Photo: Chinook Trail Middle School, Colorado Springs. Design by RTA Architects.
Press releases. Where would the news media be without them?
We’re sharing a press release from Pagosa Peak Open School this morning about one of the ‘projects’ that will be on display on February 5 at the school’s Winter Expo. One of the innovative aspects about PPOS is a focus on student-led “Project-Based Learning”.
We also ran a press release from the Archuleta League of Women Voters yesterday, announcing tonight’s 5:30pm public meeting at the Methodist Church to hear a presentation on how well Archuleta County schools might (or might not) be doing with educating our young people about democracy.
One interesting aspect to democracy in Colorado: our local and state governments cannot increase tax rates without voter approval. But when everyone’s property values increase, property taxes automatically increase, especially property taxes collected by our local schools. The state of Colorado has eliminated the ability of school districts to reduce mill levy rates when property values skyrocket. (Other governments have the ability to reduce mill levies without voter approval, but I’ve never heard of that happening in Archuleta County.)
Part One yesterday began with a reference to a press release sent out by the Archuleta School District (ASD), announcing the decision by the School Board to locate a proposed PreK-8 school on a 37-acre parcel on Vista Boulevard. By “locate” I mean that the School Board picked a future site to serve as a placeholder when writing a BEST grant next month.
This particular 37-acre parcel is currently vacant, and was donated to the School District many, many years ago — I’m thinking, back in the 1970s? — by the original developers of the Pagosa Lakes subdivisions. The site is adjacent to some suburban homes to the north and east, and to the Vista mobile home park to the west.
We shared that ASD press release on Friday.
The press release does not refer to the site as “The Vista Site” even though that’s the name I remember hearing when the two potential sites were being discussed last year.
The new name for the site is “The Uptown Site”.
The word “Vista” no doubt brings to mind — for some residents — the adjacent Vista mobile home park, and perhaps “mobile home park neighborhood” is not the picture the District wants people to have in their minds when considering a new $122 million facility. The drawing distributed by the District last week shows a black arrow pointing to “Pagosa Lakes” and “Hatcher Lakes” [sic]. No mention of the adjacent Vista neighborhood.
In fact, a significant number of the students who would attend this proposed facility, live in the Vista mobile home park. It’s one of very few reasonably-affordable neighborhoods in Pagosa Springs.
When I mentioned the School Board decision to select “The Uptown Site” on Vista Boulevard to my son-in law, his initial reaction was to laugh.
“Way out there? Why would they put a school way out there?”
I’m sure many folks who have lived in Pagosa for decades — like my son-in-law has — will feel the same way. All our school facilities have been concentrated in the downtown area for so many years, that Vista Boulevard can feel like a distant location. But in fact, Vista Boulevard is closer to the 75% of our community’s families who live west of Piedra Road, than our current downtown schools are.
I mentioned in Part One that nearly all the public testimony shared at School Board meetings over the past couple of months has indicated a strong preference — among those particular speakers — for siting the facility on the High School campus. The arguments in favor of the High School site focused on the amenities available to children after school:
Numerous parks
Public library
Community center
Shopping and businesses
San Juan River
The fans of the High School site also noted that a parent dropping off a child at the PreK-8 facility and another child at the High School would find the High School location much more convenient than two different campuses 6 miles apart.
When the members of the School Board — Bob Lynch, Tim Taylor, Butch Mackey, Amanda Schick and Dave Iverson — explained their choices at last week’s meeting, they acknowledged the arguments in favor of a High School site.
But, for four of them, the disadvantages of the High School site tipped the scale to the Vista site.
Some of those disadvantages:
A facility at the High School site would likely be million of dollars more expensive to build due to a number of factors.
The campus would be crowded, with the existing site now having to accommodate about 1,800 children and staff from Preschool to grade 12, plus a planned ‘workforce training center’.
The presence of small children walking among automobiles driven by high school students suggested safety concerns.
The Town is currently planning to build a new sewer treatment plant a stone’s throw from the facility site.
1,800 people coming and going each morning and afternoon on narrow downtown streets suggested traffic congestion.
The new facility would eliminate existing athletic fields without any room to replace those fields.
The facility would not be able to expand in the future without eliminating even more athletic fields.
An ad hoc survey of ASD staff suggested a preference for the Vista site by an overwhelming majority of administrators and staff.
I personally agree that the above criteria point to the Vista site as the best choice, given the two site options. But I find it hard to believe that a new PreK-8 facility at Vista will be supported by the Archuleta County voters if the final cost will be more than $200 million.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer on the Pagosa Peak Open School board of directors. PPOS is a tuition-free public school authorized by ASD, and receives a share of the tax revenues paid by Archuleta County property owners. If ASD decides to place a tax increase on the November 2026 ballot and it’s approved by the voters, PPOS will likely benefit from some additional funding.
I have been serving on the Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) since January 2025, and I watched how the consultants from RTA Architects cherry-picked data and information, to practically guarantee a decision by the MPAC that Archuleta County desperately needs a new PreK-8 facility, rather than pursuing a more fiscally prudent option to repair and upgrade the existing schools.
The District’s attitude of claiming support for a new facility, rather than renovation and improvement of existing buildings, was reflected in the ASD press release from January 21, quoting Superintendent Rick Holt:
“We should all celebrate the level of community conversation and engagement throughout this process. It’s been encouraging to see so many people participate thoughtfully,” said Holt. “The survey showed that families across our community recognize the urgent need for safer, more modern schools, and this decision helps us move forward toward that shared goal.”
Do “families across our community” truly recognize an urgent need for “safer, more modern schools”?
ASD did indeed conduct a survey last summer, asking 300 likely voters if they would support a property tax increase for a new $123 million facility. The survey respondents were told the bond issue for a new facility would cost about $218 million which includes the interest payments to the potential bond holders.) Only about 33% of the respondents said they would “definitely support” such a tax increase.
When asked to give ASD a “grade”, 60% of the respondents gave the District a grade of “C” or below. Only 2% gave the District a grade of “A”.
When asked if ASD spends taxpayer dollars wisely, only 14% said they “strongly agree.”
Ouch.