Commissioners voted 3-0 to reduce DCSD’s role over near-unanimous community opposition and a warning from the state’s own charter school authority
Five months after voters rejected a home rule proposal that would have given county commissioners more control over local land use decisions, the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners voted 3-0 Tuesday to strip the school district’s authority over school land dedications in Sterling Ranch, accomplishing for one developer what home rule could have enabled countywide.
The commissioners approved the amendment over near-unanimous community opposition, despite a letter from the state’s own charter school authority supporting the school district’s position, and after the developer admitted on the record that the amendment’s purpose was to reduce the district’s role.
“Sterling Ranch has a unique arrangement in our PD (Planned Development), where the school board has a seat at the table to determine the size, timing and layout of school sites,” Sterling Ranch Development Company President Brock Smethills told commissioners. “We are here tonight to change that so that we are in better alignment with state law in giving Douglas County commissioners the land use authority where it belongs.”
In most Douglas County developments, Smethills explained, “the school district is merely a referral agency that is allowed to opine, but in no way has land use authority over development with regards to schools.”
Smethills’ argument reflects a common legal principle that ultimate land-use decisions typically rest with elected local governments, not school districts.
But Sterling Ranch’s explicit PD provisions granting the school district a “seat at the table” were a negotiated policy choice, one designed to ensure early and ongoing coordination for school site planning in a community approved for more than 12,000 homes.
Under state law and county subdivision regulations, large residential developments must dedicate land or pay cash in lieu to the school district to accommodate the students those homes will generate.
The letter commissioners ignored
The Colorado Charter School Institute, the state agency that authorized John Adams Academy (JAA), a classical charter school set to open in Sterling Ranch that received widespread community opposition, submitted a letter dated Nov. 24 opposing the amendment and supporting DCSD’s position. Superintendent Erin Kane hand-delivered copies to each commissioner before she testified, noting the letter wasn’t included in the public record attached to the meeting agenda.
“CSI, and the school choice it creates, depends on the goodwill and cooperation of local boards of education,” wrote Executive Director Terry Croy Lewis. “A reward that comes at the expense of the local school district would be pyrrhic, costing the cause of school choice far more than it gains.”
Lewis was warning that a short-term win could damage the relationships charter schools depend on to operate. Charter schools must seek approval from local school boards to operate, and the November 2025 election brought four new DCSD board members who may be less inclined to approve additional charter schools, especially those with a classical agenda.
The state statute and county subdivision resolution “discuss only school districts,” the letter stated, “without providing any avenue (for example) for cash-in-lieu payments to entities other than school districts.” Because JAA is authorized by CSI rather than DCSD, land conveyed to the charter school may not qualify as dedication to a school district under state law.
“DCSD’s interpretation of the applicable laws, that they are limited to school districts, appears quite reasonable,” Lewis wrote.
What the amendment does
The 13th Amendment to Sterling Ranch’s Planned Development makes three key changes:
- The 26 acres conveyed to John Adams Academy, a state-authorized charter school, counts toward a flat 110-acre land dedication commitment to DCSD
- The school district must demonstrate an approved five-year capital plan or voter-approved bond before the developer transfers school land
- If the district cannot show it has funding secured by the time a neighborhood’s final plat is recorded, the developer can keep the land and offer an alternative site or cash payment
DCSD officials testified that the amendment would leave the district without adequate land to build the neighborhood schools Sterling Ranch families have requested since the community’s founding.
“To be clear, we have no issue with the dedication of land to a charter school not affiliated with the District. However, we cannot support a decision to deduct any such lands from the acreage due to the District,” said Shavon Caldwell, Planning Manager, DCSD Planning and Construction.
That condition was not new.
When the previous Douglas County school board voted 4-3 in December 2024 to allow JAA to seek authorization from CSI, the resolution explicitly stated that the charter school should locate on land other than that already dedicated to DCSD or on land the county requires be dedicated through the subdivision process.
A false choice
Throughout the hearing, supporters framed the issue as a matter of school choice, arguing that opposition amounted to discrimination against charter schools.
Superintendent Kane rejected that framing, saying, “The school district has never taken the position that a charter school isn’t a public school.”
The question was never whether charter schools are public schools. It was whether land conveyed to John Adams Academy Foundation, a private entity, satisfies the statutory requirement for dedication to the county or school district under Colorado Revised Statutes 30-28-133.
Of the 48 people who testified, 26 opposed the amendment, and 22 supported it. But the split obscured a starker divide: only one Sterling Ranch resident, Ellie Reynolds, who co-founded JAA, spoke in favor. Written comments ran 176 opposed to 23 in favor, with only two Sterling Ranch residents among supporters.
Nearly all who testified in support had a direct stake in the charter school’s success, including State Sen. Mark Baisley, R-Douglas County, who disclosed that his granddaughter had applied a week earlier. Baisley, who is running for governor in 2026 on a platform comparing himself to “President Trump and Elon Musk,” described a 14-year relationship with the developers and called them “phenomenal partners.”
Others who spoke in favor included a former CSI director, a Douglas County Economic Development Corporation employee, the developer’s director of land development, GOP political consultant Frank McNulty, and former DCSD Board President Megan Silverthorne, who served during the “reformer” era when the board approved a private school voucher program later struck down by the Colorado Supreme Court.
The connections ran deeper than their testimony revealed. Kim Gilmartin, who spoke in favor as JAA’s founder, is also vice chair of the school’s board and leads the Liberty Schools Initiative at Ready Colorado, a conservative advocacy organization.
Reynolds sits on Ready Colorado’s board. Ready Colorado’s CEO, Brenda Dickhoner, serves on both JAA Douglas County’s board and CSI’s board, though she recused herself from CSI’s vote to approve the charter school in June.
Those who opposed the amendment were more likely to live with its consequences.
“JAA already provides a charter option,” Sterling Ranch resident Sam Ritter testified. “The community still needs neighborhood schools.”
Lori Wright, a Sterling Ranch resident and attorney, rejected the developer’s justification for the amendment. “A developer cannot create its own need for major PD amendments by voluntarily giving away one of the school sites they originally committed to provide,” Wright said. “Self-created shortages cannot be used to justify weakening public use dedication requirements.”
A last-minute concession
In closing remarks, Smethills offered what he called a concession. The original amendment committed 110 acres total for schools, with 26 of those acres already conveyed to JAA. That would leave 84 acres for DCSD, potentially not enough for the elementary, middle, and high school sites the district says Sterling Ranch will need at full buildout.
Smethills proposed increasing the total to about 125 acres, which would provide an 80-acre site north of Titan Road for a combined middle and high school. He also offered to delay cash-in-lieu requests for that site until 50% buildout, rather than triggering them earlier in the development process.
But the core mechanism that concerns the district remains unchanged. The district must still prove it has secured funding before the developer is required to transfer land. If DCSD cannot demonstrate funding by the time a neighborhood’s final plat is recorded, the developer can keep the land and offer cash instead.
The concession delays when the trap springs. It doesn’t disarm it.
“This is off the cuff, so I apologize. I don’t have any prepared remarks on this,” Smethills told commissioners. Where I’m not willing to concede is that John Adams is not a public school.”
No one had asked him to. Whether JAA is a public school was never the question; rather, the dispute was whether land conveyed to a CSI-authorized charter satisfies the statutory requirement for dedication to a school district.
Kane said the district was “very interested in working with the Smethills organization to come up with a great compromise,” and confirmed that “the school district has never taken the position that a charter school is not a public school.”
But she asked for time.
“It’s really hard to agree to details on the cuff,” Kane said. “We do need a little time… it would be really great to be able to sit down and come up with a really solid agreement.”
Smethills requested an immediate vote.
The vote
Commissioner George Teal fell asleep during public testimony. When he was awake, he objected to Kane testifying at all, arguing that she had already submitted a written statement and that the hearing was for “the public” to speak. Commissioner Abe Laydon overruled, giving Kane two minutes.
In their deliberations, commissioners did not address the CSI letter, the community opposition, or Smethills’ admission about reducing DCSD’s authority. Instead, they issued statements about a question no one had disputed. “State law is consistent throughout statutes,” Commissioner Kevin Van Winkle said. “Charter schools are explicitly defined as public schools.” Teal agreed, saying the commissioners’ role was to “provide for proper land use planning.”
Laydon praised the developer’s “significant concession” and said he saw no reason to delay, despite Kane’s explicit request for time to negotiate the details.
“We do not wait to do great,” Laydon said. “When a good decision has met its time, it’s time to make a decision.”
Laydon moved to approve the amendment with two conditions: increase total acreage to provide an 80-acre site north of Titan Road for a combined middle/high school, and delay fee-in-lieu requests for that site until 50% buildout. The motion passed 3-0.
What happens next
DCSD officials have not indicated whether they will pursue legal action. The district’s referral letter, submitted before the hearing, stated that if the amendment passed, the district would “have no choice but to consider the legal obligations to ensure access to the school sites necessary to serve the future students of Sterling Ranch.”
Sterling Ranch is about 20-25% built out. At full buildout of 12,050 homes, the community could have more than 30,000 residents. The timing of the amendment is notable. Douglas County voters approved a bond in late 2024 for a traditional DCSD elementary school in Sterling Ranch, but it is not scheduled to open until Fall 2027. JAA is set to open in Fall 2026, giving it a one-year window as the only public school option in the neighborhood.
Why it matters
The Sterling Ranch vote is not just about one development. It establishes a template.
A developer can now give land to a charter school without consulting the school district, then ask commissioners to count that land against their dedication requirement. The “school choice” framing provides political cover, even when the state’s own charter school authority warns the approach will backfire. And commissioners can approve over near-unanimous community opposition, citing technical criteria while ignoring the substantive concerns residents raised.
For Sterling Ranch families, the vote means their elected school board will have less say over where and when neighborhood schools get built. The district must now prove it can fund a school before it can receive land to build one, which is a reversal of the traditional sequence that puts DCSD at a structural disadvantage. DCSD’s most recent bond took three attempts over multiple years to pass. Under this framework, the district could lose school sites while waiting for voters to approve funding.
For Douglas County, the vote reveals what happens when commissioners want authority that voters denied them.
“The recent Home Rule vote and school board elections have demonstrated that many of us are unhappy with representatives who unilaterally decide to force their pet projects through without sufficient community input,” said Sterling Ranch resident Kyle White.
In his own words, Smethills came to change who has a seat at the table. The commissioners obliged.
