Photo: Allen Roth, general manager for the Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association (PLPOA) testifies at a ‘listening session’ held in the Pagosa Springs Middle School Library, hosted by the Archuleta School District (ASD) Board of Education on December 2, 2025.
On December 2, after listening for a little more than an hour to suggestions from a small audience concerning the best location for a proposed PreK-8 school facility — to be funded by a property tax increase and possibly also by a grant from the Colorado Department of Education’s BEST program — the Archuleta School District (ASD) Board of Education began a ‘work session’ conversation amongst themselves.
A majority of the thoughtful citizens who had testified at the ‘listening session’ had indicated a preference for a facility located on the same campus as the Pagosa Springs High School. Less enthusiasm was indicated for a second possible location, adjacent to the Vista subdivision at the west end of town on a vacant 37-acre parcel owned by ASD.
Lisa Scott, chair of the Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC), encouraged the audience to support a new-facility bond issue regardless of which location is eventually chosen. A location choice is scheduled to be made at the Board’s January meeting.
But the work session discussion among the Board members raised questions about whether the Board will have enough information to make a decision by then.
Typically, government board ‘work sessions’ are an opportunity to discuss ideas freely without any intention to make definite policy decisions. Board President Bob Lynch invited his fellow members to offer whatever thought they had. Butch Mackey began by stressing the fact that the Board has not made any decision yet about the preferred location, despite the fact that recent media coverage may have indicated a preference for the Vista location based on an recent engineering site study performed by SGM Engineering.
Board member Tim Taylor expressed his desire to meet with ASD students and hear their thoughts about a possible new facility and location. He characterized this part of the planning process as “terribly important”.
(The Board already has a work session scheduled to hear from ASD staff, set for tonight, Monday, December 8 at 5:30pm in the Pagosa Springs Middle School library.)
Board member Amanda Schick said she sensed concerns in the community that “we are not being creative; that we are not thinking outside the box.”
“That we’ve allowed an engineering company and an architectural company to basically come and show us three ‘shapes’ and that that’s the extent of the creativity that we’ve taken with the large amount of space that we have. We do want to think big. We do want our community to be informed.
“Can we not achieve the goal without destroying?”
She was here referring to suggestions from consultants RTA Architects that the High School location — if chosen — would require the destruction of existing athletic fields.
“That we can literally sit back and consider that we have acres and acres of space. That we have not decided on the ask of a dollar amount. That we have not decided on what we’re doing, if we have not decided. So we should be really open to saying, ‘Why aren’t we coming up with a solution that can hold both of these truths?’ Every single person here tonight said they want to support a new school, and we want to recognize the use of the facilities [by the larger community].
“There’s a part of me that believes that we have let outsiders come in and be the voice and best perspective of Pagosa, when actually are the professionals of Pagosa. We understand our community. We understand our families. We are hearing from our stakeholders…
“What serves our voters? That’s a big takeaway for me. What is serving our voters?”
This question was largely ignored during the public testimony, which focused mainly on ‘what would best serve parents and children.’ Ms. Schick is here identifying a key question, because the ‘parents and children’ will not be the group that decides on a future property tax increase. Most voters in Archuleta County (as mentioned previously in this editorial series) are over 50 years in age.
Relatively few of those older tax-conscious voters have been involved, thus far, in the Master Plan Advisory Committee process.
Board President Bob Lynch noted that the District has a limit to its legal bonding capacity, and whatever bonds are proposed must abide by those limits.
Board members Tim Taylor and Davey Iverson expressed concerns about the ‘hydrological challenges’ of building a school at the High School site, at the base of a rocky, 52-acre sloping hillside.
Mr. Iverson then questioned the $123 million cost estimate from RTA Architects. Did that estimate include athletic fields? Gymnasiums? What exactly would the District get for $123 million? Does it include the deeper foundations required at the High School site?
Superintendent Rick Holt:
“That’s a great question, because I’ve actually had the same thought, because some of the drawings show a track for the Middle School, and some show a track and a baseball diamond. I think they’re just saying, ‘You have the space for these’… but does our $123 million cover that? Or is that an additional cost?”
Mr. Holt agreed that the Board should know how much it costs to replace three softball fields, if they chose to place a school at the High School site, in a spot where three existing softball diamonds currently exist.
Ms. Schick expressed some surprise that the District doesn’t have more details on exactly what could be built for the previously estimated cost of $123 million, this close to a grant application deadline. President Lynch recommended that the architect consultants be “on the phone” at the upcoming December 9 ASD Board meeting. The Board expressed support for that idea.
MPAC chair Lisa Scott, from the audience, reminded the Board of other critical capital issues facing the District — at the High School, at the Admin building, at Pagosa Peak Open School — not to mention “how we’re going to dispose of the other two buildings.” That is, the existing Elementary and Middle School buildings.
“We can’t just go to the voters and say, ‘These are all the bright and shiny new things we want.’ We’ve got to reserve some money for these other things.”