Woodland Park board approves 30-year Merit Academy charter extension after heated public comment

The Woodland Park School District RE-2 Board of Education voted 4–1 at its meeting to approve an extension of Merit Academy’s charter contract, extending the term to 2055, after extended discussion and more than an hour of public comment.

The extension was presented to the board by Brad Miller, the district’s attorney, who described the change as largely ministerial aside from the new duration and a few clarified responsibilities. Miller said the primary practical effect of the longer term is to make external financing for facility upgrades feasible because a lender could treat future per-pupil revenues as the primary available collateral. “The only collateral available to an operating school is its PPR,” Miller said during the discussion, referring to per-pupil revenue streams; he explained that longer-term commitments make certain financing options viable.

Supporters of the contract extension, including multiple Merit Academy board members and parents who spoke at public comment, said a longer term is necessary for the charter school to invest in repairs and improvements without asking the district to pay. Mary Sekowsky, a Woodland Park resident and a member of the Merit Academy board of directors, told the board Merit Academy “desires to shift this expensive burden from the district to Merit Academy” and argued the proposal includes annual review provisions for some shared services. Merit board member Jason Ledley said Merit’s budget is projected to be just under $8 million next year, that the school expects about 633 students for the coming year, and that roughly 80% of recent applicants were not previously enrolled in district schools.

Opponents said the proposed 30-year term is unusually long compared with typical charter renewals and that the packet of related materials was distributed to the public too shortly before the meeting for adequate review. Dale Garrick, a community member, asked the board to “please vote no and allow this item to be addressed at the time the current contract expires,” citing concerns about timing, missing attachments, and long-term financial risk to the district. Several speakers voiced concern about whether attachments referenced in the contract packet — including waivers and lease details — had been supplied and whether the board had sufficient time to examine them.

Miller told the board the draft extension leaves intact the charter’s existing enrollment and special-education provisions and that the charter agreement continues to prohibit affiliation “in any way with any nonpublic religious organization.” He said the extension’s other material changes included clarifying that Merit would assume responsibility for certain expulsions and for facility maintenance under a lease that the district and Merit would negotiate to be coterminous with the contract term. He said the lease language would require Merit to bear the cost of upgrades and repairs and that improvements made during the lease would revert to district ownership at lease end.

During the public comment period and board discussion the meeting became heated; after the public vote the board recessed to an executive session and later returned to open session. When the board reconvened after the executive session the chair said there would be no further action that night on additional items related to the matter.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to authorize opening a dedicated payroll bank account for payroll processing (consent agenda): approved by roll call, unanimous (5–0). The board approved creating a payroll-only account to segregate payroll funds, as described by district finance staff.

- Motion to approve extension of Merit Academy charter contract (term to 2055): approved by roll call, 4–1. Board member Barkley voted no; other board members on the roll call voted aye. The motion was seconded and the chair announced the motion carries.

What the contract change does — and does not — according to board counsel

- Extends the existing charter contract term to 2055 to make longer-term facility financing more practicable; Miller said lenders rely on a reliable revenue stream and a longer documented term helps secure financing instruments such as tax-exempt bond options.

- Leaves the charter’s enrollment and special-education obligations in force; Miller said Merit cannot deny students on the basis of disability and that special-education placement and services remain subject to the district’s administrative unit oversight.

- Adds clarifications on expulsions and on facility responsibilities that the district’s counsel said would be enforced by a lease negotiated to match the contract term so Merit would carry maintenance and upgrade costs during the lease.

What remains unclear or outstanding

Multiple public speakers and some board members said they had not seen all attachments referenced in the contract packet, including waiver documents and the proposed lease. Several speakers requested an additional meeting in the coming days so Merit can present financing details, bids or estimates for building work, and the specific lender or bond options Merit intends to pursue. The board did not vote to delay the charter action at this meeting.

Context and next steps

Board members said they directed counsel to negotiate with Merit on lease language coterminous with the contract and to return with documents for further review. Members of the public asked the board to allow more time for community review and for Merit to produce documentation of financing commitments and competitive bids for proposed work. The board recessed to executive session after the vote; when it returned the chair said no additional action would be taken that night.

A number of residents who spoke identified themselves as parents, educators, or Merit board members and took opposing positions. The record in the meeting packet and in board counsel’s comments indicates the underlying charter contract originates from May 2022 and that the current discussion focuses on extending the time horizon and adjusting facility and operational language to reflect current funding realities.