Minutes for the Joint Board of Jefferson Academy,

A Colorado Nonprofit Corporation

September 20, 2016 6:00 p.m.

Secondary Library

I. Preliminary A., B., C., D., E., F.

Mr. Linton called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. The guests were welcomed. Roll call was taken and the following Board members were present: Ms. Berg, Mr. Grell, Mr. Houck, Mr. Humphreys, Ms. LaBerge, Ms. Smith and Mr. Linton. The following ex-officio members were present: Ms. Grantham and Mr. Nolan. Ms. LaBerge led the guests and the Board of Directors in saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Linton presented the agenda. Mr. Linton requested the Elementary and Secondary UIP Update and Approval be added to the General Agenda as a discussion and vote. Mr. Linton requested that PTO be removed from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Smith requested that Policy and Governance Committee and Communications Committee be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Humphreys requested that Review and Adoption of the New Strategic Plan be removed from the General Agenda. Ms. LaBerge requested that in the General Agenda Elementary Campus West Field Update be revised to a discuss/vote. Ms. LaBerge moved that the Board approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Grell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

During Public Comment, Mr. Linton requested that comments be limited between three to five minutes if possible.

Anna Hebert opted to wait until after the Board discussed the west field.

Mr. Wendt inquired about the school’s accounting and procurement policies, and if there is a ceiling on the procurement that requires Board approval. Mr. Grell responded that if an item on the budget exceeds a certain percentage, the administrator must seek Board approval. Ms. Berg added that the Board approves each line item on the budgets. Mr. Grell read the specific policy. Mr. Grell noted that the project was in the scope of the budget. Ms. LaBerge reported that the money used for the west field was taken out of Capital Improvements to Facilities.

Bill Wilson and Dave Hebert declined to speak during Public Comment until the Board’s discussion on the field.

Shara Johnson spoke about concerns with security at the Elementary. Ms. Johnson noted that there is no security system in place with visitors coming into the Elementary. Mr. Nolan responded that the Elementary is looking at purchasing the Raptor System that the Secondary is currently using, and the PTO has offered to assist with the cost. Ms. Johnson inquired about why the school will not be offering any presentations nor having teachers speak to students about the dangers of strangers. Mr. Nolan responded that he is working with Andrea Nygren, PTO President, in getting in touch with organizations to provide an event for parents and students. Mr. Nolan stated that he would want parents to be with their child to prevent anxiety with students. Mr. Nolan reported that some of this topic is touched upon with the curriculum, BrainWise, presented by the school counselor.

II. Consent Agenda

Mr. Grell moved that the Board approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

III. General Agenda

A. Elementary Campus West Field Update

Ms. LaBerge explained that in July half of the field was constructed into a crushed asphalt lot for overflow parking. Ms. LaBerge reported the violations that were received from Jefferson County, neighborhood concerns about the esthetic look of the lot, and opposition from our Secondary school stating that they would not be able to use the field for their sports’ program. Communication from the Elementary staff was positive as they felt this supported the need for parking for their programs, and also a letter from neighbors in support of the lot to alleviate parking in the neighborhood.

Ms. LaBerge noted that there are four stakeholders; Jefferson County, Elementary campus staff and administration, Secondary campus staff and administration, and Jefferson Academy neighbors. Ms. LaBerge reviewed the needs/wants of each stakeholder. Jefferson County needs us to address the violations. The Elementary needs additional parking for overflow. The Secondary needs the soccer field and would like to have the field expanded. The neighbors need improved communication. Some neighbors would like the field for activities, some would like the crushed asphalt lot to alleviate parking, and few would like input on fencing and vegetation.

Ms. LaBerge presented the three proposed scenarios with a power point demonstration for the west lot at the Elementary. Scenario one would modify the newly construction lot. Scenario two would remove the crushed asphalt and reinstall field. Scenario three would reduce the newly constructed overflow parking and reestablish a soccer field, increasing the field size.

Discussion ensued with concerns from the neighbors on trust issues with the Board’s decision going forward with the project.

Ms. LaBerge reported that there are three costs associated with each option. The permit and the design costs are solid numbers based on quotes. The construction costs are estimated based on industry data with worst case scenario. Ms. LaBerge reviewed the costs with each option.

Ms. LaBerge clarified the following questions. The berms would be used for storm water. The new vegetation would offset the saving costs of the reduction of the field size. Ms. LaBerge responded to the question of seeding, stating that the County does not like it, as it creates erosion. The field is not zoned for parking at all until the school requests a usage change and goes through the formal hearing process. Ms. LaBerge reported that the field and track had previously been used for parking causing damage to sprinkler heads, and ruts in the field and track. Mr. Nolan noted that there are about 20 special events that require overflow parking. Ms. LaBerge noted that in the past we have had permission from the church to use their field. However, the church may be constructing a playground in that area.

Ms. LaBerge reported that scenario three would provide approximately 100 parking spots. Ms. LaBerge noted that there are currently 160 spots on the campus now. A neighbor stated that they had health concerns with the crushed asphalt. It was noted that this would meet the future growth needs of the school.

Mr. Nolan expressed his apology to the neighbors for not following the proper protocol that he has before with communication with the Board of Directors. Mr. Nolan pointed out that this is his seventh year at Jefferson Academy and he has worked closely with the Neighborhood Committee. Mr. Nolan stated he has met with the committee about four to five times per year and one of their concerns was parking on their streets and blocking their driveways. Mr. Nolan stated that he places the school’s funding as a sacred responsibility to maintain those in the proper order. Mr. Nolan noted that this was truly an anomaly in his character for not having followed protocol. Mr. Nolan reported that during time the school expanded, adding 220 students over one summer, he had taken on the sole responsibility of the safety of all these students. Mr. Nolan stated that with currently 720 students, he takes their safety incredibly seriously. Mr. Nolan stated that this is not his normal way of doing business, and further apologized for how this situation has impacted the neighbors.

Mr. Linton apologized on behalf of the Board for the lack of communication and for the current situation. Mr. Linton added that he looks forward to moving on, working together to select an option. Mr. Linton reported that he has been in contact with the City of Westminster to explore the area to the east of the school that is currently owned by Open Space.

Mr. Nolan reported that North Metro Fire Department observed our first fire drill and they were very impressed with how our staff and students responded. Mr. Nolan also has worked with the Jeffco Sheriff Safety division and with a representative from the district safety department observing our pick up and drop off and noted that within ten minutes of school being dismissed there is no traffic jam. The traffic procedures generated by Mr. Nolan will be used as an exemplar in other schools in our district with enrollments of our size.

A neighbor noted that only one light is in the west lot. Mr. Nolan responded that was per neighborhood request. It was noted that the field is only used during daylight hours.

Mike Wilson, Assistant Principal and Athletic Director from the Secondary, confirmed that the players only use the field during daylight hours.

Anna Herbert stated that she would like to have the grass back and thanked Mr. Nolan for his apology.

The Board requested that anyone who would like to address the Board during Public Comment to speak at this time, so that the Board could take their thoughts into consideration when the Board discusses the options for the field later in the meeting.

Mr. Wilson qualified the schematic design for an appropriate soccer field from the National Federation of High Schools explaining that on the short side the size would be 100 yards, and typically the size would be 120 yards with a 10 foot buffer. The width of the field can vary from 55 to 80 yards. Mr. Wilson appealed that should the field be reinstated, he would request for safety reasons the 10 foot buffers to be added. It was noted that only the junior high historically has used the field for practices and games, and the field was 120 yards by 60 yards. Mr. Wilson added that increasing the size of the field would benefit the junior high participants that would be merging into the high school with a consistent field.

Mr. Linton reported that the conversations that he has had with the City of Westminster with regard to the Open Space located to the east of JA is very preliminary. It was noted that this is not in any plan that the City of Westminster has at this time, and could possibly take several years. It was pointed out that the land cannot be used for parking while it is owned by Open Space.

Ms. LaBerge stated that the existing fence would remain and the entrance to the field would not change. A neighbor voiced his concern about this situation and possible future decisions from the school impacting their property values.

A neighbor suggested that the school swap the land to the east of JA currently owned by Open Space for the west field. It was noted that the students use that field for recess and PE classes.

Ms. LaBerge reported that the deadline to submit the application to Jefferson County is October 31. Mr. Linton pointed out that we would need to come together to work on parking for special events. Mr. Nolan stated that he would need to look at restructuring the events, limiting the amount of students that would be able to participate.

Ms. Wendt noted that having the field replaced in option two would also benefit the elementary students that use the field during the day.

Teresa Lindberg questioned option two with the ongoing cost of maintenance. It was noted that those numbers were not available, but that there would be a small savings of not having to water all the grass.

It was noted that the Minutes from the meetings once approved are placed on the school’s website.

JT (name) stated that there are great opportunities in the long-term that would appease everyone. JT stated that he was in support of the field being re-instated and allowing parking on the field for special events. JT added that if the Board decided to go with another option, they should consider going with esthetic berms along with the trees.

David (?) inquired about the cost that was spent on the lot. The Board responded that it was $34,000. David stated that if the Board voted to leave the crushed asphalt lot the leverage with the City of Westminster is going to be minimalized with regard to the Open Space lot.

Discussion ensued with the Board. Mr. Linton stated that the Board needs to vote on an action so that plans may be submitted to Jefferson County. It was noted that the Board could vote on the concept of an option. Ms. LaBerge reported that on option one and three an engineering design would need to be submitted to the County and then to a public hearing. Mr. Linton stated that he is in favor of option two reinstating the field, as this project did not go through the proper channels and lacked good communication. Ms. LaBerge stated that she is in favor of option three as it best meets the needs and wants of all the stakeholders with a compromise component. Ms. Smith stated that she was in favor of option three with the requirements needed for the secondary sports program. Mr. Grell spoke in favor of option two and three. Mr. Grell stated that he would like the field reinstated in option two and also is in favor of additional parking in option three, but concerned that the cost of the parking in three may not be worth the money. Mr. Houck stated that he was in favor of option three as the best choice with allowing for the reinstated field and additional parking. Ms. Berg stated that she was in favor of option two and three, with option three meeting the safety for the students, concerns with neighbors on parking and providing a field.

Ms. Grantham inquired about how many parking spaces were lost in the west lot after the remodeling project of the building, and could the traffic pattern be adjusted to accommodate more parking. Ms. LaBerge responded that about 20 spaces were lost, and with special events parking is not limited to the lines. It was noted that a redesign of the parking flow would not change the amount of parking spaces. Mr. Nolan also noted that we receive permission from the church to use their field for parking and the American Legion during special events. It was explained that limiting the events may mean only allowing half of one grade level to participate during one event, as opposed to being able to have all of one grade level at one time.