Golgotha Baptist asks Franklin Pierce School Board for shared driveway and pond easement; board asks for more details

Craig Peck, a civil engineer representing Golgotha Baptist Church, presented a plan to the Franklin Pierce School Board on the church’s request for a shared-access easement and a possible combined storm-pond with the district’s Harvard Elementary property. Peck said the project would add classrooms and a gym, eliminate the church’s separate access on 85th Street, and seek to use a shared driveway adjacent to the school to improve traffic stacking at the signal.

Peck told the board the design would retain fire access on the south side and could reduce the need for two separate ponds by combining the church’s storm facility with the district’s existing west pond. He said the first practical step is for the board to indicate whether it is willing to entertain an easement; only if the board agrees would architects finalize designs and cost estimates, and the church would then determine whether to build in phases (gym first) or all at once.

Board members pressed the presenters on specifics. Directors noted Pierce County traffic rules generally disfavor two driveways close together and said a single shared driveway or moving the driveway east would likely be required. The church’s representatives said typical heavy-use times would be Sunday mornings and some weeknight youth events, so they did not expect routine school-day conflicts. The church said it was open to negotiating maintenance-sharing terms and offered to participate in ongoing site cleanup.

District staff told the board that state law requires the district to articulate a public benefit when granting an easement to a private entity; past easements with government partners included explicit benefit language in the approving resolution. Chair (board president) said he would need to understand how any easement “isn’t a gift of public funds” and what specific value the district would receive before supporting formal action.

The meeting featured a substantive exchange about drainage. Church representatives said prior design work and earlier meetings had left unresolved runoff and outfall questions and alleged that earlier district construction created a berm affecting their drainage. District staff and board members said the district installed county-approved piping and engineering measures during school construction and disputed the timeline of decisions; staff advised technical analysis would be needed to resolve flow and outfall questions.

The board did not take formal action. Directors asked staff to collect additional information for a follow-up work session in August, including alternatives the church had considered, cost and design estimates, potential easement language addressing maintenance and operations, and a clear statement of the district benefit required under state law. The board signaled it was open to further conversations but would not authorize an easement without that documentation.

Next steps: staff will gather the requested details and the item is likely to return to a board work session in August for further consideration.