Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses pickleball courts and ERA Dome locker-room support; no binding action
Summary
Board members heard a proposal for 8—12 pickleball courts on two acres near the middle/high school under a memorandum of understanding and discussed an annual-contribution approach to support a girls locker room at the ERA Dome; members favored more planning and recommended revisiting after the operating referendum.
Get email alerts on the Community Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a discussion-only agenda item, the board weighed two separate community-facility partnership proposals: a request from a local pickleball association to use roughly two acres near the middle/high school for 8—12 courts under an MOU, and a proposal to work with the ERA Dome on construction and maintenance of a dedicated girls hockey locker room.
Staff described the pickleball group's interest and said the district would not sell the land but would consider an MOU that preserves district ownership and sets rules about use, signage and contingency plans if the group disbands. "We would enter what's called memorandum of understanding, MOU," the staff member said, adding that the arrangement would be similar to prior agreements where the district provides space and the partner handles construction and upkeep. Board members raised logistics questions including parking, bathroom additions and how fundraising would proceed.
On the ERA Dome and girls locker-room need, staff and several board members described inequities in the current facilities and proposed an annual contract-based contribution for maintenance and to support construction of a girls locker room. The staff member noted legal constraints on unrestricted gifts to outside organizations and recommended using contract language (a maintenance clause or a defined-use contribution) to ensure funds are used for specified construction and maintenance purposes.
Board members generally voiced support for exploring both ideas but emphasized timing; several members asked staff to draft possible MOU language and to delay any binding commitment until after the district addresses the operating referendum. No formal motions or votes were taken on either proposal during the meeting.

