Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Engagement And Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Douglas County on Sterling Ranch exemption, transparency and Board of Health appointment during public comment
Summary
Three public commenters raised claims about the Sterling Ranch/John Adams Academy exemption, criticized the county's closed social-media comments and appointment transparency, and two commissioners responded, defending Board of Health appointments and noting steps citizens can take.
Multiple residents used the Sept. 2 Douglas County Board of County Commissioners public-comment period to raise concerns about an exemption at Sterling Ranch, the county's public engagement practices, and a recent alternate appointment to the Board of Health.
Judy Bramberg (self-identified as a Northwest Douglas County resident) alleged that the so-called John Adams Academy exemption at Sterling Ranch Filing 6 constituted an "unlawful taking of public school land" and said she had filed a case she expects to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. "Cease and desist all actions on the Sterling Ranch exemption," Bramberg told the board, adding she believed the county and planning commission had been "complicit" in what she called "land laundering" and racketeering under color of law.
Another speaker, Julie Ort, urged the board to restore two-way public comment or question-and-answer formats and to respond more consistently to resident emails. "Good governance is always done through a back and forth of ideas," Ort said, asking the board to reopen comment channels on social media and to allow more interactive engagement similar to state legislative hearings.
Kim Carroll of Parker criticized what she described as a lack of transparency around consent-agenda appointments and specifically questioned the county's appointment of Patrick Neville as an alternate on the Board of Health, saying she did not see a public-health background in the appointment.
"I question how that happened," Carroll said. "Did he apply? Did more people apply? We don't have alternates for everyone. Why him? Why now?"
A commissioner responded to the concerns about the Sterling Ranch filing by saying he had reviewed the docket and identified the case as "Brandenburg v. Jefferson County Public Schools" and encouraged residents to review the filing. On the Board of Health appointment, Commissioner Teel defended the choice, noting existing public-health professionals remain on the board and that alternates can include citizens with other relevant experience.
"Doctor Fielding is still a member of the Board of Health," Teel said, and noted board membership also includes a registered nurse and the board president, who is a former regional EPA director. Teel added that Patrick Neville had professional experience in public-health arenas and that an alternate seat can be appropriate for a locally elected former legislator.
Commissioner Van Winkle also said Patrick Neville has worked professionally in public health "for several years" and described the Board of Health's membership rules as structured to include both professionals and citizen members.
The speakers' allegations about the Sterling Ranch exemption included legal claims and references to specific dates and votes; those claims were made as public comment and were not accompanied by formal filings introduced into the record by county staff during the meeting. The commissioners' responses were limited to summarizing docket information and defending appointment procedures; no new board action was taken during the meeting in response to the comments.
No formal staff report or agenda item addressing the Sterling Ranch exemption or the Board of Health appointment was presented during this session. The public-comment period on Sept. 2 concluded with the board closing comments and moving to commissioner business.
