OCN

Volunteers reporting on community issues in Monument, Palmer Lake, and the surrounding Tri-Lakes area

OCN > 2308

Articles from Vol. 23 NO. 8 - August 5, 2023

Monument Academy School Board, June 27 – MA holds town hall on navigating gender issues

By Jackie Burhans

The Monument Academy (MA) board held a special meeting June 27, after the publication deadline for the July issue of Our Community News, on navigating gender issues. The Town Hall was attended by all seated board members except for outgoing board member Michael Geers. Also in attendance were the interim Chief Operating Officer Kim McClelland and MA’s legal counsel Brad Miller.

The community Town Hall was attended by around 200 parents, teachers, administrators, and community members, many of whom spoke on the matter. State Rep. Don Wilson, R-Monument, was in attendance along with former Rep. Tim Geitner. The meeting ended with the unanimous adoption of a resolution regarding the privacy and protection of students.

Board President Ryan Graham began the meeting by providing context and background, noting that the board and administration had been hearing from many of its constituents about the use of sex-specific common bathrooms and locker rooms by students who want to identify with or express a gender that does not correlate with their biological sex. Graham noted that these students are ostensibly protected by Colorado law, specifically SB08-200 and HB21-1108. For more information on these bills, see https://bit.ly/sb08-2008 and https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1108.

He noted that the state mandates that every traditional and charter school must not discriminate and must let students use the bathroom and locker room that aligns with their gender expression or identity. Many schools, he said, have capitulated to the cancel culture mob that seeks to silence and destroy them. MA, he said, proposed this Town Hall so parents could learn what their rights are and understand what MA is doing to protect parental rights and all students. Tonight’s Town Hall, he said, was not about inciting hatred or harm against any student. MA is not here to wage war against children but to push back firmly within legal limits on those who have set their sights on coming after our children, he said.

Miller, MA’s longtime legal counsel, noted that he has been one of MA’s lawyers for 15 years and that his mother-in-law’s name is on the library. He said he shares traits with his heroes Moses and the Apostle Paul but is not a gifted speaker and asked the audience to pray that his message would be better than his weak flesh. He referred to the book 1984 by George Orwell, where the protagonist had to maintain a secret journal. Tonight, the MA board and leadership want to invite you into a little conspiracy, said Miller, and to join them in being thought criminals like the protagonist in 1984.

Some folks are inclined to place their faith in an authoritarian government, Miller said. It’s hard for them to conceive that the parent movement expressed by the attendees is organic, based upon faith, principles, and values.

Miller noted that in 2021, the state Legislature passed House Bill 21-1108 to amend Colorado’s anti-discrimination act to offer protection for those of any gender expression or identity. Expression, he noted, is appearance, dress, or behavior, while identity is the innate sense of one’s own gender, which may or may not accord with the gender assigned at birth. He noted that Moms 4 Liberty has been very engaged on these issues, saying that some schools have taken this to an extreme. Some schools, he said, have directed staff to recognize a student’s gender expression or identity but not to inform parents. MA, he said, has pushed to engage parents in a dialog. On Feb. 22, the board adopted a proclamation to clarify that MA wishes to place the authority for education and well-being of children in the hands of parents. See OCN article www.ocn.me/v22n3.htm#ma, for more information on the February meeting.

Miller went on to outline other concerns on rules around COVID, critical race theory (CRT), and sex ideology in remote learning. He claimed that parents learned that teachers introduced doctrines contrary to those of the parents. Now, he said, there is a coordinated movement to undermine parental access to information and parental authority. One remaining protection, he cited, was a U.S. Supreme Court case, Troxel v. Granville, which recognized parental rights to direct the upbringing of their kids.

Above: At a special Town Hall meeting of the Monument Academy (MA) board, parents heard from the board and its legal counsel on how to navigate gender issues surrounding transgender students. Nearly 200 people attended, with many speaking in support during public comment. The board unanimously passed a resolution affirming its support for state and federal anti-discrimination laws as well as family and student privacy laws while saying that such laws harmed students who should report their discomfort with transgender students to authorities, that staff should alert the community to the presence of transgender students, and that parents should sue the parents of transgender students if they feel their child’s right to privacy has been violated and should encourage their representatives to overturn such laws. Further, they resolved that transgender students must have the complete affirmation of their family units, must change their name and gender in all school records, and must dress as their chosen gender with “no vacillation.” Photo by Jackie Burhans.

Public comments

In the public comments portion of the meeting, a number of people stepped up to speak in support of the board’s actions. Some of the statements made are:

  • Kristy Davis, co-chair of the El Paso County chapter of Moms 4 Liberty, read a statement from herself and co-chair Darcy Schoening, who was not in attendance. Davis, who has two children at MA, thanked the board for holding the event and hearing from parents who have been harmed by a vocal minority weaponizing sexuality and gender. She said the movement seeks to weaken parents’ rights and that this is communism. She said there are no transgender children, just confused children, and adults who use them as political chess pieces. Moms 4 Liberty, she said, is standing with MA and fully supports Miller in his efforts.
  • A seventh-grader at MA said that she felt safe at MA until last year when “a boy decided to go into a girl’s restroom,” where the girls change. She said in the Bible in Genesis it says that God created mankind, male and female. Her parents said that safety is important, and they love all children and don’t want any to feel bullied, but that the last thing any parent wants to hear is that their children didn’t feel protected and safe.
  • Another seventh-grader said she didn’t think it was right for a boy to come into the girl’s restroom and invade their privacy. Some of her friends were there and went home crying to their parents, she said. God made us who we are, and she doesn’t think kids should try to change themselves for no reason. Her mother added that she would like to provide a safe gender-neutral stall bathroom so everyone would feel safe. She asked the board to please not put litter boxes in these bathrooms for the “furries.”
  • A parent asked if the board was developing plans to defend itself against pre-emptive legal challenges. Miller responded that MA might need to turn to parents if it becomes costly. He noted that challenges could come from the courts, from MA’s district authorizer, or from the Colorado Department of Education. He felt that the Supreme Court ruling would prevail.
  • A parent thanked the board and acknowledged the bravery of the students who spoke and cited a swimming sports competition. He also said there was concern about a “biological girl” using the men’s restroom or locker room or competing on opposite-sex teams and asked that the school not send kids to the nurse’s individual-use bathroom.
  • Ivy Liu, a D49 board member, asked to speak on behalf of families who don’t want to speak. Among other charges, she said that 1%-2% of the population was being weaponized for a much greater cause, kids were being groomed, parents manipulated, and language contaminated to push group think which was the foundation of socialism, Marxism, and communism, otherwise known as collectivism. America, she said, is the last wall standing between freedom and worldwide communism. Parents must fight back, she said, on these non-Godly and non-American values.
  • Another parent raised concerns about fair and equitable treatment of kids and whether MA should have policies around biological males competing with females. Miller noted that this raised the question about accepting federal funds and competing within the Colorado High Schools Activities Association (CHSAA), which MA has been pursuing.
  • A parent noted having to be careful about what pronouns are used and what name is used for a student. She cited an instance when she decided to call her now adult daughter by her middle name in first grade and the school forbade it because it had not been legally changed. Miller said the resolution covered this but there was a gray area where a boy might want to go by a nickname that might be considered feminine.
  • Another parent asked if the policies would be in place by Aug. 15 since parents would be making enrollment decisions by that date. Miller said no, but the parents could rely on the clarity of the resolution and its parameters.
  • Mark McWilliams, former MA board president, said there were parents going through something difficult that all parents pray is not their kid. The board is thinking of that too, he said, and making sure all children are protected and loved. He said that when he was on the board, they brainstormed how to manage this. He asked that parents vote in the future and keep their checkbooks ready in case the board was sued.
  • A parent strongly advocated for policies that would not allow biological males in the private spaces of females and vice versa saying that the school would be liable. Miller said there will be lawsuits that cut in both directions.
  • A parent said she was a pediatric dentist and sees many kids with anxiety who take medications. She asked if MA had proactive mental health strategies and felt it would be important to present the policy in written form when it comes out as it would help weed out families that would have a problem with it. Miller said that the board would adopt the related policy in its public meeting after two readings so it would be incredibly transparent. McClelland said she has discussed partnering with parents and providing training opportunities like parenting classes. She has lots of ideas around parent universities to empower parents.
  • A parent asked if there was a plan to have conversations with parents on how they might engage in legal issues or circumstances. Miller replied that he didn’t want to give away legal strategies in front of a crowd but that these topics and pathways had been discussed in executive sessions.
  • A parent, noting the law is written to prohibit discrimination, asked how someone could voice their opposition without being discriminatory, such as starting a petition. Miller said that SB23-296 was passed concerning protections for students against discriminatory practices at school to prevent bullying and that starting a petition against a student might be considered bullying.
  • The parent continued, asking for advice at the statewide level on how to stand unified in agreement on the issue and yet not cross the line, so your student is not made to feel like a discriminator. Miller said the issue must be addressed structurally, and finding the right people to populate the board is crucial.
  • A parent asked if there was a permission slip for locker rooms and restrooms where they want their student to be able to go. She said her understanding was that if the school takes government money, it must follow the laws and asked if MA had considered getting an outside channel of funds to bypass this requirement. Miller said MA could not afford to refuse the per pupil revenue—it is the bread and butter of how MA exists.
  • Former state Rep. Tim Geitner said that in his past role he had the ability to vote no on laws like HB21-1108. Now, as president of the Liberty Tree Academy charter school, he thanked the MA board for doing this for their community and other charter schools.

Resolution

After the public comments concluded, Graham moved to adopt a resolution regarding the privacy and protection of students as regards to SB08-200 and HB21-1108 that states:

  • The above laws expose its students to undue harm, confusion, and dysphoria.
  • MA encourages its students to set boundaries protecting their privacy and report to their teachers, staff, or administrators if their boundaries are violated.
  • MA will support the privacy and dignity of each student and not discriminate against individuals in violation of state or federal laws regardless of sex, gender expression, or gender identity.
  • The board will never promote gender confusion or gender dysphoria in students nor promote transitioning of students that are gender confused, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
  • The board will uphold the rights of parents under the Granville Supreme Court ruling and will mandate that any student under the age of 18 choosing to express or identify as a gender that does not correlate with their biological sex must be affirmed by the student’s parents or guardians and that these family units must be in complete agreement with this affirmation.
  • The board will mandate that any student under the age of 18 whose family affirms them must further transition with a change of name and change of gender in Infinite Campus and any other school records and must conform to the dress code of the gender that they now identify or express as with no vacillation.
  • For any student who chooses to go down this transitioning path that meets the mandated requirements of MA, the board directs the administration to notify the appropriate parent community without violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or any other law, that there may be a student using gender-specific bathrooms or locker rooms different than the student’s sex so other students may request to use a single-stall bathroom or to have a staff member monitor the vacancy of the single-sex locker room or bathroom to ensure their privacy and protection.
  • Parents are strongly encouraged to advise their chosen attorney if they believe their child’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy is being violated and consult with said attorney on taking further legal action against the parent or guardian of the offending students.
  • The board affirms that elected state and national leaders have a moral and ethical obligation to challenge and repeal such laws that violate the innocence, vulnerability, well-being, privacy, and safety of children.
  • The board appeals to the MA community and constituents to make their voices heard as active and engaged citizens but to contact their state and national representatives and ask them to take a stand for the privacy and protection of students.

Vice President Lindsay Clinton seconded the motion, and other board members and McClelland spoke in favor of it. The board voted unanimously to pass the resolution. The full text of the resolution can be found at https://bit.ly/ma-discrim-resol.

**********

The MA School Board meets at 6 p.m. on the second Thursday of each month. The next regular board meeting will be on Thursday, Aug. 10, at 6 p.m. at the East Campus. See more information, see https://bit.ly/ma-boe.

Jackie Burhans can be reached at jackieburhans@ocn.me.

Other Monument Academy articles

Monument Town Council, July 17 – Annexation of Monument Ridge fails

By Chris Jeub

One Monument Town Council meeting was held in July, but it was as long as two as heated exchanges among developers, councilmembers, and neighbors lasted late into the night. The debate surrounded two subdivisions known as Monument Ridge West and East, 161 acres at the southwest and southeast corners of I-25 and County Line Road. This was their final step in their application for annexation into the town of Monument. Though their application was previously approved by the Planning Commission (see article on page < 4 >) and supported by town staff, the Town Council overruled both and voted against annexation with a 2-5 vote. The developer withdrew its plans, and the future of Monument Ridge West and East now goes to El Paso County.

Background

Planning Director Shelia Booth presented the first resolution for annexation from El Paso County into Monument, known as Monument Ridge No. 1 West. The proposed annexation concerns a 90-acre area on the west side of I-25 south of County Line Road. While the town’s Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Mixed Use, the applicant seeks to rezone it to Residential. Town staff supports this change, as the current housing density alongside the dedicated open space in Douglas County north of County Line Road does not warrant multi-use zoning.

The annexation agreement includes provisions for residential attached units but prohibits higher densities and multi-family housing. Despite initially facing a close vote of 3-4 against the proposal in the Planning Commission, it passed with a 4-3 vote when certain conditions were set. The zoning proposal was later approved by the Planning Commission with a vote of 6-1, and town staff recommended approval, emphasizing that annexation would allow the town to oversee the development and ensure alignment with the community vision of Monument’s Comprehensive Plan.

Booth continued her presentation for the second resolution for annexation, known as Monument Ridge No. 2 East. This annexation was contingent upon the successful annexation of Monument Ridge No. 1 West. The proposed annexation area covers 71 acres and is intended for Residential zoning, accommodating about 383 dwelling units. Additionally, the annexation proposal includes plans for a business campus south of the residential area, featuring office, research and development, and educational facilities (excluding manufacturing). As with the first resolution, the applicant’s choice to propose residential zoning is due to the lack of sufficient resident numbers to support Mixed Use zoning. The Planning Commission approved the proposal with a 6-1 vote, and town staff recommended approval.

Developer presentation

Development Manager Ray O’Sullivan presented the applicant’s case for annexation. O’Sullivan began by explaining that the property owner was encouraged by the county to develop with Monument due to water availability. Initially the applicant considered simply paying for water service, but they were asked to explore annexation as an alternative. Working with the previous town staff, they devised a development plan that aligned with the town’s preferences. However, when they presented this plan to the Planning Commission, they encountered significant community opposition, which left them “feeling unwelcome.” O’Sullivan emphasized that the property was already zoned for their proposed development in the county, but their goal was to create a more pleasant community that residents would desire, rather than an eyesore. They were seeking RA zoning, but the commission recommended 2.5-acre lots, a suggestion O’Sullivan found unprecedented in his career. He expressed concern that without annexation, they would be left with no choice but to develop under county regulations.

Following O’Sullivan’s presentation, project consultant David Whitehead of Whitehead Engineering delved into the technical aspects of the proposal. He highlighted the collaborative work they had undertaken with the town staff. However, Councilmember Steve King raised a significant concern about Slide 26 of the presentation, which indicated $5.4 million in infrastructure fees. King doubted the ability for this to happen with unknowns surrounding future water developments (like the Loop system) still under review. Councilmember Marco Fiorito disagreed, viewing the $5.4 million as a potential benefit, as it would provide the town with an influx of funds to purchase renewable water. He argued that even without annexation, the town would still need renewable water and that this presented a potential windfall. King remained cautious, emphasizing the uncertainty around the possibility of acquiring the necessary pipes to bring water into Monument. Fiorito stressed that without the funds from annexation, the town’s water plans would remain stagnant.

King also expressed concern about the trees on the property and questioned the possibility of using or relocating them. In response, Whitehead explained that some trees needed to be removed for the health and safety of the community, a decision supported by the Fire Department. Whitehead presented slides detailing the trees, trails, and open spaces planned for the development, but King still had reservations about the number of trees and how the “majority of trees” would be determined.

King then questioned why the proposed densities in the development were higher than those allowed by the county, to which Booth responded that it didn’t make economic sense to keep them lower. King suggested that the property might undergo a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process if annexation didn’t happen, which could be a better option. He stated that, while it might not be what the applicant wanted to hear, he believed that the proposal was not in the best interests of the town.

Councilmember Kenneth Kimple and Mayor Mitch LaKind both inquired about the possibility of reducing the number of dwellings, but Whitehead stated that they were not willing to do so at the moment. Whitehead emphasized their commitment to open spaces and mentioned that the plan included funding for the town’s parks. “I don’t want your money,” LaKind snapped, adding that he preferred to see parks included in the development rather than receiving money for them.

Throughout the exchange, King reiterated his primary concern about the trees on the property, indicating that it was a crucial issue for him. The discussion highlighted various points of contention, including the proposed densities, park inclusion, and the fate of the existing trees on the property.

Community input mixed

Several individuals expressed their opposition to the proposed development during the meeting. The owner of Colorado Heights Camping Resort, which neighbors the proposed development, worried about the potential closure of Monument Hill Road and the impact on his business, expressing fears of RVs navigating through the new neighborhood. Michael Barber, an architect and neighbor, criticized the insensitivity of the plans toward the existing trees and views and recommended against approval. Other opponents cited issues with the proposed housing density overwhelming the current infrastructure, difficulties in transplanting trees as the developer suggested, and apprehensions about crime associated with multi-family housing.

On the other hand, some individuals spoke in favor of the proposed development. Theresa Sidebotham, the owner of Telios Law also neighboring the development, highlighted the importance of annexation to maintain tax revenues for the town and advocated for the proposal’s low-density approach. Another property owner adjacent to the site praised the proposal for preserving a gateway to Monument and endorsed apartments in the area as recommended by developers. Chris Fox, a resident in the vicinity, expressed preference for having a say in the development through annexation rather than leaving it to the county, indicating support for town oversight. Other supporters emphasized the developer’s responsiveness to community concerns, the potential benefits of more apartments for housing affordability, and the belief that the town should move forward with the development to maintain some control over the process.

Whitehead assured the council that Monument Hill Road would not be eliminated by their development and that sound barriers would be installed along the highway to mitigate noise impact. Whitehead defended the annexation as not unusual and stated that plans were in place for constructing sanitary sewer systems, backed by a letter of approval from the district for water supply. Whitehead did not directly address concerns toward views or the apprehensions about high-density housing and potential impacts on neighboring properties. Instead, he emphasized that the presented zoning was preliminary, acknowledging that much work remained ahead in the development process, and clarified that the project did not include any apartments, which had been a point of contention raised by some citizens.

Proposal fails and applicant withdraws

Following the citizens’ comments and the developer’s response, the debate among the council members centered on several key issues. King expressed his belief that the property should be handled as a PUD and criticized the proposed RA zoning, emphasizing concerns about clear-cutting and the lack of tree preservation. Councilmembers Jim Romanello and Fiorito supported keeping the development within Monument, expressing distrust in the county’s handling of the project and the need to find a compromise. LaKind voiced his major concern about the density, hoping for a resolution through compromise. Councilmember Laura Kronick asked if an agreement could be reached, leading to a recess for private discussions. However, no compromise was achieved.

The council then voted on two resolutions related to the annexation. Resolution No. 51-2023, which outlined findings of fact regarding the proposed annexation, passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote. However, Resolution No. 52-2023, which would have approved the annexation agreement with the developer, failed with a vote of 2-5 against. Councilmembers King, Kimple, Kronick, Sana Abbott, and Mayor LaKind voted against, while Romanello and Fiorito voted in favor. LaKind wished the developers luck with the county, and King warned citizens that the proposal would now be subject to county jurisdiction.

**********

The Monument Council usually meets at 6:30 p.m. on the first and third Mondays of each month at Monument Town Hall, 645 Beacon Lite Road. The next two regular meetings are scheduled for Monday, Aug. 7 and Monday, Aug. 21. Call 719-884-8014 or see www.townofmonument.org for information. To see upcoming agendas and complete board packets or to download audio recordings of past meetings, see http://monumenttownco.minutesondemand.com and click on Town Council.

Chris Jeub can be reached at chrisjeub@ocn.me.

Other Monument Town Council articles

OCN switches to larger format

OCN switches to larger format

By John Heiser, Publisher, OCN

Starting with our November 2001 issue, Our Community News has been printed on pages that are about 11 inches wide by about 17 inches long. This month, our pages are 11 inches wide by 21 inches long. Why the change?

Since 2016, OCN has been printed at the Pueblo Chieftain’s printing plant in Pueblo. On June 13, Gannett, the owner of the Chieftain, abruptly announced that the Chieftain’s printing plant will be permanently closed Aug. 13.

Publications being printed at that plant include five daily newspapers (Pueblo Chieftain, USA Today, Fort Collins Coloradoan, Rocky Ford Gazette, and the Trinidad Chronicle News), 46 weeklies, and 10 monthlies including OCN. The plant was averaging 76 print jobs per week requiring three shifts a day, six days a week, and employed more than 50 people.

Local options for printing OCN on the size paper we used before are very limited, so we had to switch to this larger format. This issue of OCN was printed by the Denver Post.

Despite the challenges of producing OCN as a print publication, our all-volunteer staff is dedicated to delivering detailed, accurate local news to more than 22,000 homes and businesses throughout the Tri-Lakes area every month. If you would like to help us do that, please contact me at johnheiser@ocn.me or 719-488-3455.

Monument Planning Commission, June 28 – Town Planning Commission recommends approval of Monument Ridge 1 and 2 despite community concerns

By Leslie Hanks

The June 28 Monument Planning Commission hearing on Monument Ridge 1 and 2 was standing room only, with many people forced to stand in the hallway and listen to the hearing over the internet on their phones.

Chairperson Martin Trujillo, Vice Chairperson Danny Ours and Commissioners Nicholson, Greg Collins, Sean Zernickow, and Ray Egley were in attendance. Alternates Joe Kneedler and Chad Smith were sworn in as regular members for the meeting. Commissioner Cathy Green was in attendance online as a non-voting member.

The proposed annexation and zoning proposal had previously been heard and tabled Nov. 22, 2022.

Planning staff reviewed and recommended the annexing and rezoning of Monument Ridge 1, 90.98 acres on the southwest corner of County Line Road and I-25. The assertion was made that the property is contiguous to Monument, as required by state statute. However, it was later discussed that it was a “flagpole zoning,” which involves annexing narrow parcels of land to reach another parcel under annexation consideration. Staff member Sheila Booth explained that the developer was asked to resubmit the proposal so that Monument could have control of the project rather than El Paso County. Apparently, the project would be phased in until the missing 16 acre-feet of water required at the proposed density is acquired.

The staff recommended annexation and Residential Attached (RA) zoning.

There was discussion of boarding house and multifamily use being removed as possible uses.

The staff noted there were no letters of support received but there were letters of opposition.

The staff then presented plans for Monument Ridge 2 at the southeast corner of County Line Road and I-25, which is a 71.01-acre parcel. Annexation was recommended with RA 358 patio homes/condos. They stated the contiguity requirement was met. Woodmoor Water and Sanitation (WWSD) would provide the water and there would be a metro district. Both proposals are within the town’s recently adopted Three Mile Plan.

The developer proposed creating roads, and there was discussion of upgrading Beacon Lite Road and creating a roundabout at Misty Acres and County Line Road.

The staff recommended approval.

The staff stated that public notice was given and that the proposal complies with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and meets Colorado Revised Statutes.

The developer’s representative, David Whitehead, explained that the Town of Monument invited him to re-apply. He explained that the roundabout was determined by a traffic study that included the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Douglas County and that the roundabout can’t encroach into Douglas County. CDOT supports the transportation proposal.

There were many public comments, including:

  • “Why did the applicant withdraw and re-apply? What initiated the re-application?”
  • “What is proposed to accommodate the children, which will be part of this huge proposal?”
  • “Why were the citizens of Woodmoor not interacted with on a proposal of this magnitude when they will be most directly impacted?”
  • “A proposal of this magnitude will obviously impact crime. Why isn’t there a transition between Large Lot Residential and Residential Attached proposal?” Isn’t this completely out of character with the current 2-acre lots adjacent?”
  • “What are the children going to do, since the proposal is isolated and there is nothing in the plan to address the need?”
  • “What are the names of those who asked this developer to re-apply?”
  • “What will the impact to the police budget be?”
  • “Is this part of the ‘affordable housing’ push by Governor Polis?”
  • “Never ceases to amaze that developers ignore the Comprehensive Plan and the voice of the citizens. I worked on the 2017 Comp Plan, and this proposal is not in compliance with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan.”
  • “What about the wetlands in the area? How will the developer mitigate?”
  • “We don’t have enough water!”
  • “Do we want Jackson Creek-type densities on Monument Hill?”
  • “Why would we do a radical change from the current country feel?”
  • “The Monument grocery store isn’t adequate for this high-density proposal.”
  • “How can staff recommend going with this plan when it is short 16 acre-feet of water?” Denver, Dawson, and Arapahoe Sands aquifers are nearly dry.”
  • “You came back with basically the same proposal as last November; you can’t be surprised that we care about our community and that’s what you’re seeing.”
  • “The developer is not looking at this from the perspective of the people most affected.”
  • “The Planning Commission should approve annexation but deny the density.”

After the public comment period, Booth was asked to address the questions raised. She noted that Colorado Revised Statutes requires annexation and zoning be voted on simultaneously. She also explained that the school district was notified and was invited to submit comments. Booth stated that WWSD says they have enough water for the project. The question of adequate police coverage brought the reply that there are the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office and local police, “and property tax will cover the costs.”

A question raised about a wetland on the property sparked a discussion about whether it is a “regulatory wetland” and whether there is a requirement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address.

The staff noted that public notification was done properly and that the school district can ask for land dedication or “fees in lieu” but that ultimately the district will decide. In response to the question about how property values will be impacted, the staff remarked that that question has no easy answer.

During the staff discussion about water concerns, it was explained that the west side of I-25 proposal will be served by Monument Water and Sanitation and asserted that concern about the water shortage doesn’t take into consideration “Water Wise” programs or low-flow toilets.

In a closing remark, the developer said that from an economic standpoint, any lower density would make it impossible to justify the necessary infrastructure.

Finally, the staff recommended that concerned citizens should be sure to attend the July Town Council meeting to express their concerns.

Votes on the proposals:

Commissioner Ours’ motion to approve annexation on proposal 1, minus boarding houses, manufactured housing, and multifamily, failed 4-3.

Non-voting Commissioner Green (a city planner for 30 years) voiced a concern about giving too much away. “This is the time to require more from the developer.”

Ours responded to the question of “How can staff recommend (the proposal)” with his opinion that staff does an excellent job. He’s “hoping we can work things out here to be able to give Town Council guidance.” He stated, “We’re interested in the community too,” and that “We’re trying to do the right thing.”

Ours also noted that, “The developer spends millions putting a proposal together and if we vote to deny, we might face a lawsuit.”

Green made additional comments about the disparity between the Comprehensive Plan and these proposals and raised concerns about putting this conceptual plan in an annexation agreement and then the developer would be free to do whatever it wants.

More discussion centered on whether Monument can work with the developer to create a proposal the community can live with, or whether the developer might go back to El Paso County to get what it wants and will likely be granted permission for.

Commissioner Egley raised concerns about the economic impact to Monument.

The developer responded with, “You won’t get sales tax or property tax if we go back to the county.” Egley continued, stating that he is uncomfortable that the flag-pole annexation will leave 1,200 people isolated with no connection to the town and no open space or yards for kids.

The Planning Commission voted to annex both parcels and change the density from RA (Residential Attached) to LLR (Large Lot Residential)—9,000-square-foot lots.

The votes all passed 6-1, with Commissioner Egley voting no on all motions.

The project is recommended to the Monument Town Council for approval.

See the Town Council article on page < 1 >.

**********

The next meeting will be at 6 p.m. Aug. 9. See http://townofmonument.org or call 719-481-2954 for more information.

Leslie Hanks can be contacted at lesliehanks@ocn.me.

Other Monument Planning Commission articles

Lewis-Palmer D38 Board of Education, June 26 – Enhancement of audio systems, curriculum, policies approved

By Harriet Halbig

Due to the lateness of the June meeting of the Board of Education, only a brief notice was included in the July issue. Following is a more detailed description.

Enhancement of audio systems

The board discussed investing in enhancement of audio capability in the schools. This enhancement will include microphones, classroom speakers, front office media players, licenses, and outdoor speaker capability among other improvements.

In a proposed phase 1 of the project, enhancements would be installed in Lewis-Palmer Elementary, Lewis-Palmer Middle School, and Lewis-Palmer High School.

Chief Business Officer Brett Ridgway said the project would focus on technology and infrastructure to enhance the district’s safety and security. He said that the project had been reviewed by Chief of Security Dennis Coates for its effectiveness.

Some of the proposed funding will come from contingency funds from the 2022-23 district budget.

Ridgway said that some schools now have failing intercom systems and a need to amplify announcements into each classroom.

Director Matthew Clawson asked whether it was necessary to enhance all three schools now.

Superintendent KC Somers said that Lewis-Palmer Elementary is most in need as it is the oldest of the three schools.

Board Treasurer Ron Schwarz commented that district officials thoroughly investigated suppliers and manufacturers before coming to this decision. He said the enhancement would provide additional connectivity with public safety and law enforcement officials in the event of an emergency and would include information on card readers and other district programs.

Board President Tiffiney Upchurch asked whether there is a financial advantage to doing this now.

Director of Operations and Development Chris Coulter responded that this is a life-saving system. He suggested that if all schools are not upgraded at once, it may be possible to complete the upgrades during late night or early morning hours.

The board approved the proposal 4-1, with Clawson voting nay.

Curriculum discussion

The board approved new curriculum for fourth-grade history (The Colorado Story, an updated version of the current curriculum), fourth- and fifth-grade social studies, and fourth- and fifth- grade science. In addition, the board approved the use of character education programs which have been used on a trial basis over the past year.

The board also approved additional counselors for the elementary schools. During the discussion it was emphasized that there is a concern about accountability and privacy and to respect community values rather than national standards.

The board approved the curriculum 4-1 with Clawson voting nay.

Policy discussions

The board approved updated policies on wellness, which include provisions for physical education and nutritional requirements.

The board also approved a new policy regarding the provision of medically necessary treatment in the schools. The policy states that the treatment must be recommended by a Colorado licensed healthcare provider or licensed private health care specialist. The provider or specialist must attend IEP (individual education plan) or 504 meetings to discuss the necessity of the treatments.

The district also retains the ability to have the treatments administered by qualified district staff or a contracted provider.

An additional provision allows the provider or specialist access to the classroom to observe as long as this observation is not disruptive.

Restructuring of bus routes

Somers explained that district bus routes are divided into three priority groups.

The first priority group is the special education routes as they are required by federal law.

The second priority is the regular neighborhood routes which are at or near capacity.

The third priority are those routes east of Highway 83.

At the time of the meeting, four people were undergoing driver training. All of these drivers would be assigned to priorities 1 and 2.

There is an ongoing shortage of drivers. At the moment there will be only one route to serve students east of Highway 83.

Election discussion

The board appointed Vicki Wood, secretary to the superintendent, as the district’s representative to notify county officials of the desire to participate in the Nov. 7 election. Four of the five board positions are eligible for election this year.

Petition packets can be picked up from Wood at the administration building beginning Aug 9.

**********

The Lewis-Palmer D 38 Board of Education meets at 6 p.m. on the third Monday of each month in the district learning center, 146 Jefferson St., Monument. The next meeting will be on Aug. 21.

Harriet Halbig may be reached at harriethalbig@ocn.me.

Other Lewis-Palmer D 38 Board of Education articles