Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Archuleta district considers asking voters to fund match after near‑miss in state BEST process
Summary
After placing near the top of the state BEST list but not receiving full funding, district officials recommended testing a November ballot measure that would ask voters to provide the local match contingent on a future BEST award rather than funding the entire project locally.
Archuleta County School District No. 50 Jt reviewed recent feedback from Colorado’s BEST program and discussed whether to ask voters this November to finance a portion of a proposed high‑school project.
District staff said the project ranked near the top of BEST’s list but available COP dollars and one large project that received a waiver left insufficient statewide funds to cover every top application. A staff recap noted BEST can allow unused match dollars to trickle down the ranking, but cautioned that being “just under the line” is no guarantee of future funding and that accepting a partial award would cap the district’s match at the amount taken.
Consultants and outside advisers recommended that the board consider placing a contingent ballot question that would obligate local funds only if the district later secures a BEST award. A bond‑counsel summary described two principal approaches: place a straight bond on the ballot to fund the project without BEST dollars, or put a contingent ask — limited by time — that would only be used if the BEST award is received. Bond counsel warned that making the ask contingent introduces timing risk if BEST funding takes more than one or two cycles to materialize.
Doug Abernathy of RTA, who advised on budgets and reapplications, said the district’s application showed strong merit and that limited available state funds — not the project’s quality — kept funding from reaching every well‑ranked project. He recommended reconfirming contractor budgets and market assumptions before reapplying and continuing a public outreach effort in the interim.
Board members cited examples of other districts that applied multiple times and eventually won BEST awards after refining applications and maintaining community engagement. One board member, Tim Taylor, asked whether a prior failed bond would damage future BEST chances; staff answered that BEST reviewers may interpret pre‑existing local funding as evidence that the community already had resources, and that the timing and presentation of local ballot asks can influence perceptions.
The district did not take a vote in the work session. Staff and consultants recommended the board preserve momentum by testing a match‑focused ballot option in polling this summer rather than immediately committing to a full local‑funding ask. The board expects to review polling results and recommended ballot titles in July.
