001after identifying themselves will proceed to make brief comments. The board would like to remind everyone that to avoid violation of individual rights of privacy, a member of the public wishing to address the board will not be allowed to make comments about any student, staff member, or member of the general public. No action may be taken any matter discussed during the public comment portion of the meeting until such time as the matter is specifically noticed on an agenda and the public has been allowed the opportunity to comment. Do we have any public comment on a non-aggenda item? Great. Seeing none, moves on to new business. Ratification of negotiated agreement between the Belgrade School District and Belgraded Education Association. Did you want to talk about this a little bit? Um I just would like to thank those
002who were on the negotiating committee. So that was Frank and Mary Ellen and Steve and of course our bargaining team um the from the um teachers union. Uh I think it was a I've heard nothing but positive things from the experience and I think us collaborating on this really complicated and important topic is um is a celebration. Okay. Becky, do you want to say anything? I was I was impressed at how overall what was it? 96% approval. Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you had a drafted statement. Sorry if I try to do it this morning. Um, my name is Becky and I am proud to speak this morning as the president of the Belgrade Education Association representing our dedicated educators. I'm here to express my strong support for the adoption of the master agreement before
003you. This agreement was ratified by an overwhelming 97% of our members. Clear affirmation of the hard work, mutual respect, and shared goals that shape this process. Through consensus bargaining, we collaborated with the district and the board in a spirit of partnership. We are sincerely grateful for your willingness to listen, to engage in meaningful dialogue, and to pri prioritize the recruitment and retention of highquality educators for our students. We believe this agreement reflects our shared commitment to the success of our schools and we look forward to continuing this positive and productive relationship moving forward. Thank you. Thanks Becky. Frank or Marilyn, did you have anything you wanted to say? It was a good process. Yeah, it was a good process. We spent a lot of time. Yep. Oh, Noly Erin Noly did a great job doing
004the salary schedule. Yeah. Cool. All right. It was a long week. On Thursday evening, I had a couple beers in the shower. That's how tired I was today. I'm up for re-election as well. Any other comments? Good. Rocky asked you now. They know. Okay. I think unless anybody else has any comments or questions, we should bring it back to a vote. We got to make a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. A motion. I move to ratify the negotiated agreement between Belgrade School District and Belgrade Education Association representing teachers education educators effective July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 2027. I'll second have a motion and a second. We've had public opportunity for question and comment. It comes back to a vote. Is Joan on? Okay. Oh, sorry Randy. How come I always miss you? because I'm
005a ghost. Pardon my brother. I just want to say um thank you for um our new master agreement and thank you for the process. This has really built positive relationships between the teacher union and the school board and our district staff. So, thank you. Thanks. All right, Cindy. No, you good. All right. Mark that down. All right, here we go. All in favor of approving the ratification of the negotiated agreement, say I. I. I. All oppose, same sign. Joanne's not on. Motion passes six to nothing. Nicely done, everybody. Up next is theou between the city and the school resource officers. We have a motion to continue. I move to approve the memorandum of understanding regarding the school resource officer program between the Belgrade school district and the city of Belgrade, the Belgrade police department. I'll
006second. We have a motion in a second. Uh Dee, did you want to just summarize what? Sure. So we the um last agreement we had was put in place four years ago um signed by Godfrey and somebody at the city you. Um so it's time to re-up that. Um, so there were just some minor changes to the agreement. I think the um we have updated our mission statement since then, so we updated that. Um, they're working on having the SRO's typically the police officers work 410. So that means we have, you know, one SRO on Monday, two on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and then one that right, they offset their 4 day weeks. Um, so they're working on having the SRO's work five day weeks, regular hours during the school year and then what they
007do in the summertime is on them, right? We just pay for the school year time. That summarize that correctly? Okay. Um, and then um if an SRO will be absent, we have them notifying typically they notify the principal, but we'll have them notify the assistant superintendent also. Um, and then we added um a clause in there that just says just makes it clear that if there are dire circumstances and either one of us can't afford the program that we could terminate at the at the end of in May or prior to May, we could let them know that we're not going to continue for the we don't anticipate that, but um it's always good to have that language in a contract just in case. Um other than that, uh it was pretty much all the
008same. So, two SRO's uh the school district pays for that. The nine months during the school year, um we have had a very generous donation um from uh Kenya Noble um to help support that program um in the past and um uh we just really appreciate their help with that. Any questions? We have any public questions for Dee any board comment or questions? I just wonder schedule that's all been run through the officers themselves if everybody's totally okay with you want to talk about that that moving to five days. Uh that is a operational decision that we're working we're working through with the officers but beginning next school year we're committed to that five day uh five days a week. Okay. Any other board questions or comments before it comes back to a vote? All
009in favor of approving theou at the city regarding the school resource offices officers say I. I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Did Joan ever join? 51. And the last item on our agenda, the resolution approving the forms of interlocal agreements. Uh do we have a motion to continue? Have a good day. Thanks, guys. Did we have a motion to continue? meeting. I'll do it. I move to adopt the resolution approving the forms of interlocal agreement and related documents regarding the exchange of certain downtown properties and Lion Lions Park property effective May 2nd, 2025. I'll second. We have a motion in a second. Di did you want to talk about this at all? Sure. So um this motion is to adopt the resolution which then has attached the interlocal agreements and the lease agreements
010um that um uh to frame out how we're going to do this process. And those interlocal lease agreements really are in effect because we know we can't just exchange the property right away. that we need to have time in each other's property once the property has been you know purchased by the other entity. Um it's going to take us a while to make that switch. So that's the purpose of the in um the inter the lease agreements and then the interlocal agreements just frame out um specifics of how we're doing this. So I know there were some questions. So you want to go ahead and start with that? um hit the high points. It's like what what are your concerns specifically, Mary Ellen? I'm sorry. What are your concerns specifically? Well, I have a couple
011concerns. First of all, I'd like to know who wrote this. Uh Dan Simmons. Dan wrote it. Yeah. Every every piece of it. We met with him. Steve was at the last meeting when the city and and and all of us got together. So Steve was able to participate in in that last meeting where we were really making sure Okay. I didn't go through the entire 139 pages. I That's why we gave you a summary, Mary. I have some concerns about um the use and deed restriction. Uhhuh. And when the city vacates the property, the district must keep it as a park, use it for a school or other district purposes. I would like to have that struck out as must keep it as a park or that we put in that when the city gets
012the qua building they preserve the historical integrity of the building. If they're going to tell us we have to keep it as a park then we need to put in there that about the integrity of the lot. Marielle and the city city is not willing to take upon him that deed restriction and that wasn't communicated to the public during the process that the citizens voted on. So we're not open to that deed restriction. So that fair enough. Um I think you're I think you're wrong that wasn't communicated to the city. I think that was at least or in the election I think it was implied in there and it was talked about a lot. So, I guess it's not the word of the law, but at least it was it was uh there was a
013I believe you expressed opinion that it should stay that way and people might take that as such. So, there I know that's different. I know there's a legal standing for that, but just say cart blanc. Yeah, we're not going to have to do that. The reason we're not willing to do that is because we definitely want to keep the Qua building with its historic facade and the building the way that it is as much as we possibly can. However, putting that deed restriction on there when cities think in 100 plus year terms like a school district, that would potentially limit the city to say 50, 100, 150 years from now if that actually has to be raised for some reason that we would not be able to do that. And so that is the reason
014why we're not willing to take upon us that deed restriction for that unforeseen circumstance that we have to do something to that building and use that pro and continue to use that property. So that's that's where it comes into is when we're looking at those hundredyear possibilities that that's not language that we can readily accept um to be able to put on us. Okay. I would I would uh I would say we would be in the same position only with the park that except your deed restriction limits you to any purpose that the school district can use the land for. It's a school or other district purposes. The deed restriction on the Lion's Parkland land is to protect you guys from us using it during that 10-year period for any other purpose beside a park
015cuz we would be restricted from raising the park and putting another building on there that is for any other purpose besides the senior center or the park. That language was requested by the district to protect you. We don't have a deep restriction on us. But it also says for then the way you read it and maybe that's the way not the way it reads. and read it that for for here and forever we can't ever do anything with it other than build a school put a maintenance shack on it but or any other purpose that the disc school district but the vote we're in Montana law the v the voters have the say on what we do with our land that's why we had to have land swap right so if our voters decide that
016there's two other parcels further out that make more sense for our school we want to sell that to a developer and buy those two parcels. This would restrict us from being able to do that. It would restrict it to But that's why we also have the first right of refusal in all of these agreements because the city would want to purchase that back. Well, sure. And that great, you purchase back, but then we have another mechanism to buy land. But if you didn't purchase it back, can we still sell it or does this read we can't sell it anyway? we'd still have to use it for a maintenance shed or a Well, the first the first right or refusal says they have the right to buy it and if they don't buy it then then
017we can sell it. We can't right or does it say that we can use it? You guys refuse it, but we probably still aren't supposed to be selling it anyway because it's dedicated for school dedicated for for a school or a park. And I understand that that we would want to see the taxpayers probably would want to see the park they've been told about for soccer and whatever complex baseball before that went away or our heads would probably be all on and you know but Crusty um the only the only answer to this question is is the truth Frank blunt answer to it of in the original agree in the original plan for this land exchange, Lions Park was not part of it and this board requested the city to sweeten the deal a little
018bit and that's where it wasn't there wasn't a deal without that. Yeah, that's right. I mean that's so there there is an original deal to site here. There was an original ask and I made sense. I respectfully disagree with that assessment but that's I don't think that's relevant uh to this conversation. But we added we brought back in and added that Lion's Park land significantly more acreage than what was being exchanged right between the two of us originally. And the city has always been very concerned about ensuring that that parcel remains a public use parcel whether it's by the school district or whether it is a park. Feels a little like I'm buying a car and you're telling me I can only drive it from Bo A to B, but I can't drive it to
019see even if it's in the best interest of my family. And my family in this case is the taxpayers. It's I it's a it's it's a weird clause for to put us in. And we know that we have other school districts around us that have some flexibility and have been able to leverage land purchases into things that make more sense for their long-term school vision. And right now, I would say that it's the optimum place for school, right? But if suddenly, you know, water springs out of the dry hills is we have a whole bunch of people want to live out there in the school, I don't I don't know. I It feels restrictive. I don't don't understand it. Why? I don't understand why has to be there cuz they're the voters that elect you
020guys' stuff also have more security in what happens with our property than yours. You can you could sell all this without our without you entered into this agreement without taxpayer consent. We're the ones that had to have it. If we were ever to do anything with that, we'd have to convince a bunch of taxpayers that it was in the best interest. So I feels like an inequitable contract clause to enforce on us. You also have to understand uh trustee that there's also zoning that goes into play as well. Those properties are zoned for those purposes and so they can only be currently used for public purposes. Even if even if it was sold, they still have to be continued to be used for public purposes. that restriction. I thought the park didn't have that restriction
021on it. I thought the properties we gained over here did and we were willing to be okay with that. And but because I think you you're moving into this and you can sell this tomorrow, right? Or not well in the fall, whatever. Correct. Technically, yes. And I don't did those same zoning restrictions exist on the park. The zoning I didn't think they did. I think that was a big deal for people when we were is one of the things that was argued by the people here is that it wasn't. So it feels like you're trying to put that for that zoning protection on there now in a different manner. No, zoning is separate from deed restrictions. So zoning has existed in these parcels for decades of even today this building and for decades along with
022um the the quaab building parcels are in basically what's called public lands and institution zoning. So only public uses of these properties is permitted under the zoning ordinance. The park is zoned that way. The park is also in public lands and institutions. There's a I think what you're confusing I thought it wasn't. I thought that I think what you're confusing is there's a difference between dedicated park land and land that the city owns that we use as a park. Sure, I get that. And Lions Park and uh Lewis and Clark Park are property that the city owns that we're using as a park. However, like a park like out in Prescott Ranch, Corbett Park, that is a dedicated park land. So, it can only ever be used as a park unless the voters vote to
023change it. I get the that qua being a showstopper for you. I understand that. Sympathetic to that. I feel like this should be struck out of there though. I am not authorized to do that. But you didn't use the word showstopper. I I can guarantee you that is a showstopper for us. We are not willing to put that parcel in any way for it not to be used for public purposes. Zoning laws can zoning codes can be changed. However, if you go through the Sure. I would assume so. To me to me this is a We actually moved back and stepped back throughout this process because originally we wanted a restriction that if you ever didn't use this that it would immediately return to us. And that's where we walked back from to this arrangement
024of okay, if we don't want that, then we're willing to buy it back. And that first right of refusal Our council received a lot of public feedback on this throughout the process that we had to ensure that that parcel remained for public uses because they were concerned about exactly that of it's a very prime part of our community. It's a very valuable piece of real estate and if it was sold it could be commercially developed and then we would lose that forever. I understand um what you're saying I understand what you're saying. Why wasn't any of this brought forward to us before now? If this was known that this conversation was happening at the city level and at the um council, why wasn't this brought to the trustees before? I feel like we should have
025known these restrictions sooner than today. And I think this puts the school district in a bind because if the school if the town develops elsewhere and that would never be a school, we have just given away our 10 acres. We can't use it because we can't put a school there. We need to buy something else. We'd sell it back to the city. Yeah. We would sell it to the city and then we would buy something else. house. Um, in the contract, in the resolution, it says that we bought back at market value, not what we can get for it. That is market value. Marielle, yeah, market value would be what we could get for it. I I think the way I would agree with that, the way it's defined in there, I did sit and
026read that where it's we get an appraiser, they get appraiser, if they're not within 5%, the both the appraisers get another appraiser. I mean that that seems like a reasonable approach to determining market value. Um I just don't like that because I feel like the the people are protected already and maybe the city people aren't specifically protected because the the district-wide vote would would determine what what would happen if we came into a situation where we desired to sell that. But it it seems like the way this is written, if we want to for whatever reason decide we that man that doesn't work for us, maybe we find out something was buried under there 200 years ago and we can't you know this the subsurface sucks or something can make it really expensive to build.
027we for whatever reason we can offer it to you and if you say nah we didn't make sense for us we're just stuck the way this reads right we can't and that doesn't not feel that doesn't feel like an equitable contract I I empathize with that trustee and that's why our original suggestion was is that if you don't want it, it just goes back to us. Then you can force us to take it back. We're open to that language. If you choose force us to take it back, you could we could have language in there that says that at whatever point you guys decide you don't want it, you could force us to take it back at fair market value. I'm I can't agree to that. So, you're saying that if we want to give
028you a valuable piece of property, you'll take it. But if we want you to buy it, you're not going to agree to that. That's we can't legally bind a future council to a purchase. I I think I I think, you know, we talked about that, you know, Neil had expressed um that, you know, it's their intent to keep Qua looking like Qua. That's in public meetings. is in public record, but there's a there's a concern about the way you might write that, right? Holding somebody 80 years from now accountable to that. I think the same goes with the conversations that we had about making sure that that remains a park. That was part of our conversation that that remains a park. And certainly we had people here saying we want that to stay a park,
029right? Remember, we had people here talking about the importance of that. And so when we, you know, we added that piece into the deal, that was part of our public conversation that that needs to stay apart unless we decide to build a school on it. And if there's some reason that we decide not to build a school on it, then there's an expectation from our public that that stays a park. So the the public that I heard from, of course, is always the sports people, right? Because we're in the school. Um their their concern also was and neighbors there were some neighbors there. Yeah, there were some there's concern well specifically called me. I've actually had this is like the only thing this year I've had lots of conversation about was strange is that park's
030important for baseball, right? So they want assurances that when we're going to build a school on it that there was a long-term plan. So I guess the the akin to that the is that in 10 years I'd be like because they they our assurance that helped us get the votes from my perspective passed that even though it probably didn't matter and overall scheme it was pretty overwhelming but they wanted to have assurance that you guys were going to have baseball and soccer and whatever else and so I yeah that was the intent that would be the same now though is putting that in here that prior prior to the school being if it's if we decide to build a school over here, you guys will build soccer fields and baseball field. It's like us directing
031you to do that. I'm not entirely sure I follow, but I can say that we're already in the process of building additional fields. You're we're like making it obligated. That's what it I mean, it's the same. You're worried about your your future taxpayers and what they said. That would be like us directing you that we're going to we know we're going to build a school there in 10 years. You have 10 years to build soccer fields or or we can sell it to whoever we want. That kind of that kind of language is what this feels like. Well, good to the taxpayers. It's what our voters wanted. It's what we promised them. Correct. So, it's the same. So, if we if we build a school in 10 years or 12 years or whenever, right? Mhm.
032Then you know that's all fine and dandy with this proposal. Right. Right. If we decide in 15 years that you know what growth has stopped, we're losing students. we don't need that fifth elementary school, then we can either keep it as property, you know, forever because we may need it for, I don't know, something, a bus barn or I I mean, a baseball field. Um, and we can use it for any purpose that we want or we can say, you know what, we're tired of having this and you have the right of first refusal. If you don't buy it back from us at market value, then we can sell it to somebody else. That's not what this says though. It sounds like I have a Sounds like we can't sell it. I have a question
033in regards to all of this. Um, so if the baseball fields are set up as is and we don't have a high school baseball field and we don't have a batting cage and all that stuff, can we take first priority on those fields and over the Bandits for our baseball team? Like if our baseball team wants the batting cage access now that we've got this transfer of land and basically we are running that. Wouldn't our high school team be first priority to those fields? But not the way the lease is written. No. So we still So we don't even get any benefit to owning the baseball fields even having a baseball team. Yeah. Not the way it's written. We didn't write that in. Okay. doesn't mean we can't think about that. I definitely think we
034need to be thinking about that since we have a baseball team with no baseball field. It's kind of a problem. It's a good thought. Rocky, do you have any thoughts? Yeah. You don't want to hear what I just Yes, we do. Yeah. Um, turn on your speaker. No, I was just sitting here thinking about that. Um because one thing that we had talked about even here was the potential at some point of putting in uh lowcost teacher housing. Mhm. And um I'm wondering if that would be something that would be uh district uh use um that could be u facilitate that land could be facilitated for that because I we do have a serious retention problem with teachers at this point. a lot of that the first you know three or four years of a
035a new teacher being in the area uh being able to have a salary that where they can effectively live in the area. So for me this is might be a potential for that but I don't know if that's offered an opportunity within the u review of our agreement with the city. So I think it you know that it talks about district use right so we would from my perspective we can't build an apartment building and it's two two of the apartments are used by teachers and we're renting out all the other apartments to other public that wouldn't be district use but um you know if we're building teacher housing as part of our school district and it really is for school use then I mean it's written that school use is school use and And
036we made sure that that stayed very vague. Yeah. That it doesn't say a school building. It doesn't say a shed. It doesn't say, you know, in particular, it says for school use. We couldn't build that, use it for a year, and then turn it into a rental unit for anybody because that's not school use. But yeah, I don't I don't know how what our val what the value of that would be. I think it's one of those things we ought to investigate whether we use that land for this or something else. But and we also have additional land on the city block that we're getting, right? We have those other houses that aren't that may be useful for us or may not be useful for us. And then we have land there that we could
037for sure build on. I don't know what your total number of teachers are that that are in that block of say the first three years of their employment but given the number of turnover number of teacher turnover we have but a good share of the turnover we get is from that same block of people it is from our new teachers who can't afford to live here. you're, you know, some sort of a uh just a discounted uh rent for those people would probably help keep people in the area longer. Agreed. That's my That's my thought. That was a good thought, Rocky. Yeah. What about you? Because I didn't read the full 139 pages. I have a question about when we get city hall. No, we get the old library and two dilaporate de dilapidated houses
038right away. Yes. All right. When do we get the other three houses? When the we get city hall on lease expiration October 25th and then we can decide what we're going to do with it. Right. That's the one house that has a renter in it. Okay. So, that house we don't want to become that landlord. So, we're postponing the the sale of that house until that person is out. Okay. the other two houses that the city is. So the other two houses they that's going to be part of how we move all of our people in offices and all of their people in offices out because right now those two houses are being used by the city for offices. Um so we're not in a hurry to get those. We're okay where we are as
039we, you know, as they take over and start to renovate and get their people moved in, then we move in over there. Okay. And it's probably a little ways out. Okay. And then the senior center, we are the land owner. They are paying us rent. They are utilizing it as a senior city. Yeah. Yeah. That's not changing at all. And that was a commitment that we made too to our public that that was staying. Have we gotten a facility assessment of that that will be added to our ledger for um Leroy that we know like the one three to five we've been doing? Yeah. Leroy is working um with the city on um you know making sure like do you have a list of things that you're planning to do? Are you you know and
040then we may want to you know pay for an assessment as we go through or we may just want to work off of their working documents. But they have a good program in place in terms of you know upkeep and and great records too. So we're we're happy to get theirs. Ours are a little less organized. So, getting there. We're getting there. Okay. I have a couple clarifying questions, I guess. So, there's only five of us present. That would indicate what is the majority. It's still four. And then what would the next steps be should this not pass today? Um so you know we are trying to facilitate this process and complete the the actual land the exchange prior to to June 1st. The city has applied for um and received permission for a significant
041grant that's going to help them with the um mitigation. Is that correct? in in these buildings of any issues, right, like asbestous and things like that. So, for taxpayer purposes, if we're being supportive of each other, we want the city to get that grant. So, our our goal is in having this meeting early to make sure we're able to work through any challenges and um get these documents signed so that you know we're hoping to do the closing the third week in May or at least it would need to be by the fourth week in May in order for them to qualify for this grant. Chair, can I ask a question? Oh, of course. If there was a time limit on that deed restriction, would that ease some of the concern? Say more. Say possibly
04250 years. Yeah, we go in smaller in I think it'd have to be less than that. Much less than that. Then I can't make that. We the city won't agree to that. We But the school district's hands are being tied for 50 years. Yeah, I get that. And I don't think that we can do that for future educator. What do you foresee us using with that land that isn't what we've talked about though? Because it could be potentially housing. It can be a school. It can be parks. Like what? it can be sold back to the city at market value. What What is your concern, I guess, of within that time frame, do you think that the voters will would allow us to sell that or or use that for or anything like that that
043you feel like where our hands are bound? Because I have a feeling like the city would also put whoever the trustees are um to the fire if they tried to use that for anything other than most things. So, what do you what what is it that you're worried about that? I'm worried about the fact that we cannot sell that land if we need to build a fifth elementary school elsewhere. Okay. Because we just have given away we've just given away our legacy. We've given away our land with this agreement. And so we don't really have we ha we are committing the next generation of trustees to build a school there where it might not be warranted and if we sell it at market value we're not going to realize any gain on it and have
044enough money to go buy another 10 acres some more chair trustee sorry there's a significant gain to be had by selling that property at market value because you're you're getting it for zero now. So that property is worth at several several million dollars if not it's zoned. It's it's zoned and whoever bought it would be would have to go through the same process any other buyer would to apply apply for zoning for that and it would go through the fair and best use process like all all things do in the city on that front. But the city would be the one buying it at market value. So it's almost easier. We have a buyer already in our back pocket. Right. Yeah. That's not a buyer. They don't have to buy it back. That's still absolutely
045for that very reason that you're concerned about the ability to sell. We are equally concerned about your ability to sell. Like we don't want you to be able to do that. And that was what we believed that the conveyance was from when we had our meetings and our mayor was here and we were communicating how this would all work and how our council and the we felt that that was communicated of that this must be secured for a public purpose only a school purpose or only a park purpose and those aren't and I I'm not trying to derail but I think it's very important for you to understand that th those are non nonmovable contingencies for the city of Bgrade. But if but you but we could do a 50-year limit on that if for
046some reason Dry Hill explodes, right? Let's say or Dry Creek explodes um or Dry Hill um and that trust that board of trustees then has to look at options on the road. That's not up for us to decide what they can and cannot be limited to. This is something we're already gaining so much by this swap. This this was never going to reopen as a school that there are so many things that happened here that that we were told that I mean even the highway running through and everything like that. There are so many issues there that it made sense at the time or otherwise we would not have voted to move forward to going through with the land swap. we got this other parcel of land that then allows us that next stepping stone
047of if we don't want to build there then we sell it back to the city and we move. Yes, there is that chance of right or refusal but basically what you're saying is you don't trust potentially the city council down the road to do the right thing. I think at this point we've got to start trusting each other within this community to be doing the right thing that's for the community and for the kids. I know in the past there's been that butting of heads, but at what point do we start saying we're Bgrade and Belgrade first? I mean, that's to be honest with you, that's something I'm super frustrated about about Bgrade is it's RidgeU versus Saddle Peak. It's it's the Bgrade school district versus the city. It at what point do we stop
048and say, "Okay, well, we're going to be the first ones to lead the charge of like, okay, we trust you guys." And is that possible? Because for me, it is. And maybe I'm just being naive or maybe I'm just tired of it, but it's holding our community back. And it's so frustrating to see because our community deserves more instead of just different councils and different groups saying, "Well, we we want to do this, but we can't trust you to do the right thing." We're all grown adults and if we can't trust the other group to be doing the right thing, that's kind of comes back on us, doesn't it? I mean, I get it. I get the worry, but at the same time, like they're not telling us that what we have to be doing
049with it. They're saying this is what we've agreed to and we have first right of refusal. But are we saying are we really going to say no, we don't want to do any of this to move forward? Are we really going to nitpick it to the point of where potentially this all falls apart? That's this is silly to me. I get it. I do. But we're kind of going over semantics where are we going to fight our own it feels like you're harboring something else there because quite honestly I think this has been a very cooperative process up to this point and you may be frustrated with me right now like fair enough but I I I do this every day haven't had time to think look at it and think about it and as
050I'm processing it I'm sorry that gives you pause and makes us seem uncooperative but I'm not I'm thinking about the the district as a whole here and which includes Belgrade. I don't think it's been a headbutting thing at all to this point. So that's not what I'm I apologize if that's how it came across, Frank. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying no. What I'm saying is there's hesitation of well, we're being bound by 50 years. That's not good enough. that the these little things of is it really worth the semantics of what we're arguing for that doesn't make sense to me at what point and yeah I am frustrated overall this is just a statement of Belgrade if you take that personal that's not my intention of we definitely have this one against another
051instead of truly working together this that's where I'm coming from I guess I understand your concern too, Frank. Like part of me is like I understand where you're coming from. The other part is like we can't win every clause of this trade. No, you know, there's some give and take in this that was considered on the way up, you know, through this process. And I guess if it helps like one thing I I wasn't part of like all the creation of this contract that we've seen like in our defense, Neil, like sometimes it takes time for us to digest this. I I really do do this every day. You guys are great. I respect what you do. But uh I I think one thing that supported DD and Neil, I did participate in the last
052review of this contract and like sorts of little things that could happen like when you're trading these two buildings, you know, and like it they went so split the energy cost for, you know, a certain percent to a certain percent depending on how it's occupied. You know, if you really wanted to get down to that granularity, you could legally, but why? what's the point? You know, just work together and get it figured out. Overall, it seemed like this was a benefit to the district and the and the city, which is why I'm not apt to argue every particular clause in the contract. And I just wanted to give you guys kudos for the way that you collaborated on that, too. You're like, you know what? This isn't a big deal. Like, let's just work through
053it and handle it. you know what what are you going to do is from the city and the school district's point of view like we have to swap buildings right so that can't just happen immediately like that there's going to be some give and take and back and forth and you can't plan everything like things are going to come up but we'll just work through it like which is what I appreciate as a person and a taxpayer and I have faith that you'll do the right thing going forward irregardless of what comes There are only four um five of us here. Yeah, we probably should have a full board to do this. Is it I think Steve asked as the clerk, is this a board majority or a simple majority on our votes for these?
054All these are simple majority or it's the quorum. Whatever the quorum says is what happens all your votes. The law doesn't say board majority. It says So, if there are five of us and three vote no, then it's I just it's not a done deal. Curious because there's a difference in law between a board majority and a simple majority. And I didn't know how it read. The only time you guys really have a board majority is when you're doing like conflicts of interests. So, like if you were hiring Steve's wife to do something, the he has to abstain, but everybody else has to vote unanimously. Other than that, it's usually almost always uh quorum, majority of the quorum. Okay. Just for the record, then we'd have to have three votes. Yes. For this to pass.
055Correct. Okay. And then I guess also not real about kicking this down the road and having a conversation about it in three weeks because we'll have a new board. Yeah. I don't remember if weeks, whatever it is. I understand the June date sensitive. So, so if we were to vote no now, what would happen? we would go back and discuss the possible contract changes. Is that Yeah. For example, like the the statute of limitations. Is that right? Yeah. I would need to know today to be honest what those what you're asking for us to research. Um because I have I have very broad authority as the city manager to enter into agreements. We're a little different than the than the school district that way, but I also have the bounds that the council has directed
056me to stay within. Um, and so I need to know like what that is because I may be able to just answer that, right? Like right here, right now, I can agree to a 50-year deed restriction clause if that's what what it is. But I can also answer those questions very plainly of if you're looking for X, whether or not that's even a negotiable thing. Um, I I really apologize that you feel like you're backed into a corner and I and I don't want that at all and I and I apologize that you may feel that way. Please understand and respect that at the same time we're looking at this as well from all of the lenses of all the things as as chair pointed out all the things that we scratched out and said
057we really want to do it this way that we've already I don't like to use the I don't have any other phrase given up. Um there's a reason why these things unfortunately don't happen across the nation very often because all too often we get bogged down in these nuances of things and we trip at the finish line. I think it's really a neat opportunity for our community to be able to use these taxpayer resources that we have here to its fullest potential. And it's going to take a little bit of faith of both parties to get us over that finish line to see how this could really become something. And I think the city's trying very hard to make that work. And yeah, we're nervous about things like the parkland and a very prime spot
058of town. We're nervous about what that could be and what that could potentially be mis misused of. And so, but we became okay with very, very, very broad language of whatever you guys think you want to do as a school district, you can do with it. That was a huge leap. It was a huge leap to even consider adding 13 acres to the agreement to begin with uh to the whole to the whole process. We're taking a huge leap of accepting some very nice and challenging buildings on our end that are that we we're from the outside. [Laughter] We're taking a very huge risk that this community may 3 to 5 years continue to say no to bonds and we're stuck problems that the school district has but carried on down the line. So speaking
059on behalf of the city and our council and our mayor, we're asking this board of trustees to work with us. Take a little faith that we can work together and and get this through on the finish line. And if that means agreeing to a 50-year limitation on that deed restriction, we'll write it in today and and get it done. So, but if there's anything else that you can think of, I chair, I'd really ask that we get that information today. I understand. So, um you come up with 50 years. Can you go 25? No. Why? because 25 years the rationale behind it because 25 years is still in the rational period of time where you may not have made a decision of what you're going to do with that property. you may not have decided
060in 20 because when we look at things when we look at our growth patterns and we look at gentrification of things downtown 25 years is still a period of time where there may not have been enough change in downtown Belgrade to decide is it right yet or not to put a school here very reasonable time frame for that with demographics by 50 years there will be a decision will have been I buy your logic. What you say? I'm not sure I buy his logic. I I appreciate that. We spend all day every day in population projections and demographics and where things are going so we can make sure all of the public utilities go there. So, population data is fresh in my mind from something last week. Okay. You're uh on the fence or leaning
061towards voting no. I would ask that you speak to Neil now about what changes would need to be made in the contract to get this over the finish line. I will be voting no because the clause about the park and there's no and the and the 50 years and I guess that's where we come to a stop with the disagreement between you and this contract because there's no way around that. Correct. Okay. Well, you were saying the way around it would be 25 years. And if we could, but we we were told that they can't make a restriction about the uh historical building that they're not willing to do that, right? So, are you still a no? Still a no. Regardless of what happened, you're unless those two things were those things could happen. But
062I was a no to begin with, too. So, And I don't I don't think there's anything Neil can do to change that. Right. Okay. Frank, I'll be honest. If that was the thing that the board of trustees put the hill to die on, this would not happen. We would walk away. That's a lot to lay on me after I've been awake for two hours and got home at one o'clock. We can give you a minute. Rocky, you have anything you want to Yeah, I didn't get a cup of coffee, so I'm really pissed off. No, I was in terms of the contract, like if there's anything we would need to add to make sure that this is No, no, that's after this. No, just like in terms of the contract. If I had something, I'd
063say I'd ask about it. I'm sorry. If I had something, I'd be asking about it. Okay. Thank you. I guess it comes back to you, Frank. So, or Jesse, did you We'll give you more time. Jesse's good. No, I I I understand. I I mean, I see the the worries and the frustrations, but I'm going to be naive right now and and optimistic and I'm going to hope that people do the right things for the community and the kids down the line when it comes up. What the only one thing I would say here is that when you know we've talked about a lot of these issues when we first brought this up and these are not new dialogues completely. Um maybe there's some nuances here but the the one thing that we did say
064is we're going to put this out for the public to vote on make a decision because it's really in their hands. It wasn't in our hands to make the decision. It was in their hands. Our decision was to give it to the public to make the decision and the public made a decision. And so for me, I get that there's some it's a little hairy, some parts of it a little hairy, but public still made a decision on what they wanted to do. So for me, it's pretty straightforward. That was well said in my opinion and uh based off of our working relationship, I trust you guys will always make the right decision. And I think you know as far as this board goes and hopefully current members will continue to be involved to drive
065the right solution. These questions come up in the future. Now where are you Frank? Probably a null. Okay. I can meet again to talk about tomorrow morning if we need to. I just I guess it' be Sunday because we need 48 hour. Now we can call it emergency. Well, that's my that's my view is so let's look I think you get I think you get it anyway with the people here. Yeah, but just just to be certain like we don't know. So if this was to be shot down, you guys would meet again with any perhaps like the the statute of limitations, right? Any other changes? And then we would schedule another meeting. Perhaps more board members would be available to push this over the finish line. That is what it is, right? Yeah. So,
066I think Neil was asking if there are other things that they need to be considering, he needs to know that today so he can get that worked through and then we would set up another board meeting um to discuss it. Okay. So, potentially we would be talking about quickly set up another Right. Huh. Potentially we would be speaking about this again mid next week. Yeah. Monday probably. Then I think you know for sure the un of moving it from 50 years to 25 will be one of the things that would okay be consider need to be considered. Well that's something would be handled offline but uh I think unless anybody else has any other questions we should bring it back to about chair. So can I have can I have 90 seconds with your superintendent?
067Can I ask her a question? Oh of course. Yeah. Can you like I don't know how you like you mean outside. Yes. Want to grab a cup of coffee, Rocky? Uh, I don't think there's any water left. to a developer. Not that we'd be should do that. We're not set up to do that. They did promise that they would keep that building in check right there and said that could be and now it's Yeah, I know. That's the kind of parts that bugs me is it's politics and it's going to be what makes sense. And I know I do know that there are plans to keep that. Like I just think that they can't I can't they can't put it in writing because then that puts it into certain things of how they can restore
068it. What do you Oh, there she is. What did you do? I went to get a cup of coffee. All right. Everybody good? Neil? Yes. Thank you. So, I think the vote would include the 50-year restriction. Is that what I'm hearing? That we would make that modification. I can accept that. Okay. And we don't need to amend our motion. Motion. Thank you. Sounds like I need another cup of coffee. I think we probably actually would chair to just state in the motion uh modifying the deed restriction to have a 50-year limit. Okay. That way that way it's all clear. It's in the Yeah. Okay. So, Jesse made the motion and I don't remember who you I did. So, you have to unseen. Okay. If I would withdraw my motion, my second and I'll amend if
069I can have DD's. Oh, sorry. Hold on. I didn't come prepared. Me either. Scroll all the way up or down or what? I move to adopt the resolution approving the forms of interlocal agreement and related documents regarding the exchange of certain downtown properties and Lion's Park with a how do I say that? an adjustment to add a 50-year to limit the deed restriction to 50 years to limit the deed restriction to 50 years on that property effective May 2nd 2025 and I so since we've already had all this discussion questioning I believe it just comes back to a vote all in favor of approving the motion to adopt the resolution as stated by Jesse say I I I all oppose same sign I I motion passes three to two that concludes our meeting thank you
070everyone thank you Neil happy birthday.