Frontier On The Auction Block

School board rejects lease, predicts town won’t grow for at least five years, doubts university prospects

Frontier Elementary School

Photo by Andy Towle. |

Frontier Elementary School


Despite a slew of proposals from the community, the Payson School Board voted to try and sell the former Frontier Elementary School site for $1.25 million at its meeting Monday, Feb. 11, after discussing the matter in two executive session meetings.

At the same meeting, the board voted to offer for sale the former Payson Center for Success building at a price of $130,000.

Board President Barbara Underwood said the school board based its decision on research done by the Arizona School Facilities Board (ASFB), population demographics and the iffy nature of the Arizona State University campus.

“The school facilities board does their homework and gave us a recommendation,” said Underwood. “Their projections said it would be five years before they feel our district will see a growth trend.”

Since 2008, the Payson Unified School District (PUSD) has seen a decline in student population.

Already at the 100th day of instruction this year, the district has lost 94 students, most from the lower elementary school grades.


Superintendent Ron Hitchcock said that PUSD doesn’t need another school site until it increases its enrollment to 3,000, where it stood before the recent drop in enrollment.

“Right now we have a population of about 15,000 (in Payson) and a student population of 2,400,” he said.

Based on those numbers, school-age children constitute 16 percent of the population in the Payson district.

In order to increase the school district population by 600 students, the surrounding population would have to increase by almost 4,000 people.

Hitchcock said town officials have reported the loss of 200 families in the last two years, a trend that does not look to slow down, unless something changes — such as ASU coming to town.

But ASU coming to town is still a big “if,” said Hitchcock.

“The whole dynamic would change if we had a date for opening or a construction start date,” said Hitchcock.

Even then, Underwood said the school system would not see an immediate uptick in enrollment numbers.

However, she did say all proceeds from the sale would go into a capital expense account to pay for future expansions.

“We might decide to expand the current facilities,” she said, “We just don’t know now.”

What is certain, said Underwood, is that the school district cannot deal in maybes and ifs.

Hitchcock said that with so much uncertainty, the proposals the district received did not alleviate the pressing problems the district currently faces, such as facilities management costs and insurance.

Hitchcock advised the board he did not want to squander scant district resources on being a landlord.

“Regardless of all the offers, we would have still been liable,” he said.

Once the board understood the ASFB research, the outstanding responsibilities, continuing cost in time and money to the district of functioning as a landlord, in addition to supporting another entity with public funds, the board agreed with Hitchcock and ASFB that selling was the best answer.

“We feel as a good steward of the taxpayers’ dollar, you can’t subsidize another entity,” said Underwood.

But that does not mean the public meetings were a waste of time.

Underwood said Hitchcock had hosted the public input meetings to give the board a chance to see what was possible.

“The board hopes that now people know what we want, it will be easier to give an offer,” said Underwood.

During the numerous public meetings the board held to solicit ideas on what to do with the property, applicants repeatedly complained they had no idea what the board wanted.

Now they know.


Dan Haapala 3 years, 11 months ago

I suppose I should have paid more attention to the subject because I have questions. The District is made up of elected members and should do what they decide is in the best interest of the people who elected them and the kids. My questions begin with...What does it cost to keep the property? Who determines what the property is worth? If sold, where does the money go? (back to the taxpayers who paid for it?) What does keeping the property take away from the District in it's ability to educate our kids? Just some questions.


roysandoval 3 years, 11 months ago

My concern is that the original bond to fund FES, the Dome at the high school and an addition to the middle school was 9.9 million dollars. I believe that FES was about half of that. After it was built, they had to upgrade the electric panel. They also upgraded the kitchen. Then they put in in the field and well for irrigation. Later, they put classrooms in the P.E. dome. Finally, the year before they closed it, they took money from the bond that funded the new JRE and the Middle school renovation and added to the parking lot. When you add all this together it's around 5.5 million. Now after 17 years (it opened in 1996) it is for sale for 1.25 million. I think that's about 23% of the cost. It's a bargain for sure. However, only in education with bond tax money can you afford to build something for 5.5 million, maintain it for 17 years and sell it for 23% of the cost. I would only add that price tag in JRE was about 20 million. It will hold about 500 or so. I believe FES had around a 400 student capacity. In the event a new elementary school is needed in 5 or 6 years, the price tag will most likely be around 25 million for a 400 student elementary school.


H. Wm. Rhea III 3 years, 11 months ago

I think it would be wise to keep the school. Many people in town are saying not 'if' but 'when' ASU or some other school will come to Payson. 5 years is not that long, especially compared with having to ask the community for another bond for a new school at that time - which will seem very short sighted to most tax payers.

Keep the school and maintain it at the lowest level needed. It will be a considerable savings to the taxpayers 'when' not 'if' the town starts to grow again.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.