with waiting another year or two.
Holt acknowledged building costs will increase and that has to be part of the board’s decision making.
He stated building supplies have been “highly impacted” by tariffs and if it takes a couple of years to get a BEST grant, the district would build a smaller school.
Iverson noted he doesn’t think the district would be losing a year, explaining that the BEST grant has to be submitted in February and indicated the district would be doing the same things if it went to the ballot or not because it would go for a BEST grant either way.
Schick expressed concern about delaying action and community support, with Hansen suggesting she didn’t think the district would see a drop in support if it were to say it wanted to try for a BEST grant first.
The board and Holt also discussed the amount of time there would be to run a campaign for an election this November, with Holt noting those who would help want time for one-on-one conversations with people and concerns about how many people they could reach in that short amount of time.
Taylor later asked the district’s maintenance and grounds personnel if a year delay in construction would mean anything that would be a $5 million to $10 million repair, with Josh Sanchez, who formerly served as the district’s chief operating officer reporting the biggest repair coming is the high school roof.
He also indicated work is ongoing with piping in the elementary school and that the district has worked hard the last four to five summers to get things in better shape.
Taylor asked if $750,000 per year would be the anticipated level of continued expenditure, with that confirmed.
Sanchez also noted new lining in the sewer pipes at the middle school could buy some time.
Hansen suggested the district has a little bit of a chicken and egg problem, noting the district has voters ready, but not all of the information for them.
She added not having the location could be difficult, and it’s hard to guess dollar amounts.
She also suggested there could be sentiment of why should a BEST grant be awarded if the community approved funding the full amount.
She further noted the district would do better to at least have a location and suggested holding until 2026 to know the location and dollar amounts.
Lynch pointed out that in 10 months they would be campaigning with a concrete ask.
Iverson expressed agreement with waiting until 2026 to go for a bond measure.
randi@pagosasun.com
>