Last month, the Archuleta school board selected the Vista site for a new K-8 school location, which will be presented to voters this fall.
Throughout this process, it was repeatedly stated that the guiding principle would be what is in the best interest of our students. If that truly was the standard, it is difficult to reconcile that commitment with the decision that was made.
Letters poured in supporting the downtown/high school site. Conversations around town, as well as public testimony and online discussions from parents, educators, business owners, and long-standing residents, overwhelmingly reflected a strong community preference for the downtown site as the location that best supports students.
Individuals representing or professionally associated with public entities, most notably Parks and Recreation, as well as the library, among other community partners, spoke to collaboration around the downtown location.
This level of engagement demonstrates that those who participated represent a meaningful cross-section of the community and contradicts a claim Board Member Tim Taylor read from an email, which suggested the loudest voices do not represent the broader community.
Board member Amanda Schick articulated what many in the community have been saying all along. She spoke about making a decision the board would not regret and noted, “The biggest risk is only in the limitation of our collaboration.” In evaluating which site truly prioritizes students, she highlighted community cohesion, walkability access, and the role schools play as civic anchors. She was the only board member who ultimately voted for the downtown site.
Superintendent Rick Holt also noted a critical reality regarding the BEST grant process: grant advisors want to see evidence that a district has listened to its community and has its support. While committees and public meetings were provided to gather input as part of an effort to position the district for a BEST grant, could the decision to locate the new school away from the strongly supported downtown site reduce the chances of securing the grant — thus shifting the burden onto local taxpayers?
And that raises another critical question: if the community’s clearly stated preference is ignored at this stage, what happens when that same community is later asked to vote to fund the project?
The cost of the board’s decision may not be immediate, but it will be felt — in public confidence, in future funding efforts, and in the growing disconnect between decision-makers and the people they represent.
Trust matters. Process matters. Listening matters.
If the goal is truly what is best for our students, decisions must be grounded in transparent facts, broad community input, and long-term outcomes.
Abigail Karas
Pagosa Springs