Gosh. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'm all part of getting together in person. >> Yesterday. >> Yeah. I was like, I don't think we're going to really do the First,
sorry, >> don't disappear. Cheers. >> All right. Call special meeting to order. We have roll call, please. >> Here. >> Davidson, >> here. >> Gilgness >> here. >> Gordon >> here. >> Green Street >> here. We're all here. All right. Uh, I
need a motion to approve the agenda. I move we approve the agenda. Second call. >> Barkley >> here. I >> Davidson. >> Hi. >> Gilzi. >> Hi. >> Gordon.
>> Hi. >> Green Street. >> I. >> All right. Agenda is approved. So that brings us to our discussion and information section. Uh so we have the district merit services true up for FY25.
Um so I think we probably need some conversation around all of this. Um but did David plan on talking?
>> Yep. And you're welcome to >> Did you have any Did you want to present anything first or did you want us to ask you questions or how what was >> I can run through it quick and you >> Yeah, I think that you're welcome. Would
you all >> Sorry. >> I'll take a break. Y two meetings I'm not following. >> Uh so this document I think was in the board packet pretty uh identical I think to the ones you probably have all seen
previously. And so this one basically is documenting in the numerical column, the first one on the left of what was actually flowed through on revenue side is the first
section to merit academy. The next column is what was actually due which causes the true up. We never know exactly how much funding we're going to get. And then the the difference there in that final numerical column on the right and obviously the last column
there is what's the due to and from. So that's the revenue section and then the lower section includes all of the um some of the purchase services like um maintenance and things like that. Uh but
also the charter admin fee uh which is actually by statute we're allowed to collect up to 5% and so we added that in. So what was actually due to the district as a
charter admin fee $254,320.74 is there. Uh if you look down halfway through the uh expenses there, you can see transportation cost. They didn't pay anything uh throughout the year. We provided $200,856
and a penny worth of services to them. And so we can total all of that up at the bottom. The total buyback services uh in the middle 728,606 is what we provided to them. services.
After a lot of dialogue, we have now uh we are making some one-time adjustments for them crediting back the transportation, every penny of it, including the 0.01 cents on
there. Um and most of the admin fee. So there were some calculations done which not sure where they emanated from. There's no written agreement at all which lowered that admin fee in the
budget I guess to 17,863 and we're going to leave it at that uh for fiscal year 25 which ended last June 30th. So uh basically due to the you know the
revenue and and the expenditures allowing those two lines of subsidy merit is poised to pay us the 362,000 381.64 64
and so in the flow through we are now effective I think it was in January it's February but pretty much equal payments through the rest of the year to recoup those dollars from that
>> and this is um the this document as it stands has been um communicated with merit you've you've had meetings with their finance team and and this is a agreed upon.
>> It is u you know the one that we have was both signed off by their CFO and and myself. So I don't know how much you want to know about all the sausage making in the history there but there's quite a bit. Uh the transportation I
think has been an issue well before I arrived here and uh you know they're continually mentioning this I forgot the name of it now. Um the >> equal opportunity initiative. >> There we go.
>> Total. >> Okay. >> So anyway I requested like if they have documentation about that there's literally nothing. So, back from whenever it was announced, I've read all of the press releases, news articles,
listened to board meetings. It's just vaporware. There's nothing there. Um, nothing as far as the board took action on. So, but anyway, regardless, I think from my understanding, we're going to go
ahead and wave that for fiscal year 25. So, yep. Uh, we did meet I think that was when Aaron Aaron was here probably in July. I could find my notes with uh Miss Pron
with uh think Miss Fairclaw, not sure what Lyanna's last name is. I don't >> uh so she was there. Aaron and I were there and it seemed like Courtney um Crouch was also and we had this long
discussion that he obviously uh felt that the transportation should be covered by the funding that we get as a district due to the overhang of a shrinking district.
And so we discussed that they were asking that that's what the district does. Aaron and I talked to them and said that number is so large the board needs to deal with that number. Aaron left the district. I'm not sure the
board ever learned of that. Discussions continued between myself and Merritt and basically culminated in November with a meeting with CDE representatives from Merit including a
couple board members, same mountain on our side CFO, interim superintendent, couple board members, one of which is here tonight and and kind of try to hash through this admin fees, transportation, building, coop, and and what should we
do uh that meeting occurred on November 10th and out of that meeting this document was put together and their CFO signed it on December about a month later December 19th and then I sub after
the holiday breakth and I applied my signature to it as well. So that's the long the long story. >> Yeah. >> So that's where we are. I think at our January meeting, the board had a motion basically tying the
forgiveness that's listed in this document to merit academy agreeing at their own choice to participate in covering the cost of the COP and uh as well as transportation. The
admin fee by statute we collect. Uh they far as I know they never responded. I think actually um you sent that letter electronically to the board president. I'm not aware there was on there any response to that at all
to that specific correspondence. >> No, I think just the one that question. >> So that's where we stand um tonight. Any can I >> I have a question? >> Sure. Um, David, I thought, did I hear
you say that the 362,000 and um the rest of it um is going to be divided between now and the end of the fiscal year and and withheld monthly.
>> Is that correct? Okay. >> So, it wasn't a lump sum. >> Okay. >> And and maybe maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe I'm getting this confused with something else, but was there something in the contract that said that when the true up
is done, whichever way it goes, those dollars are due immediately. >> Uh, so I don't know that that's in writing anywhere as far as our documentation. um when in that November meeting when we
were talking with the representative from CDE, he said in his experience, okay, >> that's how he's operated it. He's seen other schools, you know, the amount is due right away. Um I don't but I think we have >> so we need to get a good contract down
and in addition to that on how those things are um paid out. Okay. And I and I know um you know we we've had conversations with with our legal council about this as well. So, Carol and I were in a meeting um to to chat
with them about about these things um for for the other board members who weren't there and and for the community who I know um have a lot of questions about um not pursuing um the the uh transportation costs for
prior years. Uh basically his his comments were that because there was never any written agreement um signed by merits stating they would pay for it, there's not a whole lot we can do as far as as trying to recoup
that. Um which, you know, I think we we kind of had that knowledge going into it, but he confirmed that. Um you know, basically the prior administration gave that to them. Um whether they should have or or had the legal authority to do
that is a different question, but they did. Um and so for us as the current sitting board um and as the current administration, you know, this we have to kind of go with what was done and and make good decisions going forward. Um but as far as trying to to, you know,
recoup any of that, it's it's not really an option to us. And just so it's clear, this is a revision of the trueup that we voted on in early January or mid January without
the clause for the COP. >> Correct. >> Yep. And and the reason for that is we can't demand legally that merit pay the cop, but we have asked them and they have declined.
And moving forward, we're hoping that they'll work with the district on this expense because the district can't afford to keep covering these services and these expenses uh without the sales
tax. And you know, we we just passed a revised budget that drew from reserves and there's not a lot of capital projects that are being done from those reserves. And that's the proper use of
reserve funding is for capital projects. And so there's just a concern moving forward and we really need to work together with merit to cover these costs. And um yeah, I I hope that they'll be willing
to step up to their part in in our district and in our community and um yeah, I have a question because I'm just a little unclear on exactly what the the action is proposed because I didn't see
in the board packet any kind of like uh an action item or a resolution. So, I just want to be really clear like to Laura's point, I understand like what's happened, >> but I'm unclear about what's being discussed or proposed tonight other than simply an update on kind of where we
are. >> So, um because the resolution when we we approved the true up in so many meetings, what meeting was that? >> Last month, last month, January. um that
we agreed to the we we motioned to approve the true up with the the um contingency in regards to the COP. Um this what we're trying to do tonight would be to approve the true up um
without the COP portion. >> Okay. >> So that we can finalize the true up which is needed for the um audit. >> Okay. I and I think um what we had what we had agreed on in the resolution coupled the two years of COP of TR
together and this uncoupled. >> So just to be clear to you and do we have by chance a copy of that language just so that we know when we I'm assuming we make a motion how best to address that language or do you have that Keegan? Um so the length so what we could do
right we have a couple of options so we can approve um this true up as is written right here um or so basically that's what we're doing we're just looking to approve this and
then and this one doesn't have the coupling the cop portion on you would like to read the notes, you can read the notes, but it's just asking for just a another point of clarification. Um, as we talked to our attorney, you
know, they agreed with um what we had heard from Merit Academy that the district cannot require them. The law does not require them to participate in helping with paying the COP. That's correct. >> Yes, that's fine.
>> The law does not prohibit them >> from participating in helping pay the COP. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, also too, like I don't know if we have any background on this or if you do, David, but um, from what I
understand, the COP was previously kind of a split cost because it was being, as you I think mentioned, taken off the top. Um, and I'm wondering like was there any discussion that that prefaced that agreement in terms of that it was
being paid at a certain point as that revenue was being passed through passed through and the CIP was included as a part of that? Do you know or does anyone know? >> So I think that had to do with um the wording when uh the sales tax was
passed. U it was passed with the understanding that most of it was going to help pay for that that coop >> first >> first and then any of any additional revenue would go to the school district for I think it had like things like
books and and various item technology, right? um on there. Um and that was passed prior to uh Merit being a chartered school. >> And so once merit was then chartered, it
still went to pay for the COP first, right? And then there's a lot of steps in there, but um so that's why it was doing that um was paying for that first because when when it was when the sales tax was first
passed, that's that was the main the condition of that. >> Okay. >> Okay, that's helpful. >> And just a follow-up question. So re reading a language in the notes here. This mentions the possibility of a
motion that would address the asterisk, but it doesn't mention anything about the cop or that being mentioned in the prior contingency. So we need to address that in the motion if we're going to reverse that course of action or I just want to
be clear on that because it was in the original resolution. I understand your question. Say things through it. Don't know. Guess you need to. I think those are the two asterisks. >> Yeah.
>> So there is the there's so right. There's the asterisk that appear on the troop itself and it has two signatures on it. I don't think so because the COP is not mentioned on this one because the COP was not part of this particular >> true up
>> and so there will be a completely new true up um at the end of this fiscal year. >> Um and all we have to do is remove the COP from that. >> Yeah, we actually have a true this year. The COP
>> is not on that line item. So we actually had two options for merit to consider. One was accept last year's true up and the forgiveness >> and then this year's true up included a cop and then their other option of the
two we provided. It could have been a third or fourth or fifth. But the other option was uh we'll remove the COP from this year, but we're going to remove the forgiveness for the services provided last year. And that's what the board resolution was
last month. um was giving merit I think till January 31st to act on um the option of participating in the coop and receiving
the benefit of the subsidation from LA for last year. There was no response. So by default it went uh well actually by default it went into they are going to
I think the forgiveness evaporated because they didn't respond to it. um and no cop. So they would re have repaid us the 436,000 from last year but we would not be
asking them to participate in the cop but they didn't reply. So yeah >> right and I understand that. I think I just want to make sure that we're adequately addressing whatever the prior resolution covered to make sure that we have a clean separation of that and that
the wording is appropriate to account for those items. You know what I mean? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And you can have another question. So David, as you've gone through this for the first time, would it help our district if we had
more of these agreements in writing? >> Oh, absolutely. I mean, we've, you know, I've talked to my counterpart over there and our intention is to get it kind of cover all the bases with the various agreements that we put in place uh in March to begin working on those in
earnest. >> So, it's a team approach coming up with a mutual agreed upon document. This is these are the agreements that we're proceeding with and this is how the funding will be dispersed. Not how much, but how what kinds of money, what colors
of money, >> correct? So, we're hopeful, but it does take two agreeable parties to sign. So, >> but that's something I >> I feel we're striving for. I think we would talk about is absolutely we need these type of agreements in writing >> so that in the future whether it's this
board or boards of the future future that are saying well I wonder why they did that >> hey >> learning curve these microphones don't pick you up >> and then secondly do am I tracking this correct that it's
it was the forensic accounting report that helped you get to this point as well with some of the data or is that a different topic? >> No, that that's really a different topic, a different year. >> I'll hold that for a different discussion. >> Correct. Yeah. Thank you. So my main concern with the agreements uh
particularly on transportation is we continue to provide that service and you know the incentive where is the incentive for merit to um actually sign an agreement where they're going to pay for those services
because we just continue to offer them. uh where this is a step towards them contributing and our flow through for this year, the one I've put together and shared uh with Merritt previously, I I
don't remember if the board saw that true up for the midyear true up, but it does include we put transportation in that beginning in July of this fiscal year, so seven months ago. And
transportation's been a line item there as has been the full admin fee 5% uh which is the maximum we can charge. We're actually providing a higher dollar value than that but we're capped at 5%.
>> And that true midyear has no cop in it. Um, David and Bor, one other point that I would make when we talk about the um um funds for declining enrollment. Um, somehow we've only talked about it paying for transportation, but one thing
that comes to mind that that declining enrollment dollars help with is that we have continued to provide the same number of sports and clubs and activities. Um, and as a as a district
school, we have to allow all students within our district to participate in those activities. Um and I know several students from Merit Academy um participate in many of our sporting events and uh we have several homeschool
our homeschool um numbers have in our in our district have tripled tripled in the last four years from around 100 and change to 300 and change. And those students also come and participate
um in our in our in our activities and athletics. But that is now coming from an incredibly shrinking um per pupil funding for those specific things because only the per pupil
funding for the kids that are within the district run schools pay for those athletics and activities that are open to our entire community. And so that's another use for some of those um
shrinking enrollment dollars. And all of it is unsustainable and has to be addressed in the future because we can't continue to cover all of these costs for all of the kids in the district. And some we are required by law to do and
some we are not. the um just to clarify on the funding that we do receive uh for the students uh I guess the the excess funding is for helping the windown of
the overhang of the expense. So um I would say that CDE's term is inappropriate to use those for ongoing like transportation those funds should not be used for that. Uh even our
programs that unless we are working to sunset those programs those monies are not there just to continue operating as normal. >> Right? Uh, so we're dealing with COP. We're dealing with a lot of overhang that that those dollars um need to be
used for. Mhm. >> I think it's worth noting too that the my recollection is the first time it was announced to the public that this funding, the 5-year averaging ghost student funding was being used for
transportation was in a forum for the sales tax vote back in November 24. And that it was announced to the public by the former CFO of Merit Academy. It did not come from district board members or
district admin. And I think that was an inappropriate way for that information to come out because it should have been a district decision, not a merit academy decision of how that those funds were spent.
>> Ultimately, it is the district's decision. >> Uh but that is the narrative that continues. So I even received a letter provided by merit. They're still speaking the narrative that those dollars should be used to provide transportation to their students.
Yeah, I also want to note that this was something I really wanted to better understand coming out of the questions that were raised at the last meeting too and I spoke to like five or six other districts and asked them the same question and some of them who had charter schools um and a lot of them
were really like bewildered by like the question of like how the funds should be used and couldn't really understand or or envision a scenario in which that would similarly apply to their districts or charters or situations. So, I couldn't find anything that was
comparable in terms of like a precedent for how that had been handled. And I thought I thought that was interesting because I I really didn't truly understand like the the nature of those um stabilization funds and and how they were being applied and then tried to
collect as much information as I could and really came up short in terms of trying to understand how that had like how we had ar how we had arrived at that at some point. So, um, and I understand the nature of the
concern and the that's been raised, but, um, I think you're right. Like everything that I could find really pointed to the intent of those funds and their appropriate usage, and I just haven't been able to come up with anything as an alternative to your point. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean really the yeah you if you talk at the state level right it's um the understanding that at student enrollment can decline faster than a school district can wind down the services right so um the state is trying
to help mitigate that by by covering um additional funding to allow the school to look at its its enrollment year-over-year and decide which programs or or activities or whatever whatever it might be to roll back so that they are able to sustain the core mission of a
school district, right, which is to to educate the students. Um, and so, you know, they they're trying to just give a little bit of a buffer. Um, because there are those costs that that are kind of fixed, right? Regardless of how many students are in the building, we still
have to heat the building, right? That that cost doesn't change no matter how many kids are here. um or um you know the to plow or you know those kinds of things. So um giving giving time to the district to figure out which um which
places in the budget they can cut without affecting education of the students. Um and and so that's how we have to use it because that's that's the responsible thing to do um to make sure that we're still able to educate the students to a level that
meets requirements and allows them to succeed once they they leave these doors. >> Yeah. And I think the the nuance to that in this situation too, which I specifically asked about in other districts, is what happens when you have a district that has declining enrollment, but a charter school that is
also growing because it there's it's it's different. Um, so even in the intent of the way that those funds were used, but even so, in the examples that I could find in the the districts and schools that I talked to, um, it didn't change the the outcome, at least in those cases. So that's what I was able
to find. Um, and so I think getting back to your question about how we need how we should word this, I mean there's nothing like we we can word it as as we'd like, but I I think we can say um you know if if the you know one option would be to approve
um the the true up as is provided to us and and we could even mention decoupling it from you know as a standalone item. We are we are approving the um FY25 true up as is presented to us um with no no
attachment to future years and I think that would cover what we're what we are intending to do. >> I just want to say one more thing. Is that okay before? >> Oh yeah, is that okay? >> Yeah. I just want to thank David again.
Um, you know, I know that that when David came into this district, there was a whole lot of there was a lack of clarity as to even how much money we had and what was going on in terms of budget. And I think David has come in
and he's seen the change in $10 million reserve fund four years ago to less than $5 million in reserves now. He's seen contract a lot of things that have transpired and are being done without a
contract. And I think he recognizes that if we are really going to care and be concerned about all students in the district, we can no longer afford to give services
away. And um I I think that that I I appreciate that. I appreciate you digging into finances and contracts and looking at things. And this is not at all about anybody wanting to penalize
Merit Academy or Merit Academy students. It's about trying to be fair to all students in the district to make sure that the educational dollars um that are needed for all students are available.
And I really want students to have transportation to Merit Academy to make that choice available. I just hope Merit Academy feels as much the same and are willing to contribute to making that happen because that's
what's going to have to happen in the future to have transportation. It's going to require all students or all all schools working together financially to make that happen. And thanks for working on that, David.
>> I'd like to also send my thanks to David and his whole team. They've been working on not only true hubs, but audits and so many things they've had to clean up um since he's been here, and I appreciate
his leadership. Um, I also know that it's important that we move forward um that we need to um take care of what was done in the past, but I really want to urge the board to
make sure that we make it one of our priorities moving forward to start getting everything in writing very soon. um whether it's with a like the board's combined in meeting and a work session or um it's a smaller meeting like we had
in November, but I feel like we need to start that work sooner than later so that moving forward we don't have to sift through things like this again. And I want it to be black and white. And I do agree that all of our children in the entire district need to be getting that
fair share um of per people revenue and across the entire district. Choice is important, but it's also very important that we're funding everyone appropriately. I think too and I I think I asked you this before David but I think really understanding that delta as well between
what we are receiving and the fund per people count and our actual number like how much room do we have right because the intent there is to use that those funds to be able to transition to adjust for declining enrollment and I think we need to keep a close eye on that number and then be really thoughtful about how
we are adjusting in the future right yeah >> well and I think we've had conversations at other board meetings things about it, right? When we look at our our current uh burn rate, right? Our current spend um and what we have left in reserves, we
are we are staring down kind of the the end of the line there, right? Like we cannot we cannot continue to spend the way we've been spending the last four years. We cannot we will run out of money and then the school district has failed and there is no school choice. So
in order to keep school choice, we have to make decisions that that are responsible that that show we are putting the funding towards the core goal, the core mission of this district, which is to educate the students. And
and so, you know, unfortunately, we're the crew sitting here um making making these hard choices. and they are hard choices, but we have to make them to ensure the success of the whole district to ensure that there are choices going forward. Um, and and so, you know, if
transportation is a part we have to look at to make sure we can still keep the lights on in the building, then that's what we have to do. Um, and I think that's that's the situation we're in right now. I also just want to add that it is not a
typical task of the board to vote on a trueup and the reason why it has become part of our task and duty is because there aren't clear agreements like Rob brought up and and that's another reason
to get those agreements on so that the board can do what the board is supposed to be doing and our admin can follow our contracts and our services our service agreements. without needing to come to the board. And um I think also like you mentioned
right now you're going above the 5% in how much work you're doing on behalf of merit in administration and um still can only charge that much. But if we are a welloiled machine and our relationship and our contracts are very clear with
Mary Camry, there's there would be a possibility in the future that those admin fees wouldn't have to be maxed to 5%. And so that would be in their interest too to work with us and and get those agreements done. Anything else?
We feeling ready. All right. So then at this junction, we'll look for a motion to approve the district merit service true up for FY25 as is presented to us this evening. Uh decoupling it from future years. Just
looking at the FY25. So move >> second roll call. >> Sorry, I just want to ask really quick. Do we need to mention the cop to clarify that at all in the motion? >> We don't think so.
>> I don't think so. >> Okay. >> Cuz we're just approving this which doesn't mention >> which doesn't mention it. Okay. So we're simply approving this document and the prior resolution then would be right >> essentially null and void with that. Is that correct? >> Okay. Thank you.
Hardley. >> Hi, >> Davidson. >> Hi, >> Gilgeness. >> I >> Gordon >> I >> Green Street >> I. >> All right. Motion passes. >> All right. Um, at this point that brings us to our first executive session of the
evening. Um, so at this time I need a motion for us to adjourn to executive session pursuant to CRS24-6-424P conferences with an attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. Uh,
particularities district will be receiving legal advice from their council regarding settlement of pool v. Woodland Park School District RE2. So second >> I >> Davidson >> I
>> Gildeness >> I >> Gordon >> I >> Green Street >> I will adjourn to executive session and our superintendent will be joining Oh, right there. >> Yeah, they got colder or if we were
really warm and there maybe that's it. >> All right. Uh we are back from the Q&A session. Um so we'll look for a we have an action item here now to approve the the settlement for will
be particular motion. >> Yeah. Based on um advice from our attorney, I make a motion that we approve the settlement for P versus Woodl Park School District R2 as discussed in executive session.
>> Need a second. >> Second call. >> Barkley. >> I >> Davidson. >> Hi. >> Gildeness. >> I >> Ordin. >> Green Street. I >> carries on
session number two. So at this time I need a motion to adjourn to executive session pursuant to CRS24-6-424G and CRS24-72-2043A Xia consideration of any documents uh protected by the mandatory
non-disclosure provision of the Colorado Open records act kora particularities the board will entary executive session to discuss the protected documents submitted by applicants for the superintendent chief executive position who are not finalists CRS24-72-2043
AXI A >> motion we move into executive session >> second roll >> I >> Davidson >> I >> Gildeness >> I >> Gordon >> I >> Green Street I
executive session number Hey, >> I know. Back into the cold room. It had gotten hot in the other one. It is, but I was crashed in my mouth.
All right. Sorry. All right. Um, so at this time then we need to a motion to adjourn the special meeting. So move >> second.
Barkley. Hi >> Dave Vincson. >> Hi >> Gilanes. >> Hi >> Gordon. >> Hi >> Green Street. >> Hi. >> All right. Meeting is a journ. Thank you all.