Ideas about the best option for Archuleta School District (ASD) in addressing its aging facilities were tossed around at the March 17 Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) meeting.
The meeting consisted of committee members splitting into groups to play “Schoolopoly,” where each group was able to come up with multiple possible scenarios, comparing the costs of major renovations versus a new building.
Brian Calhoun and Doug Abernethy, representatives from RTA Architects, facilitated the meeting, explaining the goal of the game was for committee members to gain a sense of perspective about varying community priorities and the potential dollar cost associated with each project.
ASD Superintendent Rick Holt also reminded the committee that the “hope” is for the MPAC to be able to give a recommendation to the Board of Education (BOE) by the end of the committee’s fourth and final meeting, which is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on April 21.
Before explaining the game, Calhoun reminded the committee of criteria identified by the BOE that is important in its decision making.
Those criteria include: safety and security, being fiscally responsible, high-quality learning environments, flexibility of facilities to accommodate future needs, supported by the community, aligns with the district’s mission and goals, and supports a broad range of student activities.
Calhoun also provided data in response to questions raised in previous MPAC meetings related to building lifespans.
Calhoun explained that the lifespan of the general structure of a building is about 50 to 75 years, while mechanical systems and plumbing systems may last 15 to 20 years.
He noted that athletic turf fields and technology may last for only five to seven years before needing to be replaced or upgraded.
“Buildings are always an ongoing effort to keep them relevant,” he said, adding, “Generally, they say the average lifespan of a school building is about 40 to 50 years.”
Calhoun also explained that a major renovation on a building can reset the building’s profile to be that of a 16-year-old building.
A timeline of ASD’s buildings and expansions was also provided by Calhoun, which indicated that the first building, currently the fifth- and sixth-grade building of the middle school, was built in 1924, with the seventh- and eighth-grade building built in 1954. The seventh- and eighth-grade building had an addition in 1983.
The elementary school was constructed in 1969, and experienced two additions, in 1981 and 1993.
The current high school was constructed in 1998, with the newest district building being the San Juan Mountain School facility constructed in 2020.
Calhoun also spoke about data indicating that new or modernized school buildings have a positive effect on student performance, citing data from the World Bank Group.
He noted that the study looked at “many different schools” and showed that “buildings do matter, and they can influence learning.”
Calhoun also suggested that new and modernized school buildings can lead to higher teacher retention rates, along with a reduction in student absenteeism due to health and respiratory issues.
Committee member and Pagosa Peak Open School (PPOS) board member Bill Hudson interjected, stating that RTA scored the seventh- and eighth-grade building the lowest on its facilities assessment, but claimed that building has had the highest student performance in the district.
Hudson also mentioned that PPOS is located in a former office building, but also has high student performance rates.
Hudson stated that in Pagosa Springs, “student performance doesn’t depend on the building.”
He also suggested that the committee was being provided with “vague” data that the community is “getting a sales pitch for a certain approach for the future.”
Another committee member commented in reply, claiming that “correlation” does not necessarily mean “causation.”
Abernethy addressed Hudson’s comments, stating that the meeting’s exercise is an opportunity for committee members to share alternate ideas about what is best for the community.
“We do want everybody in this room to participate,” Calhoun added.
MPAC chair Lisa Scott reminded the committee that, “We are not the decision makers,” while indicating that whatever the BOE decides to go with there will be a big cost, “no matter how we fix it.”
Scott encouraged the committee to not jump ahead in the process timeline to potential future bond elections, as that is not the confirmed funding mechanism at this point.
She mentioned that the committee’s job is to understand the district’s facilities “from the professionals that have done the assessment, so we get a realistic view of what we’re dealing with.”
Calhoun also talked about building grade-level configurations, suggesting that there are benefits to having a kindergarten through eighth-grade campus, compared to a traditional elementary and middle school configuration.
“There is really great research behind K-8s,” Calhoun said, explaining that a K-8 building offers more stability to students and families.
“Those are tough years for students,” he said, adding that it also makes it easier on family logistics by providing one drop-off location rather than multiple at different campuses.
Committee member and PPOS board member Lawrence Rugar asked if there has been any research on the possibility of having a junior high campus that would serve seventh- through ninth-graders, indicating there is data to suggest that is also a beneficial configuration for student performance.
Calhoun noted that the trend across the nation currently is for new schools to be built as K-8 buildings.
Schoolopoly and
common themes
Each group was given a set of cards that represented different maintenance, renovation and new building costs associated with each of the district’s current facilities, including potential improvement costs for things like athletic fields and the administration building.
Calhoun explained that there were options for each group to choose to address the critical deferred maintenance needs, deferred maintenance needs plus educational adequacy renovations, deferred maintenance and a new building.
The cost to address critical deferred maintenance needs at the elementary school was listed at $20 million, with deferred maintenance and educational adequacy renovations listed at $50 million.
Groups were able to select an amount ranging from zero to $36 million for deferred maintenance projects at the elementary school, and a new elementary school building was listed at a cost of $72 million, Abernethy explained, noting that a new building site was not yet chosen.
For the middle school, critical deferred maintenance was listed at a cost of $8.5 million, with deferred maintenance costs ranging from zero to $30 million. The cost of deferred maintenance and educational adequacy renovations was listed at $52.5 million, and a new middle school building was listed at a cost of $76.5 million.
For the high school, critical deferred maintenance costs were listed at $1.2 million, with deferred maintenance and educational adequacy renovations ranging from zero to $21.5 million.
Also included in the high school scenarios was the cost of critical deferred maintenance plus the addition of an auxiliary gym listed at $9 million.
Calhoun also explained that the estimated cost for a new K-8 building would be $123.5 million, while up to $800,000 could be spent on renovations to the district’s administration building and up to $5 million could be spent on improving the district’s athletic fields.
Abernethy explained that the estimated costs include things such as temporary modular classroom rentals needed for student displacement during major renovations, while also not forecasting for “tons of” growth in the district.
Abernethy also explained that an 8 percent yearly increase in construction costs was included in the estimations, along with an additional $500,000 potentially needed for asbestos removal in the event of a major renovation project.
Abernethy added that the district could apply for a BEST grant through the state, which is a matching grant the district could receive for a project that would act as a “44 percent off coupon.”
Hudson commented that BEST grants are likely only to be awarded for safety and security projects.
Calhoun went on to provide additional data from STIFEL, outlining the economic impact on families in Archuleta County if the district were to pursue a $25 million, $35 million or $60 million bond.
According to the data presented, the monthly impact on households in the county for a $25 million bond would be approximately $9 per month, while a $60 million bond would translate to an impact of $22 per month.
Calhoun also explained that the total repayment on a $25 million bond would come out to approximately $44 million, while total repayment on a $60 million bond would be approximately $106 million.
Each of the five groups taking part in the “Schoolopoly” activity came up with a scenario that included building a new K-8 building while also choosing to invest in the district’s athletic fields.
Reasons for support of K-8 building included that having the least amount of student disruption and getting the best product for the attached cost.
“As a teacher, I want the least amount of disruption for our students,” committee member Darcy DeGuise said.
Other scenarios looked at addressing only the critical deferred maintenance needed at each building, which came out to an estimated cost of $65 million, while scenarios including the construction of a new K-8 building and investments into improving athletic fields totaled around $150 million.
Members of the committee also expressed concerns over spending money to address critical maintenance needs, suggesting that will not solve long-term issues and raising the question of if the community would be in favor of a higher initial price tag compared to a lower initial price tag that may not serve the district’s needs for an extended amount of time.
Other ideas shared from committee members expressed support of investing in the San Juan Mountain School facility, as well as the career and technical education center.
Following discussion on possible scenarios, the committee raised questions about the priorities of the community and how that relates to dollar amounts.
Abernethy indicated that RTA will review the feedback given by the committee and develop two or three different scenarios to present at the April meeting, also indicating it will be important to know what the community is willing to support.
“We’ll bring that data back,” he said.
clayton@pagosasun.com
