I'm going to give you this one, too. OK, that's for the candidate. OK. Can this just be here, or do I have to wear it? OK. All right. I've never been a school moderator and a little nervous. Thank you very much for your confidence. So just most of us have been to town meetings before, so we won't spend a lot of time on the warm up. But just to remind you, we are going to use Robert's tools to remind you to speak to the issue rather than to each other. Direct your comments to the moderator. And even if it's a question for someone in the room, direct the question to the moderator, and then we'll call on somebody who can answer it.   All right. Just a reminder that if you're not a middle sex voter, you can't vote. Feel free to ask questions at any point. Just raise your hand. This is your meeting. So if there's a question about process, feel free to raise that. We are only going to address warned articles. There are two articles. Hopefully you know where they are. Have they been printed out? OK. Great. And we will be voting either by voice or by a show of hands. If at any point you wish that we could vote in private and want a paper ballot, you can call for one of those as well. That's another option. OK. So Article 1 is a really long. Article 1, shall the voters of the middle sex district approve the grant of an option agreement from the middle sex school district to the town of middle sex, which gives the town of V, which I think is supposed to be the town of middle sex. Yes, OK. The right to purchase the real estate upon which the Remney Elementary School is currently located from the middle sex school district towards successor in interest. For the purchase price of $1, in the event the property is no longer used for educational purposes, that's the article. Is there a motion? What is the article? Peter Hood Moves. Is there a second? Miranda Crowley? Second. OK. The article has been moved and seconded. Is there discussion on Article 1? Is that in one of these two packages? The article? Yeah. No, it's not. Those two are the sort of agenda things. Do we have the actual warning? I think maybe we don't. Yeah. So it would have been nice to have. Yes, it would have been nice to have, yes. It was on the town website. And at any point, you'd like me to read it or parts of it again. I'm sorry. Unless we have 15. It's a full option agreement that brings fear. The option agreement, but not the article itself. Is it on the board? I can go make content. I can go read it. I can go get it right now. Because the user talks about $10, and that talks about $1. And this is the purchase of the building. The user is having a property right for access to the property even despite purchase. So would you like a copy of the article itself? Yeah. I mean, I think there's a lot of people out there. OK. Yeah, if you can get one from the Bloomberg, just run some copies. So many people want copies. Do we need one for everybody? Just so maybe a dozen or so. And Chris is the guy with the answers by the way. So all of these questions that we're going to be raising. Chris is likely as a school board member. Are we have other school board members present? OK. There's a hero. Thank you. So how about those gardens? How about those buds? How about those buds? It's like the worst. It's like the worst. I just mowed my lawn most of the time. And all the rain just ruined my basil so far. I had to replant woodchucks in my keys. Can you put this in music? Can I put this in music? Yeah. The rain has ruined my basil and woodchucked in my teeth. It should maybe be something that rhymes with that, too. Just anecdotally, I didn't realize that we even still had school meetings here. We haven't had a school meeting in Middlesex since the 90s. And that's because we voted to vote on our budget by Austrian ballot. But what we didn't vote was to vote our government and any other public issues by Austrian ballot. So we're still voting on any public issues that have to do with the school in the Florida format for another two days. Who else at the school office? The office school officers. And we voted school officers by Austrian ballot. So this is the format we have for governance issues and things like land. You hear? All right, great. And you're the first one, she's the second one. I'm the first one, she's the second one. Yeah. All right, so we're in discussion of Article 1. Are there questions, comments, clarifications, or would people just like to hear Chris explain Article 1 a little bit? So I'm nodding my heads. So Chris, maybe tomorrow I'll use the microphone. And I'll still be moderators. OK. Take it over. Yeah. So Article 1 is come about because, as most of you know, I think we are being merged. And as part of the merger, which will take effect on July 1 in a couple of days, all of the property, including the Romney School and the Romney School land, will be transferred to this new district, this new entity. And as part of the default articles, there is a provision that says if the new district is no longer using the school for school purposes, that it is offered for sale back to the town for a dollar. So this article basically mirrors that default article. And the reason that the board put forward this article for the town to vote on is because default articles can be amended by the new board. And so this is a method of ensuring that if Romney School is no longer being used as a school, that the town has first right of purchase once the school use is done. So basically mirrors the default article, but it is, I think, greater protection because this can't be amended by the new board. It could be amended by this group. It could be. Right. It could be amended by this group, by the town. And it's an option. The town doesn't have that size option, but it's an option. And so that was the purpose of Article 1. I do have one question. I thought the rec field, the tennis board and the baseball field soccer field, that was all separate from the school. It is. It has nothing to do with those pieces of property or town property. And it's like the school building and the school property. Any other questions? Yes, thank you. The school property encompass the forest also. Do the trails and things behind the mini soccer field? Where does the property encompass? Whatever the boundaries are. I don't know them specifically, but it's about a 10 acre area. I think Peter's taking a said no. No. Yeah, it's about a 10 acre piece of land. So anything that is currently owned by the Middlesex School District is being transferred over to the Washington Central Unified Union School District. As of July 1, it's everything.  The three is ed buildings, the added to article 1, because it talks about the real estate. And the next one, Article 2, talks about the real estate and buildings. And I think the real estate would include the building. So maybe if there's a motion to amend the article, I'd certainly entertain that. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. The moderator would entertain that. Here. It's such a little job. Just like a sister. Would you like to make that motion, Hal? Yes, I'll make a motion to first amend what I'm looking at. So it's a town of B, a different place, so it'll replace B with Middlesex, and also to add any buildings after the phrase real estate. So the motion is to replace the words town of B, as I read earlier with Middlesex, because that was just a mistake, the right to purchase the real estate upon which Romney Elementary School is currently located. What you want to say is to purchase the real estate and buildings upon which Romney Elementary School is currently located. Is there a second to that amendment? Second? Yeah, can you say your name? Page 1. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to alter the wording, to add the word Middlesex instead of B, and to add the words and buildings to real estate. Any discussion on that amendment? Yes. You go there, honey. So we're demanding the options to amend the option agreement? No, the article. Yes, do we have extra copies of the article? Because the option agreement does refer to Middlesex. Thank you. I'm Elizabeth. In the spirit of this friendly amendment to the amendment, if the proposed amendment is understood, maybe we could say the real estate comment, including the buildings, it doesn't matter, but just putting the word Middlesex. The real estate comment, including the buildings upon which I've got a couple of English teachers over here. What do you want? That was better than that. Just something that makes sense for the whole Senate, whatever that is. I'm sorry, this is a big... Yeah, just a second. I'll go back here first. I think the point is we have article one, article two, mirror the same thing as far as real estate and buildings. I think that's the gist of the amendment. Yep. If somebody wants to suggest wording, yes, and then here. Does amending the article interfere with the warning and therefore get us into trouble down the road? I think if this body approves the amendment, I think that we're okay, unless any employers want to agree with it, disagree with the amendment. I think this is a time meeting and we can amend the wording that's one of the advantages. Peter, did you have a suggestion? I did. So my question is, what about the playground? That's not a building. Real estate and buildings. So it could add in buildings. Does playground equipment count as building? No, it's not a building. Okay. The employer and the self is, but not the equipment. The equipment, I mean, I don't think it's going to be part of the line. Is there a copy of the warning? You need it. Yeah, I do. Does anyone have a copy of the warning act right now? Who made the copies of the warning? Ryan. Ryan. There's more over here. Okay. Yeah. So are there real estate attorneys in the room who would like to weigh in on the question of the wording that we're amending? How about Mr. Yeah, Mr. Sure. Go for it. So your name? Real Amy Whitehorn. Real estate. Real property. The buildings. And site improvements. That would be the language we use in this room. Okay. So that's the suggestion that you'd like to make? Sure. Let me just get a pen. Yeah. Thank you. All right. So real estate, buildings and site improvements? Site. So a swing set is a site improvement and site improvements? Are you sure that would include a playground improvement? I would include things like a parking lot or a driveway or a fire line. I don't think it would include the parking. That question? Yeah. Yeah. Please respond. Thank you. So site improvements generally, from a listener perspective, include curb cuts, driveways, water, sewer selecting, and landscaping, everything around on the property, fencing, et cetera. We could specify what those improvements are, but we typically don't. So you feel comfortable as a listener that playground equipment on a school playground would be included under site improvements? It would be a site improvement. However, I'm not the only one of the three of us, and if there's a concern to add equipment on the property, I would support it. Jeff. Normally, if it's a permanent structure that is in the ground, it becomes part of the real estate. If it was a slide that wasn't mounted to concrete in the ground and they could take that. But if it's a permanent structure in the ground, which I think everything out there is, then it becomes part of the property. Right. It's not about the picture. It comes with the picture. Right. So maybe just add the word fixtures in any picture cover. Chris, I can't hear you. Chris is suggesting that we add the word fixtures. OK. Real estate, buildings. Fixtures and site improvement. So this was a little bit of a consensus process, but with your permission, we are now discussing an amendment that adds the words town of Middlesex. And this is in the third line of the line. And the right to purchase the real estate, buildings, fixtures and site improvements upon which the remaining elementary school is currently located. It was kind of a group process. Would somebody like to move that? I will move for that exact word. Thanks, Kyle. And I'll also just state for the notes that the other side, it is that that's consistent with what was intended in that. Is there a second for this amendment? I was just kidding. Sorry. Who's the second? Nancy Riley. Nancy Riley. I think there was maybe a light that just went off because of the timer or something. We have to move. I'm sorry. I just got to do this one. Come on. I would like to see better than I can see right now. Could somebody bring in a six-year-old to run back and forth, please? Use the lights on. Or the switch. Or the switch. We need to have more vibrant meetings to keep our lights on. No, that's too much. It takes a village. Definitely takes a child. All right. Great. So we are now discussing the amendment. And I think I just read it. Are there any questions or further discussion on the amendment or would you like to vote on the amendment? Mary. I'm very good. Does that make any sense to the ceiling of the building that it's not a good job about to be Washington Central to take care of it? Mary, could I ask if there's a leak in the ceiling? Is it no? The new unified district is going to own the building and they're going to maintain it. Which is not what we're voting on right now. We are being forced. That's being forced. What we're voting on is this amendment. It's everything that responsibility goes over the new Washington Central. Everything that they're building. But that's just to be clear. That's not what we're voting on. We didn't agree on that. Any other discussion on the amendment? All right. If we're all clear on the amendment, all those in favor of the new amendment are signified by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The amendment passes. So we have an amended article one. Is there further discussion on article one? You said in summarizing in a nutshell, if the building was to no longer be used as a school, but I think the language says if it's no longer to be used for educational purposes, so what could that mean? Is that, is that so vague?  It's a very specific thing. Right. But for educational purposes, it could be a, you know, a retreat house or a yoga studio. You know, I think the educational purposes, educating students, and consistent with the charge of the new, of the new entity, the new supervisor, United District, Union District. And, you know, to, I think there'd be a lot of trouble if it was just to be done, let's say a yoga studio or something along those lines. I don't think that that would be educational purposes consistent with what the mission is. It wouldn't be the state. It wouldn't be the state. It wouldn't be the state. It's just the new union. It wouldn't be the state. Hello, hello. The union district signed off an idea to establish after the dissolution of the Romney School by the Regional Educational Research Center for public education in the long run. I'm just, I'm just, and that could be, that could fall within educational purposes. I agree with that. So that would be, could potentially be an educational purpose. Not necessarily. I don't think. You know, I think the, I think this article is, if schools are closed, essentially, if the school, well, if the new entity, if the new union does not need the school anymore, it's not using it for those purposes for educating students. And it's going to be closed and the parents get first steps. This is what the default article says. And we're trying to ensure that that happens without being modified. Michael. So. Two things that hurt me. One is, it seems like this new district could say Romney is no longer school. But then if this educational purpose continues, we really don't have this option, right? I mean, that's the kind of way to bring it up, John, right? What was it? It was a real-world example, too. So, there is Romney in another community outside of a box that is going to be closed. Yes, say your name and if you could stand up, I would be great. Can you stand up? Sure. So, in a better community, there's talk about closing one of their elementary schools, not in our district, but using that building as some purpose and a lock-in. So, we should think about things like that as a new school. So, if someone wants... Are you suggesting, Marilyn, are you suggesting another amendment? I don't mind. I'll suggest another amendment. What's up? I'll suggest another amendment. Okay. How about the change in the event that property is no longer used for public education of students? It's no use for it. For public education of students. So, with that, I'm looking at it. What do we say to be used for a school as an email? That's specific. That's specific. Public education will still be... end up being the district coming in and using the resources for the public education of students in Central Illinois. Public education of direct teaching of students as opposed to the more 30,000-foot view talking about time of saying, well, we use it for educational purposes and that would then derivatively be used for educating students. So, direct teaching of students. So, the proposed amendment, I think that I'm hearing from Chris. Chris Sarah. Chris Sarah, exactly. The problem here, people. Is the event that property is no longer used for direct education of students? How about providing direct educational teaching services to students? Direct public educational teaching services to students in the educational, direct construction, more critical kind of as an activity? So, I wouldn't choose that phase, first of all. Sarah, where are we in providing public education of public educational... Chris's motion is... Emily said something I couldn't hear just yet. I was saying the phrase direct instruction means a certain kind of classroom activity or a given activity to educators. So, be careful. So, do you think providing public educational teaching services to students? Emily, would that... Yeah. So, in the event that the property is no longer used for providing public educational teaching services to students? Just to clarify, you're talking about the word direct. Right. All right. So, Chris McFay has suggested this amendment. Is there a second? John Julio seconds. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. The second amendment here to have replaced the words for educational purposes with providing public educational teaching services to students. Is there a discussion on the amendment? Yes. I have a question. It was hard to hear you when you started talking at the very beginning. So, what we decide today goes then to the Unified District Board and still has yet to be approved. Is that correct? No. Okay. Chris, up to the microphone. So, the Romney Board has a meeting scheduled for directly after this meeting and I will vote on basically mirroring the votes here and sign off and basically sign the contract tonight. So, it doesn't go that it will be done here. And if the Unified Board would have to challenge what we do here to find and do it if they wanted to try and do that. But what we do here, the Romney Board is going to take up immediately after this meeting. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Any other discussion on this amendment, Michael? Michael, let me... So, Chris, did you have attention K through 12 students or adult students when you made that suggestion? Because right now it's open to any age. Right here. Right here. It was students who are currently educated in the building now. So, it was K through six or K through more elementary students. District would be K through 12. Right. But my intention was... K through six. Yeah. But I'm not opposed to K through 12, but that happened. I mean, I think the goal is that if it's no longer being used for educating students directly but to use, you know, taking the elderly's caution under advisement if it's not being used for educating students then that's no longer the educational purpose that we want and should come back to that. Okay. And then the second part of that is is it about middle-sex residents in this building or if they decide middle-sex residents should go over to East Montpelier but Worcester's going to come to this school? Is that in your thinking at all? You know, once the building goes up to the New Union District, they could determine to have students from other schools, other towns come here and middle-sex residents go somewhere else. So, the idea is not to say, oh, if middle-sex students aren't here then this clause comes into effect. I think that would have to be very specific. It's a broader educational purpose regardless of where the students from this United District come from. And I don't think oh, just middle-sex students are not thinking along those lines. So, can I suggest a amendment based on this that rather than I think it says educating students was the phrase that we say... Providing public educational teaching services to students. Right. So, we say K through 6 or K through 12 students. Or pre... Pre-K through 12? Pre-K through 6, what's your question? I'll say pre-K through 12 and you can leave that to the bottom. Okay. So, we have an amendment to the amendment which is to add the words pre-K through 12. Is there a second? Sorry. So, we're discussing whether to add the words pre-K through 12 to the amendment. Any discussion on that question? Chris, I have a question for you. What do you think would happen if we just added the article after the reference to $1? Because from the middle-sex perspective we don't want to give up this building at all the grounds and we would love to buy it back for $1 on July 2. We can vote it in and see what would happen. I would say... I don't think that that would pass. I admire your spirit. I can't entertain that as a motion right now, Kyle, because we're doing the amendment to the amendment but if you want to bring it up later, you can. Right now we're talking about adding the words K through 12 to the amendment. Yes. So, another point of clarification. So, the point of doing this is that should the unified school district cease to use the building for a purpose, we specify that then the town would have the option to purchase the building, its land, structures, et cetera, for $1 along with any other debts associated with it. Okay, but just to clarify, we're talking about a specific condition we are telling the district, the new unified district if they no longer meet that specific condition and right now we've got the teaching of public pre-K through grade 12 students as our specific condition but if they cease to do that then we have the first option to purchase the property for a dollar as a town with all of its whatever else in the money. And if they cease using this building to do that, then that's the contingency. Yes. Great. Dave. Dave, just as a minor point of order, mostly all three, except for that bit about pre-K through 12, is that what's under discussion? That's what's under discussion. That was my, thank you and that was the clarification that the condition that I was clarifying is what we're at issue right now. The use that we are conditioning is public student education raised pre-K through 12. Providing public educational teaching services to pre-K through 12 students is the wording. So right now we're deciding whether to add pre-K through 12. Are you ready for the question? I don't call the question. You don't call the question, man. You just want to say, yeah. Yes. You're ready. Okay, thank you. Then you don't have to go out and call the question. Yes. I'm just, in his discussion, you know, one hand is right. Based on that language, does that mean the district would have to be teaching pre-K through 12 for any of those grades to qualify? I think we would pay attention to any of the grades and not that we require them to have pre-K through 12. So I just want to make sure we can swear to them so that that comes along. Response from the lawyers in the room or other people's opinions? So I think it's my... Chris. Oh, sorry. You do like that. And then... Do you want to see that progress for our education lawyer? Sure. I have no longer practice. I am no longer an active member of Bar. So we want to clarify that it would be for the direct instruction of pupils, public instruction of pupils from grades pre-K through 12. Would that meet the condition of the department that we want to put forward? Is it Michael's question? I'm responding through the moderator. The clarification there, if I understand Michael's point, is that educational services pre-K through 12 is the condition. So right now we're pre-K through 6. So is that right? Yeah, that's right. So by saying that, we need maybe some qualified language in there that says educational services that potentially, or something, that is sort of served within that range. So just if I were to say, I think we're beyond just educational services, it's a little bit more specific than that now, just at your test. And so, I mean, open to language if you're thinking that if any, like if it's serving 12th grader, that that would prevent the contingency from being met. What's the concern, Michael? The concern is that, as John tried to explain, so right now we are pre-K through 6 in this building. Our language says that unless the district is providing pre-K through 12, we have the option of providing building. But we're not really asking if it's pre-K through 12. It's just, if they're using it for any body within that range, but not entirely. Right. So they can decide just more quickly. Yeah. That's correct. So, we're in the range of, that's fair, that's fair. Within the range of, within the range of, is that a formal thing? Right. Okay, I know. We, this would be admitting the amendment to the amendment. So, we need to, we could book this. Can I accept it as a friendly amendment to my original? It's okay with me. So, so, and if it were, if we were going to do that, rather than educational teaching services to pre-K through 12 students, the wording would be, primary or secondary. Between pre-K through 12. Well, but that's primary or secondary if it covers all my excellent questions. Do you have primary and or secondary students? No. Okay, within the range of is what we were talking about. The students within the range of pre-K through 12. Does that work for you, Michael? I hope so. I actually don't even know at this point what the right language would be. I know what I understand too. Yeah, I think so. Providing public educational teaching services to students within the range of pre-K through 12. That's the new amendment we're now discussing. I think that that was a friendly amendment to Michael's initial amendment, the pre-K through 12. Yes. Is that John? John Lawrence. Yes? John Lawrence? Sorry, David Lawrence. Sorry. It's Hamilton there. Okay, so, yeah, Mary. Concerns is... That is a fair point. But I also don't know if you'd want to tie the hands of the new union because at U32 now, students come from Orange and other towns and they provide a source of tuition revenue which really helps out the district as a whole. And so I would anticipate that there might even be more of a push in trying to have students from other towns that are outside of the five towns. That's a fair point. But I also don't know if you'd want to tie the hands that are outside of the five towns come to school here. So I wouldn't recommend that. Just that, but good thought. Okay. Kyle. Again, that's an interesting question, Chris. What if we put in something saying a majority of which are middle-sex presidents? Well said. I went right across the street through the school. I want my kids going here. We have to think about what powers this new board is going to have and one of the powers is they can move our students. They can make my three kids go to another school building. And if we put language in here that says majority of these students say to come from middle-sex, then I would move them twice before a shift of students to another town. So Kyle makes a good point. It's that the new board, and one of the charges is to talk about school choice. There's probably a little appetite for large transfers of students from one town to another, given transportation and things like that. But in absolute, in terms of an authority, if you're talking about authority, the new board would have the authority that Kyle is talking about. So just do I think it would happen? No, but we're here today because we want to preserve certain legal interests in the property. And so it's a fair point. Fair point. Yeah, I'm sorry. If we had some language that led us in that direction and the inevitability occurred, we'd come together because it's an option. So we'd have that debate at that moment. So we'd have that debate here, necessarily. So at that point, it says, if that condition's not that, then we have the option. And I assume that if we have the option, we'd come together and talk about that. And we'd say, no, we're at 30 people almost there. And we like the people from Randolph and we'll bring them all in. And at that point in time, maybe 10, 20 years down the line, and that's a discussion, I think, that for that community, that could be the point of time. So that having language like that I think doesn't limit us. It just brings us to a discussion. Okay. Sorry. So I'm going to kind of bring us back to our process. And we need to make some decisions and we can entertain this motion if we want to, but it can't be an amendment to an amendment to an amendment. So under Robert Phillips, here. I call the question on the amendment to the amendment. Okay. So Peter Hood calls the question on the wording within the range of pre-K through 12. Is there a second I'm calling the question? So we need to... I saw several. So we are now voting on whether to cease discussion on the wording within the range of pre-K through 12. All those in favor of ceasing discussion, say I. Opposed? No. The ayes have it. We will now vote on adding the words within the range of pre-K through 12 to the proposed amendment. All those in favor say I. Opposed? No. The ayes have it. And we have amended the amendment. We are now discussing the amendment and whether to add this amendment to article one. And the amendment is at the end of the article, we are saying for $1 in the event the property is no longer used for providing educational teaching, public educational, thank you, teaching services to students within the range of pre-K through 12. Does that make sense? Is there a discussion on this amendment to article one? Is this just a way to worry that there are students who don't need to be educated in the next word? Or is it just a reduced education that is going into the budget so students need to be educated? Would you like me to read it again? That's not a punishment. That's not a punishment. Yes. Yes. I'd be glad to read it. Shall the voters of the middle sex district approve the grant of an option agreement from the middle sex school district to the town of middle sex, which gives the town of middle sex the right to purchase the real estate... Sarah, why don't you read it? Thanks. The real estate... It should be the real estate... Real estate buildings... Real estate buildings fixtures and site improvements. Okay. Upon which the Romney Elementary School is currently located from the middle sex school district or its successors in interest. For the purchase price of $1, in the event the property is no longer used for providing public educational teaching services to students within the range of pre-K through 12. So I think we're saying that we're talking about providing public educational teaching services to public educational teaching services. Whether it's in the building or not. That's the thing. Yeah. Does it say when the building is no longer used? In the event that the property is no longer used for. So does that answer your question, Chris? No? In the event that the property is not the property being the real estate building fixtures and site improvements. In the event that the property is no longer used for providing public education services to students within the range of pre-K through 12. Yeah. Other discussion on this amendment? Are we ready for the question on the amendment? Yes. Okay. All those in favor. Let's see. The amendment again is at the end is adding the words providing public educational teaching services to students within the range of pre-K through 12. All those in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. And we have amended article one. But we can amend it more if we want. Or not. Other discussion on article one or questions? My question is we have the option to purchase but what if they don't want to sell? They have to sell. The purpose is the town, the town would have the town not the school district because the school district is gone on the town has to make a decision whether they want to exercise the option. Right. Peter. Do you want to be recognized? Yes, absolutely. I do have a question about what we call a paragraph five. So but in paragraph five it says for this part of the consideration for the district for any town option to purchase the option comes to the town covenants and agrees that the conveyance of the subject comes from the town shall be conditioned upon the town owning and using the subject premises for community, civic and public purposes for a minimum of five years. So I'm sitting here thinking okay this is a gigantic town clerk's office it could be an auditorium it could be who knows what it could be it cannot be probably senior housing it cannot be That's a public purpose. This is pretty broad language. Community, civic or public. I'm just trying to think my way through this. This building is an elementary school right now. It has significant value as an elementary school to turn this into something else whatever it is is going to be tremendously expensive number one and number two the other thing I don't like in this which I understand why it's in here but if we buy this building back for a dollar we're going to assume an outstanding debt that pertains to this bill and so debt is an additional purpose so I'm just sitting here thinking how feasible is it that the town would ever want to do this and I realize that's a question for another day but I think we're in terms of this I just wonder if we're boxing the town in so the town would never agree to buy it back for a dollar because of all these My guess is that language is coming from background about because it's paid for with education dollars I think that does put some restrictions on what it can be used for and my guess that's why it's boxing that way I get all that but I'm just saying you know we're all thinking oh wow it's going to be great we're going to get this building back I'm just saying it might not be so great I'm just saying it might not be so great We're going to change it and we'll get it as is but we would definitely get it as is presuming it's still in elementary school I want to say it was a close element I'm going to address in my comments to the moderator I would just like us to stay on tasks because I think that the question is simply should the town have the option we're going to go through a legal a legal document tonight we're going to be here until 4 o'clock in the morning so let's just stick with the question that's being worked which is should we have that option Another discussion on article one I think it controls that and I mean it's also a beauty because it says discussions are not okay Did you vote on the amendment? We voted on the amendment so we are discussing article one as amended Yes I'll be recognizing there will be different views on this I will make a motion to add the language at the end the majority of which are middle sex residents In the event the property is no longer used for providing public educational teaching services to students in the range of pre-k through 12 the majority of which are middle sex students Is there a second? So it's been loop and seconded to amend the current amended article one to add the words the majority of which are middle sex residents Discussion? Discussion So I would encourage us listening to what Chris was saying earlier which is accurate in my understanding that this is not necessarily a good idea because tuition dollars that come into a community into a school district with students that come from other towns other school districts make a significant impact in a good direction for the residents of the district where the students are coming in into which the students are coming So it would look very protectionist for us to put language like that in our option agreement with the new unified board and it could ultimately be more harmful than good to put it in versus leaving that language out Something to consider there are certainly a lot of students in our community in this school right now we probably have at least one student that comes in from another community and we don't know what tomorrow is like so I think it would move us to be very cautious about the protectionist language understanding we all love this it's our community school and there are wise reasons not to do that Other discussion on the proposed amendment Jeff? I don't think that even by putting that language in doesn't necessarily say the new district can't take some of the middle sex residents where it's more potentially harmful and doesn't necessarily guarantee that middle sex residents are going to go to school here at home which is the end of the goal but the reality is that the cost of transporting other than high school people to another school is prohibitive and probably would not necessitate middle sex residents or middle sex students who don't care where they're at Other discussion on the amendment Sandy? Sandy, I understand the intent for the desire I think it's great to have middle sex students educated within middle sex I would encourage voting against the amendment because I think it ties the hands too much of the future board that will be responsible for educating all of the children in the district and not just the children in middle sex they might want to reconfigure schools in some ways and it feels very protectionist protectionist in a way that excludes education, potentially excludes educational services to a broader cross section of the students in our district and also if they backfire might instead provide an incentive to close this school we can only educate middle sex students here and maybe not combine them with some other area then we'll just close this school and then all the middle sex students would be having to go somewhere else I would urge voting against I call it that specifically said the majority of which we could have students from other towns coming here and there's a reference to tying the hands of the future board that was why I'm proposing this I want to actually think long and hard about reconfiguring the schools before they do it and I think a provision like this would give them a lot more pause and I just can't imagine having a conversation with my own that instead of walking across the street to the school that he has seen from our window and gone to for years we're taking them to a new place and I want to give that new board which we don't want to even exist two thirds of middle sex oppose this merger I want them to think long and hard before they make a decision like that affecting my kids and other kids who go to the school Other discussion on the proposed amendment Chris microphone You're also going to be like the audience someone else has a microphone I'll never move you know kind of makes a good point is that if there's going to be provision like this it has to happen now otherwise the opportunity to put it in is lost and it would probably give the new board pause I just couldn't envision more than about 180 students here now 170 and when kind of says a majority that's half plus one I still allow students from other places that could come here and so it's an option and I think Sandy's right there could have some negative consequences as well and Kyle, even if we had that there's no guarantee that your child would still come here if there was going to be shifting around because they wouldn't be treated any different than anyone else in terms of who the student was sent where but it is to consider because just the implications of it and again I do think it would tie the new board to the hands maybe in a negative way notice some thoughts and if anyone else has a really quiet voice and wants to use a microphone you're welcome to do that they didn't need to give Chris special mumbling the privilege is I don't think I'm really like these medians because I hear lots of good perspectives and makes me think really hard and I don't think I'm in favor of the amendment as is but I think I agree very much with the intent of it of whether collectively we might be able to come up with a way to rephrase it that's being here till 4am but I think the core of the concern is about students being compelled to go somewhere else if the worst schools start getting mixed around and some students want to go somewhere else, great if there's a large group of students who's being compelled to go somewhere else I think that's the large concern here I don't have the exact word in my head sorry but if it could be rephrased to say that we can exercise the option if students, middle sex students are being compelled to go somewhere else I wonder if that might get out of the concern without I am concerned about germainness it's one of those things that moderators are trained in eventually an article becomes not the same meaning as the article that was proposed and we can't pass articles that weren't award and eventually we start to say people say this is what happened at the meeting I read the agenda and I didn't think that was on the agenda and my concern is we may have reached our limit in terms of germainness Sarah did you know that we're getting really far feel exactly what you said you know, eventually it doesn't actually hold up if it's challenged yes a suggestion and because where I was thinking too perhaps a strong advisory letter from our school board with such language would be helpful to the new unified district board should they face a situation like that maybe the way to go that certainly happens in other statutory regulatory and legal contexts where advisory language can be useful in decision making for future violence so this would be a non-binding decision by this group since it's not worn but what you're suggesting from the floor is that the school board while it still exists in the next two days compose a letter that suggests the concerns of our community about the children of our community being shipped to other schools and our school building being used for purposes other than educated children between K and 12 public education we are from middle sex and broth in our amendment already so just for the purposes of time what I'm going to suggest is that we take a straw coal, this is a sense of the room there's nothing binding about this about the suggestion that Amy just made that Amy just made did you think that yes the drop is corollary but maybe that has taken out the school board reading it's a suggestion from this room it was really open for a straw coal guys in that context we haven't taken a vote so I'm not sure the board really could say in the letter the consensus of the count is they could speak as the board they can speak as the board and they can speak as the board knowing that they heard from the public who were concerned about it I appreciate the idea I haven't been insistent we do have a vote this is a legal process and this actually means something that we put in the year but I don't want to keep people here in a long time, I do just want to mention because Sandy had mentioned that it's making more likely that our school could close as of Tuesday we do have an amended article that protects us from that that we actually get a vote if they were going to close our schools and I also just want to remind everyone again this is the option so if this merge board says hey, we've got to make this the middle school that's the only way it's going to work they can make their case to us and we can choose not to exercise this option, say fine keep the building things as a middle school but I want them to make their case to us before they take the kids away from the school okay so what I'm going to suggest is that we put off the straw poll until we vote on the article and then we'll come back to that so right now what we're voting on is the amendment to add the majority of which are middle sex residents to article one are we ready for that question all those in favor of I'm not really sure what I'm voting on sure, okay, article one this would be the amended version of article one all the voters with middle sex the middle sex district approve the grant of an option agreement from the middle sex school district to the town of middle sex which gives the town of middle sex the right to purchase the real estate, buildings, fixtures and site improvements upon which the Rummy elementary school is currently located from the middle sex school district or its successors and interests for the purchase price of one dollar in the event the property is no longer used or providing public educational teaching services to students within the range of pre-k through 12 the majority of which are middle sex residents so right now we're voting on whether to add the words the majority of which are middle sex residents all those in favor of adding the words the majority of which are middle sex residents please signify by saying I opposed no the no's have it and the amendment fails I'm now going to ask for so what we're talking about is article one as we amended it a while back and I'm just going to ask for a straw hole on whether you think it's a good idea for the school board to compose a letter after this meeting reflecting concerns about middle sex residents it's yes so you don't think that your board could actually act on this even if the straw hole is warm your board can't take action that isn't warm you should take the straw hole you want the straw hole anyway the board chair asks for the straw hole are you ready to vote yes or no on the straw hole what's the question that's right you're going to say that shallow the school board write a letter reflecting the sentiment of this meeting reflecting the sentiment of the school board regarding concerns about moving middle sex students outside middle sex the idea is the question of moving to many middle sex students outside middle sex I think it's fine I think we should reflect that the vote the vote that was taken which was discussed there was concern and it was defeated there was all those in favor of such a letter say aye opposed no no I'm going to do this again all those in favor raise your hand opposed I'm sorry this is opposed the motion such as it is passes it's not really a motion it's a straw hole it's non-binding the school board is under obligation to do nothing there's a sense of the meeting alright we now have article one and it's amended and unless we want to amend it more we can vote on article one as amended I'm sorry about this folks I'm hungry and tired too I'd like to know for us where paragraph 5 can you come in this option this entire paragraph to me is detrimental to the town's interest and I don't know why we even have it in the thing is we aren't voting on that option agreement that's not like part of our ability to change tonight so it is important to know it so you can vote yes or no on whether we're going to include it but we can't change it tonight it's not part of the morning we're stuck with this option when I was abroad I didn't think these documents town council took the first step toward making this a legal preserving the legal rights through an option like this and so we basically could build their documents modify them for middle sex and so this language came from Scott Cameron's attorney to get the work for us who I can't tell you where the origin of this language came from but I think Kyle was right that if there's been educational money used for buildings in the school no longer used as an educational facility in town by is it there is this five year we can't just like turn it around and sell it to someone else I understand clearly what it says my question is if we approve this article we get this line when you can't amend it yes it's a legal I'm sorry it's an option as you know I'm not 100% sure but my understanding as moderator that's the way I would rule is that what we're voting on here is the article and not the attachment that it refers to the legal but if other you are totally willing to overrule me in the middle sex disservice that's just a comment Mary it's all agreement is this the same agreement that the other four pounds of cloth pounds in really in Calisthenia are we all voting the same kind of Berlin and Calis are Doty, Worcester and East Monterey have chosen not to and my understanding East Monterey and Worcester thought they did not need it because it's the default article it's part of the default articles and my concern is that the default articles can be amended and to the article that's there could be amended even though it's been adopted so so we're going to vote in this order my daughter no because it's because it's ours that's right we have a specific agreement that will work yes the point of the article that we're voting on is to have the option we have to specify the option when we send the information to the new unified district board this is the option that we have in front of us is that correct? yes thank you so if we want to have an option to exercise we're holding it current and this is the model that Calis used correct? and the language that's in here in paragraph 5 does look like language with which I am somewhat familiar with ancient times and I was in practice I cannot confirm any of this information but I will say for what it's worth that there are very strict statutes and regulations that happen with school property that has been paid for with school education funding and including time after the school ceases to be in school so for what it's worth that's my resident opinion and this if we are ever going to have an option it would appear to be the one we have in our hands tonight to consider that we're actually voting otherwise our the article that we're voting on is moved because there's no option to go with it correct? that is correct but then the option that would be available to the town would be in the default articles provided it is never amended so there is a backup and I just want to talk about that and that would put in further in the hands of the new unified district board to define the terms of the option that we would potentially have I think the line would probably be the same statutorily but it is in terms of the town having first right word for you all yes I believe that's right so we are discussing whether to pass article one as amended are we ready for the question? yes I think we are I'll read one more time shall the voters of the millsex district approve the grant of an option agreement from the millsex school district to the town of millsex which gives the town of millsex the right to purchase the real estate buildings, dexters, site improvements upon which the elementary school is currently located from the millsex school district or its successors in interest for the purchase price of $1 in the event the property is no longer used for providing public educational teaching services to students in the range of pre-k through 12 all those in favor say aye opposed no the ayes have it and article one as amended has passed did you have a question in the back Patrick sorry did you have a question I just assume we could exercise this option more than once right if over the years this issue came up more than one time we'd be able to exercise the option more than one time did they know I don't know the answer to that but I suspect that if we don't exercise it the first time then the unified district has the power to sell it to someone else and so it's basically right at first refusal is what we're we've just voted on so I suspect we get one chance and not more than one because thanks folks article two shall the voters of the middle sex school district approve the grant of an easement from the middle sex school district to the town of middle sex which gives the town of middle sex the right in perpetuity to use the real estate and buildings owned by the middle sex school district or its successors in interest for certain public purposes as specified in the easement deed is there a motion on article two jeff coons moves is there a second can you see me in there article two has been moved and seconded are there questions would you like to hear chris hold forth on the article two jeff did you have a question well I was I meant to mirror the the grounds and that etc. real estate buildings fixtures and setting improvements the same language just in this article okay so there is a motion to amend article two to reflect the parallel wording to article one where it says right in perpetuity in perpetuity to use real estate buildings fixtures and site improvements owned by the middle sex school district jeff coons that's a and it's seconded by Kyle madison urinella is there discussion on this amendment to make the two drinks okay you're ready to vote on that amendment all those in favor of amending article two to add the words fixtures and site improvements signify by saying aye opposed no okay other discussion other discussion on article two as amended do you have any comments do you want to make so this of the two articles this is the one that is more important because there is no language in the default articles about maintaining community access other than through what the Unified Board would commit and so this what this does is maintains middle sex community access by right as opposed to Greeks you know it kind of gets us the town meeting here the emergency community access to the gymnasium and the community activities and meetings and things along those lines that are never in use and so it creates a community right to use the property as opposed to asking permission doesn't mean that there can be policies that you know in terms of filling out forms for use but it's a right as opposed to a grant asking permission this is this second one is assuming that it isn't sold that this is while it's still in use by Washington Central it's in perpetuity but it's either or yeah okay so David Lawrence just a question then just so who makes responsibility for enforcing that right as you said there might be forms to fill out I totally get that David who would we imagine as the authority then I expect that it would be the principal's office again but it would be the principal's office but there could be policy development about the use of the building so I'm sure each community now has a building use policy and I assume the new board would just adopt those but I'm referring to the policy though that would then be under the authority because and people might be by way of yes further discussion on article two did they have to accept this the new body board because you're asking for an easement which they do not actually since the property is still owned by the middle sex school district we're granting the easement to the town and so they don't they don't own the property and we still have rights in the property and can make these changes ourselves for two more days doesn't only last two days but we're acting within our property our rights as property owners to do this so we as a town own the building property the school district does that's correct therefore they write it without they don't need to approve this easement no no we are approving it you've given it to them no no no if they take it out and we pass the easement and then board ratifies the existing board then the building that's conveyed subtle to the city so it goes with the building the Rummy Board will tonight still exist but they use that power but once we've taken that step it goes with the land so it's incorporated into goes into the they have to accept it that's fine it's just it's close to nine it's a special B it's subject to the owner of the property the citizens survive if the building didn't exercise an option and the building were passed to somebody who wanted to create a senior I believe it would because it's in perpetuity which means forever and I think what would potentially happen is that the building was going to pass some other entity and they wanted to buy it they might negotiate with the town and that would come up then so will it survive is my opinion question? article two approve the grant an easement from the Millsex school district to the town of Millsex which gives the town of Millsex the right in perpetuity to use the real estate and buildings fixtures and site improvements owned by the Millsex school district or its successors and interests for certain public purposes as specified in the easement deed all those who favor say aye aye the ayes have it and article two as amended is passed we did yes so unless there's other comments or discussion I'm going to go ahead and adjourn this one last meeting of the Redmond school district Millsex town school district thank you for coming