Photo: Some of the audience at Archuleta School District’s January 21 Board of Education meeting, viewing the criteria that guided the School Board’s facility decision.
The January 21 Archuleta School District (ASD) School Board meeting saw unusually good attendance by the community’s taxpayers. I’ve been at previous School Board meetings where the only people in the audience were two news reporters (the Pagosa Springs SUN and the Daily Post) and some District staff.
That special meeting focused on one single decision. Should ASD propose a $122 million PreK-8 school facility for a vacant 37-acre parcel on Vista Boulevard… or should the facility be proposed for a more confined site on the High School campus, priced at perhaps $130 million?
Both sites have advantages and disadvantages, and the School Board had published a list of criteria they would use for making decisions about District facility needs.
Safety and Security
Ensuring the safety of students and staff in all facilities.
Fiscal Responsibility
Making cost-effective decisions that are sustainable for the district.
High-Quality Learning Environments
Creating spaces that enhance educational experiences for students.
Flexibility of Facilities
Designing buildings that can adapt to future educational needs.
Community Support
Ensuring that plans are backed by community input and approval.
Alignment with District Goals
Ensuring that developments support the overall mission and objectives of ASD.
Support for Student Activities
Providing facilities that accommodate a wide range of student programs.
As I understand the facts presented by ASD and their consultants over the past year, the Vista site does the best job of addressing “Safety and Security”, “Fiscal Responsibility”, and “Flexibility of Facilities”. On the other criteria, it seems that the Vista site or the High School site each have their advantages and disadvantages.
But if you don’t mind my saying so, neither site fully addresses “Fiscal Responsibility” and “Community Support” in the best way possible.
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 additional funding.
The headline for this editorial series is “The Best Education, at the Best Price.” On the face of it, those can seem like contradictory goals. We typically assume that “The Best” is bound to be “The Most Expensive.”
But that’s not always the case.
Based on extensive evidence from numerous studies, we know that two key factors produce the best academic and social outcomes in schools.
Excellent teachers. And excellent curriculum.
I’ve been researching and writing about education for the Daily Post — off and on — for the past 22 years. I have yet to come across any compelling studies or reports that show ‘improved academic and social outcomes’ based on expensive school buildings.
Give me an excellent teacher and an excellent curriculum, and learning can effectively take place in a canvas tent.
Or in an open meadow.
The only certain outcome from expensive new school buildings is increased profits for architects, engineers, construction companies, and the investment firms that buy tax-funded bonds.
The Archuleta School District currently maintains several buildings. Let’s take the Pagosa Springs Elementary School as an example.
The school was originally built in 1968, and saw expansions in the 1980s and 1990s. The facility includes about 6 acres of outdoor play areas and athletic fields. The building itself is in reasonably good condition.
When the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) inspected the building in 2009, it was valued at $15 million and had $25,700 in “Critical needs” and $8.8 million in estimated “Priority 3 upgrades”.
I can’t say how many of the “Priority 3 upgrades” have been made since 2009. The school got a new roof in 2013, and the lighting was upgraded. The building has recently seen security and safety improvements, thanks to $1.7 million in annual Mill Levy Override property taxes approved by the voters in 2018 and made permanent in 2024. New playground equipment was installed this year. It still has some heating system challenges, I understand..
ASD hired consultants RTA Architects about two years ago to help the District create a Facilities Master Plan. When RTA inspected the Elementary School in 2024, they estimated $19.6 million in “Urgent needs.”
It’s not immediately clear how the Elementary School went from $25,700 in “Critical needs” in 2009, to $19.6 million in “Urgent needs” in 2024 — considering the addition, since 2009, of a new roof, substantial security upgrades, new playground equipment, and improved lighting systems.
RTA found a grand total of $35.9 million in recommended repairs and upgrades at the Elementary School.
It’s possible that what’s “urgent or beneficial” to the CDE is different from what’s “urgent or beneficial” to an architecture firm that might be hired, in the future, to design a replacement facility.
But the Elementary School is not the only school that RTA determined was in dire need of repairs and upgrades.
RTA determined that Pagosa Springs High School — built in 1997 at a cost of $12 million — now needs $21.4 million in urgent and recommended upgrades and repairs.
When CDE inspected Pagosa Springs High School in 2009, they determined that the building had $53,000 in “Critical needs” and — eventually — could benefit from HVAC system upgrades costing $5 million.
I can’t say whether the HVAC system has been upgraded since 2009.
What is abundantly clear to me is that the cost of government facilities has been greatly inflated over the past two decades.
The High School facility was built for $12 million.
A proposed PreK-8 facility, slightly less than twice the size of the High School, has now been estimated at $122 million.
Ouch.