If the Pueblo City Schools (D60) board of education is going to place a bond measure before voters in November, it's going with the four-high school option.

Reflecting the will of the voting taxpayers — or at least those who participated in D60 surveys and community forums — the board on Tuesday committed to the four-high school model, which would see new facilities built to replace Centennial and East high schools, and improvements made to Central and South high schools and other institutions.

What remains to be decided, however, is amount of the bond that would be attached to the question.

After hearing the results of mail and phone surveys that showed overwhelming disapproval of a two-high school model and marginal support for a new four-high school landscape, board President Barb Clementi said: "I think the results seem to be pretty clear. And I'm disappointed in the results."

Acknowledging that she believes the "forward-thinking" two-high school option to be more advantageous, Clementi said she would back the proposal preferred by taxpayers and stakeholders.

"I'd like to see us move forward with one option," she told her colleagues, with development of ballot language that reflects the desires of taxpayers as well as formation of a bond oversight committee.

The board members also expressed strong support for the four-school model.

"Our high schools are the heart and soul of this community," said board member Taylor Voss. "It's my belief that our heritage, history and tradition are the greatest assets we have as a district."

If the district retains four high schools, those institutions would not be "comprehensive high schools,” said Board Vice President Frank Latino.

“People need to know and understand that because of where we're at in this district from an economic standpoint, all programs cannot be offered at every high school,” Latino said. “So, we're going to have to come up with a collaborative model where we use the strengths of each of our schools and move forward with a curriculum plan. And we need everyone on board."

Assessing the current state of affairs as critical, Latino added: "This is the crossroads for not only District 60 but for the city and county of Pueblo."

Originally attached to both the two- and four-high school proposals was a downtown aquatic center – a project that would be funded in conjunction with the city. But after the facility did not rate high with polled taxpayers, it’s unlikely to be part of a revised proposal.

If two new high schools are built, neither would have a pool.

"What I did hear on the trail is how much these folks like their swimming pools," Board Member Dennis Maes said. "But it's clear to me that we cannot afford to build more new swimming pools. This might be one of those things where we're going to have to share."

D60 officials said that after discussions with research professionals, it became evident that a $300 million-plus bond likely wouldn’t fly with taxpayers, which led Latino to ask Paul Hanley, the vice president of George K. Baum and Co. who oversaw the mail survey, to suggest a dollar figure that might be more attractive to voters.

"The challenge is — I can't tell you until you test it," Hanley said, adding that another telephone poll might yield more insight. Not only would the $300 million-plus figure have to be pared significantly, Hanley said, it would be prudent to put a proposal below $200 million on the table.

The drawback, however, would be attempting to address the district's many needs with a smaller bond amount.

"It's difficult to bring the number down," Hanley told the board. "You've already worked really hard to try to bring these numbers down. They seem really high but the reality is there's a ton of need. And every month you wait, construction costs go up."

Chris Keating, who conducted the telephone poll, agreed.

“Obviously, if you can reduce it as much as possible, it gives you a better chance of passing," he said.

Maes, however, suggested that reducing the bond amount could be detrimental.

"If you go too low, you make some improvements. But you're begging the question down the road in terms of the other schools that are going to start falling apart, because they don't get the attention they need," Maes said. "And what are the chances of supplementing another bond after that?"

To paraphrase Hanley, if it's guaranteed, a 30-foot yacht is more preferable than a 50-footer.

"The reality is, if it just loses, and keeps losing, that's no benefit to those schools that could have been fixed," Hanley added.

Board member Bobby Gonzales concurred with Hanley's reasoning.

"I always felt this was too high for our community," he said. "But I also believe that we have to come away with something. Because if we don't, schools will close themselves and we will have more and more problems."

Noting that the reported cost of building a new Columbine High School is priced at $60 million — "it's a bigger school than what we're talking about," he said — Gonzales suggested revisiting the figures presented by MOA Architects in the master plan and facilities assessment.

"I don't know if our figures are exactly right, but I think we need to go back and visit the cost of things," he added.

Eliminating the aquatic center from the bond proposal, it was noted, would be a relatively painless way to lower the amount the district will seek from taxpayers.

In the end, Hanley said, it's essential to be upfront with taxpayers and emphasize that only a limited amount of work would be accomplished with a lower-amount bond, and a second bond would be required in the future.

After the board meets in mid-July to decide on the bond amount, it expects that a second telephone survey would gauge taxpayers’ interest before a final decision is made on a November bond measure.

jpompia@chieftain.com

Twitter: @jpompia