One Breckenridge School Consolidation

Master Plan: Superintendent Presentation and Recommendations
Links:
Cover Sheet - Master Plan Summary / Recommendation

Cover Sheet for the Summary of the Community Feedback on the Master Plan to Date and Superintendent Recommendations

Presentation - Master Plan Summary / Recommendation

Policy FCB - School Consolidation and/or School Closure

SSD Website Page Facilities Master Plan - comments

Community Voice Session Summary - April 16, 2026

Summit School District Ballot Measure Survey Presentation 

Due to continued declines in student enrollment, some schools are operating well below fiscally conservative levels. Due to fixed costs, SSD schools need a minimum of 207 students to break even and 300 - 500 students to operate comfortably. Consolidation helps reduce overhead costs, enhances program offerings, and improves access to high-quality instruction for all students.

What is the sustainable enrollment size for an elementary school?
With current state funding and operational models, an elementary school needs between 207 and 300+ students to operate sustainably—but these two benchmarks represent very different financial realities.

• At **207 students**, a school is operating at the survival threshold. It can only break even by relying heavily on the district to subsidize shared services, administrative costs, and staffing inefficiencies. There is little flexibility for enrichment, unexpected costs, or instructional innovation.
• At **300- 500 students**, a school enters a more sustainable and healthy range. It can cover its own operational costs, generate a small surplus, and invest in things like intervention programs, specials teachers (art, music, PE), student support staff, and building maintenance.

**Why does this matter?** Operating well below 300 students limits what a school can offer, especially as costs rise and enrollment declines. A larger student body helps maximize resources and ensures that dollars go directly toward teaching and learning—not overhead.
 

SSD land is zoned for public use, including education. While it can be appraised (typically around $1 million for 10 acres), it cannot be sold freely for commercial development. The value lies in long-term use for public education.

No. All scenarios are being modeled using up-to-date enrollment projections and building capacities. Staff and programs will follow students to ensure class sizes remain appropriate.

The Facilities Master Plan evaluated multiple elementary consolidation scenarios to address declining enrollment, facility condition, and long-term fiscal sustainability. Looked at four smallest schools. These scenarios were modeled using enrollment projections, building capacity, and cost estimates:

• Breckenridge Elementary (BRE) → Upper Blue Elementary (UBE)
   Requires an expansion of eight classrooms at UBE.
• Frisco Elementary (FRE) → Summit Cove Elementary (SCE)
   Requires an expansion of three to five classrooms at SCE.
• Frisco Elementary (FRE) → Upper Blue Elementary (UBE)
   Requires an expansion of seven classrooms.
• BRE and FRE → Upper Blue Elementary (UBE)
   Requires a sixteen-classroom expansion.
• Summit Cove Elementary (SCE) closure with redistribution to FRE, SVE, and DVE

Yes. Transportation distance and travel time were included in the enrollment study to help understand the geographic impacts of potential scenarios. Sample comparisons include:
Breckenridge ES → Upper Blue ES: approximately 1.8 miles / ~8 minutes
Frisco ES → Upper Blue ES: approximately 8.2 miles / ~14 minutes
Summit Cove ES → Frisco ES: approximately 8.8–10.6 miles, depending on route/ 19 minutes
Summit Cove ES → Silverthorne ES: approximately 8.4 miles / ~16 minutes

Housing data was incorporated into the Facilities Master Plan to better understand where future students and staff may live. Key projects reviewed include:
Runway Project (Breckenridge): 35 deed-restricted homes near Upper Blue Elementary.
Keystone-area workforce housing: Including recently completed and planned projects intended to support local employees and families.
Lake Hill (Frisco): A large, multi-phase housing development with potential long-term enrollment impact.
Smith Ranch (Silverthorne): A completed project that has contributed to stable enrollment at Silverthorne Elementary.

These developments help inform long-range enrollment projections but do not, on their own, offset the districtwide trend of declining student numbers.
 

Not necessarily. It’s important to know that school size and class size are not the same thing. A larger school can still maintain small class sizes — it just means more classrooms and teachers are added to support the student body. Class size is determined by staffing and funding, not the total number of students in a school building.

SSD is committed to continuing services for students with Advanced Learning Plans, IEPs, and language needs. These programs will be maintained through any consolidation process.

• Fall 2025 – Spring 2026: Community engagement and scenario modeling
 • Fall 2026-27: Pending community feedback, potential implementation of non-construction changes
 • 2028+: Potential construction-based changes aligned with long-term Master Plan

District land is viewed as a strategic, long-term asset. This position is consistent with prior Board of Education direction and multiple Facilities Master Plan efforts.
Key considerations include:

• Land scarcity in Summit County and limited opportunities for future acquisition.
• Zoning limitations that prioritize public and educational use.
• Future flexibility to respond to enrollment cycles, program needs, or partnerships.
• Community value, as school sites often function as neighborhood anchors.

Rather than limiting future options, retaining land preserves opportunities for growth, adaptation, and community benefit over time.
 

We have been in contact with the Town of Breckenridge, which has conducted traffic studies in conjunction with the Phase I Runway Project.

Of note, Skier Parking has been moved north of Coyne Valley Road, which helps lessen potential conflicts between skier traffic and local travel.

It is also important to recognize that the highest skier traffic volumes typically occur on weekends and during winter holiday breaks, which do not always align with normal school commuting patterns.

If the district moves forward with a consolidation option, additional traffic analysis will be conducted in partnership with the Town of Breckenridge to ensure safe and efficient travel patterns for students, staff, and families.

New for 2025–2026:
The Town and Breckenridge Ski Resort are offering a Free Skier Shuttle Lot on McCain Drive (between Stan Miller Road and Coyne Valley Road).
Open daily 6:00 AM – 11:00 PM. This shuttle service helps reduce vehicle traffic traveling toward the ski resort and surrounding areas.

If the district moves forward with a potential consolidation option, additional traffic analysis would be conducted as part of a Phase II planning process. This would include working closely with the Town of Breckenridge and regional transportation partners to evaluate:

• School arrival and dismissal traffic patterns

• Impacts along Airport Road and nearby intersections

• Safe routes for school buses, family drop-off, and student transportation

• Opportunities to coordinate with existing transit services such as Breck Free Ride

Managing arrival and dismissal traffic is a key part of school planning. If consolidation were pursued, the district would work closely with the Town of Breckenridge and transportation partners to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow.

Planning efforts would include:

• Evaluating school site circulation patterns for buses, family drop-off, and staff parking
• Reviewing intersection and roadway capacity near the school site
• Considering staggered arrival or dismissal procedures if necessary
• Exploring opportunities to support bus transportation, walking routes, and local transit options

As noted earlier, additional traffic analysis would be conducted during Phase II planning to ensure safe and efficient transportation operations for students and families.

Any bond approved by voters would include multiple layers of financial oversight and transparency to ensure responsible use of taxpayer funds.

Typical accountability measures include:

• Board of Education oversight of all bond expenditures
• Independent financial audits to verify funds are used for voter-approved purposes
• Regular public reporting and project updates to the community
• Compliance with Colorado school finance laws and procurement requirements

These safeguards ensure that bond funds are used responsibly, transparently, and strictly for the projects approved by voters.

Responsible stewardship of community resources remains one of the district’s guiding principles in long-range planning and facility investment.

No—Breckenridge Elementary has not been ignored or left behind. The district has continued to invest in the building over the years through ongoing maintenance, safety upgrades, security improvements, and accessibility enhancements such as a wheelchair-accessible entrance and improved parking. While these updates may not always be highly visible, they are essential and reflect a consistent commitment to keeping the building safe and functional for students and staff.

At the same time, BRE is the oldest school in the district, and its age is now a significant factor. Core systems like plumbing, electrical, and structural components are at—or nearing—their expected lifespan. Even with regular upkeep, older buildings require more complex and costly repairs over time.

One way to understand this is through the Facility Condition Index (FCI), which compares the cost of repairs to the cost of replacing the building. BRE currently has a high FCI, meaning the cost to address all necessary repairs is approaching what it would take to rebuild the school entirely. This creates a challenging situation and is a key reason why the district is having thoughtful conversations about long-term solutions.

Declining enrollment can make it more difficult to sustain consistent programming and efficient operations across multiple facilities. The purpose of the planning process is to evaluate how facilities, enrollment trends, and program needs align so that students continue to have strong academic opportunities and learning environments.

Financial stewardship is one part of the conversation, but student experience and educational quality remain the primary focus.

The goal of any potential consolidation would be to strengthen academic opportunities and learning environments for students.

In some cases, bringing students and staff together in fewer buildings can allow schools to:

• Offer more consistent programming
• Provide stronger grade-level collaboration among teachers
• Expand access to specialized instruction, electives, and support services

All options are evaluated using the district’s guiding principles, including high-quality learning environments and future-ready learning opportunities.

Enrollment trends are monitored closely each year. While enrollment can fluctuate, current data and demographic projections suggest continued enrollment challenges in some grade levels and schools.

The Master Plan is designed to ensure that the district’s facilities and programs are aligned with current realities while remaining flexible for future changes.

Planning proactively allows the district to adapt responsibly rather than reacting to challenges later.

Smaller schools can offer close-knit communities, which many families value. However, when enrollment declines significantly, it can become increasingly difficult to sustain the breadth of programs, services, and staffing needed to provide a consistent educational experience for all students.

Lower enrollment can impact several areas:

Academic Opportunities
Smaller grade-level cohorts may limit the number of classes, enrichment opportunities, or specialized programs that can be offered.

Staffing and Collaboration
Teachers often benefit from working alongside colleagues at the same grade level or subject area. When enrollment declines, it may mean fewer teachers per grade, which can limit collaboration and shared instructional support.

Student Support Services
Services such as intervention support, counseling, and specialized instruction must be distributed across schools. Very small enrollment levels can make it more challenging to provide consistent access.

Facility Utilization and Costs
School buildings have fixed operational costs for maintenance, utilities, and staffing. When facilities operate significantly below capacity, it becomes more difficult to balance resources while maintaining strong programming.

For these reasons, school districts sometimes explore ways to align enrollment, facilities, and programming so that students have access to strong academic programs, collaborative teaching teams, and well-resourced learning environments.

The goal of the Master Plan is not simply to reduce buildings, but to ensure that every student has access to a high-quality, future-ready learning environment while responsibly stewarding community resources.

The previous bond proposal included rebuilding Breckenridge Elementary as one possible solution to address aging facilities. Since then, we’ve taken time to understand community perspectives better and evaluate additional factors—especially enrollment trends and long-term sustainability.

This has led to a broader set of scenarios being explored. No decisions have been made.

BRE has received ongoing investment in:

• Maintenance and repairs
• Safety and security upgrades
• Accessibility improvements

However, due to the building’s age, major systems (like plumbing, electrical, and structural components) are nearing the end of their lifecycle, which increases long-term costs.

What is the Facility Condition Index (FCI) and why does it matter?

The FCI compares the cost of needed repairs to the cost of replacing a building.

BRE currently has a high FCI, meaning: The cost to fully repair and modernize the building is approaching the cost of rebuilding. This is a key factor in considering long-term options.

Why is consolidation being discussed?

Enrollment has declined, and smaller schools can:

• Limit program offerings
• Increase operational costs
• Reduce flexibility in staffing and services

In Colorado, bonds and Mill Levy Overrides (MLOs) serve different purposes and are typically voted on separately:

Bond = Buildings
Used for things like new schools, major renovations, safety upgrades, and addressing aging facilities.

MLO = People & Programs
Supports ongoing costs like teachers, student programs, and classroom resources.

If the district were to pursue funding in the future, it could include:

• A bond for facility needs (like repairs, renovations, or construction), and/or
• An MLO for staffing and program support

Each would be clearly defined and voted on individually, so voters can understand exactly what they are supporting.

It’s also important to note:
 No decisions have been made about pursuing a bond or an MLO at this time.

Right now, we are still:

• Reviewing options
• Gathering community input
• Working to ensure any future proposal is clear, focused, and aligned with community priorities

If funding is considered later, there will be additional opportunities for input and detailed information before anything goes to a vote.

We’ve heard this idea from community members and have explored it as a potential option.

A K–6 model could offer some benefits, such as:

• Preserving neighborhood schools
• Increasing enrollment at some elementary sites
• Utilizing existing buildings without new construction

However, after thoughtful review, a K–6 structure does not fully address the core challenges we are working to solve.

For example:

• Some schools would still be too small to provide consistent programming and staffing
• Many would continue to have single classrooms per grade or combined classes
• It would not reduce operating or maintenance costs
• Resources would still be spread across too many sites, limiting our ability to scale student supports

Ultimately, while K–6 helps in some areas, it does not fully ensure sustainable, equitable, and future-ready learning environments for all students.

Shifting to a K–6 model would have significant ripple effects across the entire system.

Moving 6th grade out of the middle school would:

• Reduce middle school enrollment by about one-third, impacting programming, staffing, and sustainability
• Change the 6th grade experience, moving from a team-based middle school model to a more elementary structure

To address this, additional changes would likely need to be considered, such as:

• Moving 9th grade to the middle school
• Creating a 7–12 model or other reconfigurations

Each of these options would represent major shifts in student experience, including impacts to:

• Academic pathways and course access
• Extracurricular opportunities
• Transition points between schools

In addition, some facility challenges—such as long-term needs at specific schools—could become more difficult to address or delay, limiting future flexibility

We are committed to exploring a wide range of ideas, including K–6, and appreciate the community’s engagement. At this time, our focus remains on solutions that best support:

• Consistent, high-quality programming for all students
• Efficient use of resources
• Long-term sustainability of our schools

.

At first glance, there are some potential benefits—like using a newer building, having more space, and possibly improving things like drop-off and access.

But when we look more closely, there are a few important considerations.

One is student experience and age grouping. Bringing our youngest learners into close proximity with a much larger middle school population raises some concerns developmentally and operationally. We want to be thoughtful about creating environments that are designed specifically for each age group.

The other piece is that, on its own, this shift doesn’t really solve the bigger challenges we’re trying to address. It doesn’t significantly change:

• Overall school size and sustainability
• Our ability to scale staffing and student supports
• Long-term financial or operational efficiency

For this to have a meaningful impact, it would likely need to be paired with additional changes like consolidation or redistricting. And even then, it’s not entirely clear that we would gain true efficiencies—for example, whether support staff could realistically be shared across K–5 and 6–8 in a way that improves services for students.

So while it may offer some logistical advantages, by itself, it doesn’t fully move us toward a more sustainable and student-centered system.

No. Consolidation is one of several options being studied as part of a broader, structured Master Plan process that has been underway for several months. This process includes input from a community-based committee, meetings across Summit County, staff expertise, and analysis of enrollment, financial, and facility data.

Evaluating enrollment and how schools are utilized is a standard part of long-range planning, and no decisions have been made. Community input will continue to help shape the options before any decisions are considered by the Board of Education.

The Colorado Department of Education does not require or prohibit school consolidation decisions. These are local decisions made by school boards based on community needs.

However, CDE does provide guidance and research on conditions that support strong student outcomes. This includes:

Sustainable school size to support full programming and services
Access to qualified staff and specialists (e.g., interventionists, counselors, electives)
Efficient use of resources so funding supports classrooms rather than underutilized facilities
Safe, modern learning environments that meet current standards

In districts experiencing declining enrollment, CDE guidance and statewide trends show that spreading students across too many buildings can:

Limit academic and enrichment opportunities
Reduce staffing flexibility
Increase per-student costs

Consolidation is one strategy districts may consider to:

Strengthen academic programs
Maintain access to services
Improve long-term financial sustainability

In Summit School District, the purpose of any potential consolidation is not simply to reduce costs, but to ensure students have consistent access to strong instruction, support services, and future-ready opportunities.

After the failure of Measure 4A in November 2024, Summit School District took immediate steps to understand community and staff perspectives. We conducted a countywide survey through Magellan Strategies and partnered with the Summit County Education Association (SCEA) to gather staff feedback through an internal survey in December. Both data sets were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Education during their January 9, 2025 retreat to inform next steps.
From these efforts, we’re learning:
The bond proposal was too complex, making it difficult for voters to support all parts at once.
The tax increase was a significant concern, especially following local property tax hikes.
Many community members were understandably confused about how school funding works in Colorado — when local property tax revenue increases, the state’s contribution decreases, so schools do not receive additional funding overall. Unfortunately, this led to misinformation, with some believing SSD received more money from higher taxes and was now asking for even more.
Staff housing had mixed support, with some feeling it's beyond the district’s core role.
The Snowy Peaks model is appreciated, but constructing a new building doesn’t have broad backing.
While there is interest in a new Breckenridge Elementary, more people support exploring a consolidation with Upper Blue Elementary.
There is strong, consistent support for investments in safety, security, and building maintenance.
The expansion of Career and Technical Education (CTE) is viewed positively, though the community wants a clearer picture of how the current space is used.