Park Lane Elementary
School Community Council Meeting Minutes
October 9, 2025
Attendees: Justin Jeffery, Kristen Baird, Emily Fife, Ashley Mills, Steve Leavitt, Joseph Demma, Jeanette Knight, Amanda May, Kinley Garfield, Rachel Hatch, Melanie Griffith, Christopher Sharp
Guest Attendees: School Board Members Katie Dahle and Karen Pedersen
Meeting called to order at 6:08 pm
Agenda Items:
A. Welcome and Follow- up Items
a. Welcome & Celebrations
i. School celebrations (Fun Run Fundraiser, Book Fair, etc.)
1. All PTA events thus far have been amazing! Our Annual Fun Run Fundraiser outraised last year, which had previously set a record for most raised. We raised about $25,000 in 2024 and $26,000 in 2025! Another testament of our amazing community considering the uncertainty of the boundary study. Everyone also really loved the new book fair with Story Cupboard. All parents and teachers appreciated the amount of book options instead of toys. Our spirit night at the Sandy Chick Fila was the highest earning spirit night in the history of that Chick Fila location! And Choir has officially begun!
ii. Data Review- beginning of the Year Acadience data
1. ELA Results: Across the board every grade is beginning this new school year very strong. 1st-4th grade are all 80% proficient or higher and 5th Grade isn’t far behind at 73% proficiency. Kindergarteners are testing for the first time, still learning how to be in kindergarten, and started the year at 57% proficient. These results did not include ACC test scores.
2. Math Results: Also, a strong showing with 1st– 4th testing between 74% and 81%. Kindergarten is beginning the year at 66% proficient and 5th at 69%. These results did not include ACC test scores.
3. We briefly discussed the 5th graders lower results. These kids were in 1st grade when schools shut down due to COVID. Different start, different foundation.
b. Review and approve minutes from September
i. Motion to approve: Jeannette Knight, Second: Amanda May– Council unanimous in the affirmative
c. Review and possibly approve proposed updates to Park Lane Bylaws
i. We did review the Bylaws and made some “word choice” changes. We specified “Park Lane” in several places in place of “our school” or “each SCC” etc. and added the required legal.
ii. Motion to approve: Joseph Demma, Second: Steve Leavitt – Council unanimous in the affirmative
B. Review and Approval of the Three Required School Plans
a. Review, Discuss, and Approve the Digital Citizenship Plan/Report
i. This has been a lengthy discussion in the past. The Board Members answered some questions about the district provided filters. They have distributed an RFP to several companies and are awaiting responses. They did add the Bark Platform to filter attachments on emails. Content Keeper is still in place and filters email content within the body of the email. We discussed district tech resources to parents and determined these tools need to be communicated again to our school community. Ashley, BriAnn, and Jeannette were tasked to provide a flyer that will be distributed after Digital Citizenship week. Justin also committed to include the link to the District’s Technology Connect Portal in his newsletter several times a year. We also discussed setting up a tech booth at already scheduled school functions like Back to School night, STEM night, Parent Teacher Conference nights, etc.
ii. Tech Portal Link: https://studentfilter.canyonsdistrict.org/filter/index.cfm
iii. We answered the questions on the Digital Citizenship Plan and submitted.
iv. Motion to approve: Amanda May, Second: Ashley Mills – Council unanimous in the affirmative
b. Review, Discuss, and Approve the School Safety Report
i. The information online skimmed over the Security Guardian program so we discussed this for a while. Katie provided updates on the security guardians. The school district is working with local law enforcement to provide trained professionals at each school to fulfill this requirement. They already have SROs but these officers manage multiple schools. They are fighting back on the requirement to have bulletproof glass at each school.
ii. We also discussed how the state required safety checklist could potentially affect our other school resources. For example, if we must use school funds to pay for security guardians, would we still have enough funding to pay for our school counselors, school phycologists, etc.?
iii. We decided our parking lot isn’t really a concern anymore. Of course, we would like it remodeled but it isn’t a safety concern because of the safe walking routes that have been determined for all students as they enter the property.
iv. Motion to approve: Jeanette Knight, Second: Kinley Garfield – Council unanimous in the affirmative
c. Review, Discuss and Approve SAFE Routes Plan
i. We submitted the plan from last school at the direction of the district. Because our school is currently a part of the boundary study, this may need to be modified after a boundary decision has been made.
ii. Motion to approve: Steve Leavitt, Second: Rachel Hatch – Council unanimous in the affirmative
C. Budgets Review & Requests
a. Cell Tower Grant Requests
i. No requests
b. Other budget items if applicable
i. No requests
D. School Bounday Discussion
a. For the purpose of discussing school boundary changes with school board member Katie Dahle and Karen Pedersen.
b. Katie Dahle updated us on these items about the current boundary proposal:
i. The optimal class sizes for grades K-2 is 22 and 26 for grades 3-5. They would like each school to have about 22 classrooms.
ii. The Eastmont and Jordan feeder is a large part of the discussion.
iii. We asked if Granite and Quail Hollow could combine, and the answer was no because Quail Hollow wasn’t identified for inclusive in Phase 1 therefore they are untouchable for this change. They also might combine with Brookwood in several years.
iv. They want to have contiguous communities that split evenly between middle and high schools.
v. We spent time talking about the new Innovation center in Draper. Students will be bused there and will stay all day, or the rest of the day. The district intends to offer more programs than CTECH currently can and to also incentive businesses to bring professionals out to train. The CTECH building is falling apart and would cost $100 million to rebuild so the district feels like $50 million for the old eBay building was well worth it.
vi. Brighton is full now but won’t be in 7 years. They are thinking about how all these boundary changes will affect schools for the long term.
vii. Earliest they can build a new school is 2029 when other debt has been paid off. School would open in 2031. They intend to keep the land and use it to benefit the community. Property in Midvale was turned into a library as an example.
viii. Administrators will be offered positions based on seniority. SPED teachers will move with the program. Faculty will have a job. Paras/support staff will be up to administrators to hire.
ix. We asked about dropping bussed students off at the sidewalk and letting them walk up to the building. The district doesn’t love this idea and they have received memos from the state discouraging this. Their priority is to keep students away from traffic.
x. They said they aren’t leaning one way or the other, meaning right now they aren’t partial to Granite or Park Lane’s location. They also can’t make guarantees on long term plans because they may not still be board members when those long term plan decisions need to be made.
xi. They recognize this is a tricky balance. They asked us to trust them and the process. They don’t want Granite to become a “dead school” meaning they don’t have the enrollment numbers to employ school nurses, counselors, etc. Small schools are harder to keep funded.
xii. SCC members asked for better communication, better transparency, more details included with future plans, etc.
xiii. The board has been receptive to our feedback and said they appreciate our civility. They said we don’t need to put together a consolidated feedback effort as an SCC. If we have a message the entire board needs to see, email all the board members on one message. If we have personalized messages for individual board members, then use their individual email.
c. Q&A with current SCC members
i. Addressed above.
Meeting dismissed at 8:04 pm