Photo: Pagosa parent Cady Allione testifies at a ‘listening session’ held in the Pagosa Springs Middle School Library and hosted by the Archuleta School District Board of Education, December 2, 2025.
I mentioned in Part Two that several of the concerned citizens — who testified at the Tuesday, December 2 ‘listening session’ hosted by the Archuleta School District (ASD) Board of Education — mentioned the fact that they wore two or more “hats”. That they were a parent, for example, but also a Town employee, or were employed by Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association, or some held other combination of interests.
Presumably, they were also taxpayers.
Disclosure: I currently serve on the Pagosa Peak Open School board of directors. As a District-authorized school, PPOS would likely be included in a property-tax-funded bond measure, if ASD moves forward with a ballot measure. I’ve also served on the Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) since it began meeting last January.
The issue the Board hoped to hear opinions about, was a simple one: Based on whatever information you may or may not have, where would you like to see a new PreK-8 school facility built?
Adjacent to the High School? Or uptown adjacent to the Vista subdivision?
Although there are clearly advantages to either of those locations, what appeared to be a coordinated group of parents offered compelling arguments for the High School location, based on the convenience of a single ‘drop off’ location for families with both younger and older students, and the proximity of, and pedestrian access to, businesses, municipal parks, and the river. And other advantages.
The Board members — Bob Lynch, Tim Taylor, Butch Mackey, Amanda Schick and Davey Iverson — listened carefully to those arguments, some of them taking notes.
It was obvious from the presentations that some of the speakers had made themselves familiar with the data currently available about the cost projections, site challenges, architectural sketches, and even about the BEST grant requirements — given that ASD is proposing to submit a BEST (“Building Excellent Schools Today”) grant application in March to help fund the proposed facility.
A few things that may be crucial to that pending grant application:
1. Evidence of community involvement in the planning process.
2. Evidence of support from local governments, businesses, and nonprofits.
3. A selected (suitable) location.
4. An estimated cost.
Fewer audience members offered reasons for locating the facility at the Vista location, although a couple of Pagosa Lakes Property Owner Association staff members noted that PLPOA has significant vacant property adjacent to the Vista site, and the Association might be willing and able to provide land for additional facilities, in the interests of community cooperation and collaboration.
One presentation that drew applause from the audience was delivered by a high school student named Sophia, who has helped organize a girls’ softball team. She questioned the proposal to build the new school at the High School on land where softball fields are currently located, thus eliminating her fledgling team’s access to those fields.
Notably, no one who spoke at the meeting suggested that the taxpayers might actually want ASD to repair and upgrade its existing schools, at much less than half the cost of a new facility.
Also notably, very few of the arguments addressed an issue central to this whole proposal: how to get the taxpayers to support the idea of increased property taxes.
We know, for example, that when ASD proposed a K-8 school building adjacent to the High School in 2011, the voters overwhelmingly rejected the bond issue. Was this rejection partly due to the proposed location? Or did the High School location not particularly matter in that overwhelming election defeat?
Another question that the Board might want to consider. If parents prefer a High School location, but the voters — the majority of whom are over age 50 — prefer a Vista location, would it be better to propose the Vista site?
In my experience as a political advocate, you’re wise to promise the voters something they actually want, if you need their vote.
We heard comments from a few witnesses on Tuesday about “misinformation”… and I began this editorial series on Tuesday with quotes from a recent letter to the Pagosa Springs SUN newspaper that contained a fair amount of inaccurate information.
Misinformation comes about in a couple of ways. Often, it’s a case of someone misunderstanding what they’ve just read or heard, and then injecting what they misunderstood into the gossip mill. Or someone sharing misinformation they’ve heard or read, and spreading it further, without first checking the facts.
Rarely does “misinformation” result from purposeful lying… at the local level, at least. (At the federal level — that’s another story.)
Occasionally, what might be interpreted as “misinformation” is actually someone revealing an inconvenient truth.
One of the people who expressed concerns about misinformation on Tuesday was Lisa Scott, chair of the Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) that made a recommendation to the School Board, last spring, to move ahead with a PreK-8 facility proposal estimated at $125 million.
Ms. Scott noted that the proposed PreK-8 facility is only one of the capital improvement needs facing ASD at the moment. Should the Board have a list of important capital needs — including the capital needs at Pagosa Peak Open School, for example, or at San Juan Mountain School — and consider whether any of those other needs should be bundled into a future bond issue?
What, really, are the total capital needs of the District, as of 2026?
And also, how big of a tax increase is it feasible to propose to the voters?
At the conclusion of the public testimony, ASD President Bob Lynch shifted the focus to the Board members, to hear their thoughts and concerns.