Seattle City Council Community Economic Development Committee 5/27/20

will come to order.

It is 9.32 a.m.

I'm Tammy Morales, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Juarez?

Here.

Councilmember Peterson?

Here.

Councilmember Lewis?

Chair Morales?

Here.

Three present.

I do want to note for the record that Council Member Sawant is excused for today's meeting.

Okay, we have one item on the agenda.

Council Member Morales, sorry, can you hear me?

It's Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

On the phone, this seems to have worked.

I'm still trying to get it to work on the computer.

So in the meantime, I'll just be on this way while I'm trying to work that out.

I appreciate it.

Thank you so much for joining us, Council Member Lewis.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we've got one item on the agenda today, the U district BIA reauthorization.

Um, we'll do a public hearing and then we will discuss amendments.

Um, so we will now approve our agenda for the committee meeting.

If there's no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection.

Today's agenda is adopted.

Lakeisha, would you please read the short version of the item into the record?

Council Bill 119779, an ordinance establishing a new university district parking and business improvement area, BIA, public hearing and discussion.

Thank you.

Okay, at this time, we will open the remote public hearing for the U District BIA reauthorization.

Afterward, if time allows, central staff will be presenting the amendments for discussion only.

The Office of Economic Development will be present for technical purposes.

Before we begin the public hearing, I ask that everyone please be patient as we learn to operate this new system in real time and as we navigate the inevitable growing pains of this process.

While it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly included in meeting agendas, the city council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or is unsuitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we're able to conduct our necessary business.

My staff and I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

I'll call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they appear on the registered council website.

If you have not registered, but you would like to speak, please do so.

You can sign up before the end of the comment period of the public hearing by going to the city council's website and the public link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate mic and an automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it's your turn to speak.

Please begin by stating your name and the item which you're addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds is left on the clock.

Once the speaker hears the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comments.

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time, the speaker's mic will be muted after 10 seconds to allow us to move on to the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting please do so via the Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

So the public hearing is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first speaker is Corey Crocker.

Corey go ahead.

I'm Corey Crocker a 30 year resident and local small business owner.

I strongly support the three amendments to make the district BIA more representative of our diverse community more accountable to all who pay including renters condo owners and triple net tenants and more responsive to the economic hardships of this pandemic.

We must have good leadership and your vote will help.

As program manager the district partnership is the greatest concern of our community and here's why.

After five years and $5 million invested, they did not ask those they served if the experiment was successful.

They removed board member term limits and actively silenced any dissenting voices.

They told small businesses that they did not represent them and removed funds allocated by the BIA for them.

And last week, 81% of the public speakers you heard from represented board member perspectives, but only some declared it.

What we have here is a coordinated campaign by a special interest group funded by public money.

with organizational support from the OED and speaker notes prepared by paid consultants.

UDP is not for me.

Please support a competitive bid process from the program manager as proposed by your colleague, Council Member Peterson for the success of this district.

Thank you.

Thank you, Corey.

The next speaker is Steven Antipet.

Hello, and good morning.

My name is Steven Anifit.

For more than 25 years, I've lived in the U District as a homeowner, and I'm chair of the Neighborhood Farmers Market Alliance.

I urge you to support passage of the ordinance renewing the BIA.

We need continuity and focus with the BIA.

We need a 12-year term, not shorter.

That's what petitioners supported, and it would set a very bad precedent for BIA throughout the city.

Please do not have an RFP process that is less than five years.

Anything shorter than that is wasteful of what ratepayers invest, direct services, and will be an inefficient use of city's time and resources.

The BIA matters.

I see the difference that Clean and Safe makes in helping the community's most vulnerable in this time of crisis, and even when things are less disrupted.

The BIA is essential to help small businesses survive and recover from the crisis.

Our collaboration that we have through the UDP is better than anything that's been tried over many, many years.

I know, and as the chair of the

Okay, thank you, Stephen.

The next speaker is Don Blakeney.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Don Blakeney, and I join you this morning to strongly support the renewal of the U District BIA.

While I worked for the DSA, some of you may remember meeting me for the first time when I was the Executive Director of the Chinatown ID BIA, where I witnessed the important relationships that BIAs foster with the convening role they play in setting community-driven priorities.

As you prepare to renew this BIA, please consider the importance of organizational stability and the unintended negative impact that a regular city imposed RFP process could have on small organizations like the University District BIA to function.

For example, we don't ask the Peck Place market to go out for RFP each year.

That's because they have a council oversight with you and they have stakeholder board to guide them.

And the same is true for BIA.

Please honor the intent of the rate payers who signed over 66% of the petitions in support of this program.

A 12-year term BIA, a diverse rate payer board, and no additional RFP process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Don.

The next speaker is Miles Richardson.

Thank you.

Miles Richardson.

Vice President of Audi Seattle University Volkswagen and a board member of the university district board member.

Very, very proud of this organization.

This is the boots on the ground organization that has made significant improvements in our area.

I just strongly support the renewal of the BIA and ask your support to renew the BIA.

I also want to voice again a very strong opinion that everybody that has actually done hard work in this area completely supports, and that is a 12-year term.

And please do not have a counterproductive, poorly informed RFP process that is not necessary.

The University District Partnership has done significant work.

Our business is a huge contributor to the University District, and we will continue to support it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Miles.

The next speaker is Caroline Felt.

Hi, my name is Caroline Felt.

I am the program director at Sanctuary Arts Center, and we work with young adults, 13 to 25 year olds that are homeless and underserved.

We have multiple job readiness opportunities for them, and one of them is a partnership we have with the UDP.

The UDP has been an integral part in developing healthy relationships with these young adults and putting them in job readiness training and out into the community, working with multiple business owners.

We've had over 30 youth pass through this program and have gone into housing and gaining full-time employment.

And we could not have done this without the UDP.

These young adults learn communication, dependability, teamwork skills, problem-solving initiative.

The UDP has a huge part in this community with me.

I've been here for 15 years.

They helped find all of us together.

They also helped provide jobs for these young adults and believe in the future.

So I second everybody's vote with renewing the BIA.

Thank you.

Thank you, Caroline.

The next speaker is Mary Davis.

My name is Mary Davis, and I am here in support of long-term renewal of the University District BIA.

I represent the Christian Science Church, located on the Yav, and have seen firsthand the good that the UDP has done through its committees, and especially in our case, the Clean and Safe Committee, and increased policing, which has reduced drug trafficking and provided a sense of security in their ambassador program, through their mental health worker, David Delgado, who has been a direct help to us.

in compassionate help for the homeless with finding services to meet their needs, and addressing the homeless population in the U District, helping them get off the street in genuinely constructive ways.

The street and sidewalk cleaning, the monthly meetings that are informative and provide a forum for community members to speak together, and to also be updated by police, I am wholeheartedly I'm wholeheartedly in favor of renewing the BIA for long-term for the health and thriving of the University District.

It has been a tremendous benefit to the community.

Thank you, Mary.

The next speaker will be Anson Lin.

Hello.

Hello, my name is Anson Lin.

I'm here to speak in support of the renewing of the U District BIA.

I represent as a resident and a business owner with my family.

We're a local developer and property owner of multifamily buildings in the U District.

I grew up here in the U District and I've seen it change since I was a kid.

As a right peer of the BIA and a local property manager, I hear many of the pain points from my residents and can see the EDP working to address them.

We need your support to renew the BIA because you can see the Clean and Safe Program is one of the only things keeping the U District healthy during these tough times.

So it's expansion is vital for many of the residents and businesses.

My tenants can see the differences when there are a few needles on the ground and graffiti on the buildings.

The BIA puts on great events and provides marketing to attract visitors to the U District.

I love attending those events and see my tenants enjoying them as well.

We need your support.

The governance is already in place.

I support the 12-year term to allow the BIA to focus on its mission and its goals.

And I believe that the RFP of less than five years does not make sense at this point.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Anson.

The next speaker is Erin Goodman.

Good morning.

My name is Erin Goodman.

I'm the executive director for the Soto Business Improvement Area.

I am here today in support of the U District BIA reauthorization and urge you to pass this legislation so the U District partnership can continue to support businesses during these trying times.

I also wanted to share concerns that I have regarding amendments to the legislation that are before you today.

I am concerned about the proposed RFP process and the unnecessary precedent that it sets.

The BIA renewal process is designed to be a process that ensures that rate payers have a say in who manages the funds that they have collectively combined to obtain services over and above what the city provides.

During this process, over 66% of the rate payers in the district signed a petition stating that they wanted the BIA assessments to continue for 12 years and that the U-District partnership would be the program manager for those funds.

But please, in adding an additional RFP would deny the will of the majority of rate payers who have clearly shown their support by signing the petition.

Support the will of the U-District rate payers by passing the ordinance as presented.

Thank you, Erin.

The next speaker is Kim Trimmer.

Good morning.

My name is Kim Trimmer, and I'm here to speak in support of the renewing the U District BIA.

I represent Inside Out Yoga, a yoga studio I own on the north end of the Ave.

And the BIA has provided invaluable support to me as a business owner, certainly through the COVID-19 crisis, but even before that, in networking programs, the clean and safe program, plus their focus on keeping businesses alive, small businesses alive, which is already difficult, but even exaggerated now with the COVID-19.

So I totally support the longer term renewal of 12 years plus.

And it takes time to build relationships and to get the good work they're doing going.

So RFP of less than five years just doesn't make any sense.

Thank you, Kim.

The next speaker is Jennifer Antos.

Good morning.

My name is Jennifer Antos.

I'm here today to speak in support of renewing the U District CIA.

I trust their efforts in the interest of the Greater University District.

I'm the Executive Director of the Neighborhood Farmers Market, and we've operated the U District Market in the heart of the neighborhood since 1993. The UDP has been a critical partner for us in our shared mission.

Together, we share in our effort to provide economic opportunity for business owners, promote public health, and bring a diverse neighborhood together.

more so to create active public spaces that help us expand access to fresh food in the U-District.

Please support the ordinance to renew the U-District CIA.

It's critical to keep up the work needed now in the face of the pandemic.

We need to continue to expand and continue the human safety programs.

And please support the good governance already in place.

There must be continuity and we need a 12-year term, not shorter.

please do not have an RFP process less than five years as described in the ordinance.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak in support of the BIA renewal.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Kirk Laughlin will be the next speaker.

Hi, I'm Kirk Laughlin.

I represent the Academy for Precision Learning in the University District located in the U-Height Center where I'm an employee.

as well as the University District Rotary Club, where I'm a member and board officer.

From the perspective of both these organizations, I strongly support the long-term renewal of the U-District Business Improvement Area.

As a worker and volunteer serving the area, I've seen the partnerships made possible by the BIA that strengthen businesses and nonprofit organizations under the governance of the U-District Partnership.

APL is an independent school serving students all across the autism spectrum.

and the U-District Rotary is very focused on addressing human service challenges and promoting business growth in the neighborhood.

I see the value of the continued governance of the U-District partnership in supporting the community for our students and to address the broader needs.

I hope the governance does not change to require a new RFP process with a shorter timeline so the UDP can continue to build effective neighborhood partnerships.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kirk.

The next speaker is Lincoln Johnson.

Good morning, y'all.

My name is Lincoln Johnson, a proud resident and council member Morales district with the twenty four year tenure at where I work with student leadership and engagement.

I've also volunteered for several district service providers that work with homeless and street involved youth.

I come to you to speak in support of renewing and expanding the district for the suggested turn.

The life of a UW student extends well beyond the boundaries of the campus, and that's why the safety, security, cleanliness, and continuity of the neighborhood is just so critical.

The BIA has a proven success record, has provided useful and intelligent advocacy and governance for the U District, and has created vital relationships with our local businesses, community members, and a wide diversity of residents.

This has been especially instrumental during this pandemic.

Thank you for taking your time and for your consideration of renewing and extending the BIA.

Thank you.

Thank you Lincoln.

The next speaker is Louise Little.

And I'm.

Hello.

I am Louise Little and I am calling in to support the renewal of the U District BIA.

I'm a proud employee at University Bookstore for 40 years.

So I've seen the district through good times and bad.

And since the BIA was established there's been vast improvement and the cleanliness in the neighborhood is safer.

I am asking you to support the 12-year term which is what petitioner supported and I'm asking you that you not require an RFP which is not required of other BIAs so it's arbitrary and unjust.

RFPs require time and money for the city and service provider staff to do which means those resources are not spent on keeping the district safe and clean.

The U-District partnership has built effective relationships with the neighborhood across a broad spectrum of interests, including the REACH program, which has been an incredible partner for us.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to share my views.

Thank you, Louise.

The next speaker is Randy Hodgins.

Good morning.

My name is Randy Hodgins, and I'm the Vice President for External Affairs at the UW.

And I'm speaking today in support of the U-District BIA renewal.

The university strongly supports renewal.

We've been a longtime supporter of the partnership.

We also believe we need the continued leadership of the U-District partnership, which is build effective relationships with the neighborhood.

We do not support shortening the 12-year term.

We also do not support an RFP process sooner than five years.

These are costly processes that we don't need right now.

This neighborhood needs continuity and service, not uncertainty at this time.

given the state budget challenges we currently face at the university, passage of the amendments would cause the university to reevaluate whether the BIA remains the best way to invest in the neighborhood.

Please pass the renewal without these amendments.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you, Randy.

Eric Lawson is the next speaker.

My name is Eric Lawson.

I'm speaking in support of the 12-year renewal of the U District BIA.

I'm an Assistant Dean at UW.

I live close by the U District and I serve on the U District Partnerships Board of Directors.

I'm foregoing a very enthusiastic testimonial about the awesome work of the BIA to make this single point.

My appeal is that you please not consider an RFP process of less than five years in length.

The RFP process is time and resource intensive.

There's already an effective annual mechanism by which the ratepayers can evaluate and recommend a program manager to the city.

The vast bulk of UDP's work is relationship-based, a function that's not easily replaced.

The UDP has built strong relationships, as you've heard, with the neighborhood over time across a broad spectrum of interests.

The U District needs the continued collaboration with the UDP and the city to ensure that our community thrives.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eric.

Let's see.

Mason Wiley is the next speaker.

My name is Mason Wiley and I'm speaking in support of the U-District BIA renewal.

As the Associate Director of the University Heights Center, I frequently interact with the BIA and the University District Partnership.

Our organization hosts regular arts and cultural events for the U-District community, and the UDP is always one of our most avid supporters.

They're quick to promote our activities, attend many of our events, and even connect us with partner organizations and community members to make our work even stronger.

Most recently, I worked on a UDP committee to create a marketing campaign for the Cherry Blossom Festival that united dozens of businesses to bring blossom seekers into our neighborhood for the day.

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 crisis put these plans on hold, but the potential was something desperately needed in the U District.

I've also appreciated the UDP support of the most vulnerable in our neighborhood through the REACH program.

David Delgado has done tremendous work through the UDP to help the homeless find the services they need.

Further, the UDP has been a strong ally of the U-Heights safe flight program.

The UDP has also been extremely responsive when U-Heights has encountered security issues and frequently sends UDP ambassadors when we suffer an incident.

Marcus Johnson even wrote our organization for a comprehensive security plan.

For the above reasons, I fully support the BIA's renewal to continue their great work for the UDP.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mason.

Okay, Maureen Ewing is the next speaker.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

My name is Maureen Ewing.

I support the renewal of the U District BIA.

I'm the Chair of the Ratepayer Board, U District Rotary Board Member, and Executive Director of U Heights.

We're a nonprofit community center and proud ratepayer, and we rely on the BIA services to ensure that our neighborhood is safe and clean for the 3,000 children that we serve.

We are supportive of the 12-year term that petitioners also supported, We already have a robust governance model in place with two boards, and every rate payer has the opportunity to cast a vote to determine our program manager annually.

We are due not to have an RFP process earlier than the five years detailed in the ordinance.

The disruption of the BIA's solid programming will have dire consequences during a global pandemic.

Now more than ever, we need your support to reauthorize the BIA to ensure that we continue to serve small businesses and their reopening efforts as well as our most vulnerable neighbors.

Thank you again for your time and for all your work during the COVID crisis.

Thank you, Maureen.

The next speaker is Joan Horn.

Hello, my name is Joan Horn, and I'm calling to support the renewal of the U District BIA.

I am a 36-year resident of the University District and a board member at University Heights.

Over the years, I've seen a lot of changes in my neighborhood, and I'm glad to say that even though our neighborhood has increased its density over the years, it's now cleaner and safer than I've ever seen it.

Living only a couple blocks from University Heights, I walk almost daily to my pee patch there or to the mailbox.

I feel comfortable and safe in walking this area, and it's pleasant to walk where there's no trash.

I often see the area being cleaned up by individuals or groups And I feel we need your support of the ordinance to continue the expanded clean and safe program.

And as well, small businesses need this board now more than ever.

And thank you.

We need you to pass this without the amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joan.

The next speaker is Rick McLaughlin.

Hello, my name is Rick McLaughlin.

I own Big Time Brewery on the Ave.

We've been here for 32 years.

I'm also president of the U District Small Business Association and a U Heights board member.

I am in full support of Alex Peterson's amendments and the idea that 10 years instead of 12 years is a threat at all to an organization is laughable.

I mean, at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is get stuff done and have organizations be accountable.

The best way that you can do that is through competitive bid processes like RFPs.

So the idea that it's a negative or going to hinder the neighborhood to make sure that our tax dollars are spent effectively is laughable, in my opinion.

What we need is more competition.

We need, you know, better resources for small businesses and nonprofits in the area and residents.

And, you know, there's there's no reason to do not do it.

Just heard the beep.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Rick.

Dawn Perry is the next speaker.

Hello, this is Dawn Perry.

I own and operate Floyd and Bridge Brewing on 46th, right by I-5.

And of course, I agree with Rick that competition is a great thing, but anything more frequent than five years seems excessive and counterproductive.

I'll tell you why.

So I'm the sole owner of the brewery with my husband.

We employ four part-time folks who live in the district, and I strenuously support the renewal of the U District BA.

I need it as a small owner.

The Clean and Safe program that's funded by the BIA helps me every day to manage the trash, the feces, the mentally ill folks who are on my block.

I'm so grateful that the UDP supports the entirety of the U District and not just the Ave.

And the BIA doesn't just fix issues like those, it proactively builds a sense of community with neighborhood events.

With these events, the UDP is creating a foundation for the future, creates a sense of pride in the neighborhood, which is the strongest protection from crime and vandalism.

And to do it, the BIA needs the continuity.

It needs the 12-year terms we supported as rate payers.

The small businesses in the district need the BIA.

Please support what my business needs to survive.

OK.

Thank you, Dawn.

Let's see.

Alfred Shiga is the next speaker.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Alfred Shiga.

Hi, council members.

My family owns Shiga's Imports.

We are a minority-owned business, and we are also one of the app's oldest surviving businesses and been operating at our location at 43rd University Way since 1965. I'm here to speak in my support of the renewal of the University District BIA.

My family has a long history of community service investment in the University District, and I've spent my entire life on the app.

I'm a Husky grad, and I've participated in UDP and the BIA since its formation.

I can attest to all the important work that is being funded by the University District BIA and the vital role that the BIA has in benefiting University District businesses, residents, and visitors.

Especially given the additional stresses that we've placed upon our fellow business owners because of COVID, the work of the BIA will be especially critical to ensure their survival.

I would also like to note that we need longer renewal terms for the BIA.

I would encourage...

extremely intensive and time and money would be much better spent on street cleaning, and critical social programs versus an alternate RFP process which would be a waste of taxpayer and rate payer money and time.

Thank you all very much for your consideration.

Thank you Alfred.

Stephen Locke is the next speaker.

My name is Steve Locke.

As a landlord in the U District I represent the hundreds of small landlords from minority immigrant families which are the primary source of affordable housing for our students working professionals, and full-time residents.

The UDistrict needs the continued leadership of the UDistrict Partnership to continue to implement the many programs and processes that have made a significant difference to our community.

Any disruption to the current organization management will be a major setback for our community.

The UDistrict BIA has always taken a proactive approach in helping to keep the businesses and residential community clean and safe.

They have been a critical linkage in escalating city resources.

Most notably, their partnership with SPD has been instrumental in helping the community to deal with the onslaught of property crime and vandalism from the area's homeless and drug addicts.

By proactively engaging the business and residential community in best practices, BAA stays well connected.

Thank you for your support.

Thank you, Steven.

Jennifer Annabel is the next speaker.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Annabel, and I'm here in support of the renewal of the U District BIA.

I'm currently the executive director at the Academy for Precision Learning, and we're a K through 12 school serving kids all across the autism spectrum, as well as their typically developing peers.

I'm also representing Broadway Bound Children's Theater, where I am a board member.

I really appreciate that all the clean and safe programs, they're extremely important to us.

We need the continued support of the district partnership in order for them to implement the BIA's program, the daily cleaning in front of the U-Height.

and along the ave, including the biohazards, the needles, the human waste, those things are all real important to us.

We spend a lot of time with our students out in the community, supporting the local businesses and in order for the families and kids to feel safe.

I think that the BIA has been extremely successful in making the families feel that way.

That's one of the concerns they have about attending our programs and we would, We want to be respectful of the resources needed and request a 12-year term and an RFP process of not less than five years.

Thank you so much for all your support.

Thank you, Jennifer.

David Kohanam is the next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is David Kohanam.

I'm here today to speak in support of renewing the U District BIA.

I represent myself and my family.

We're long-term stakeholders in the U District.

And over the last 60 years, we've lived, played, studied, worked, and built in this neighborhood.

We have a deep connection to the University District.

We're here asking for your support of the ordinance to renew the U District BIA.

The renewal is critical to keep up the work needed now more than ever to ensure that the U District partnership and BIA have the resources necessary to continue and expand the existing clean and safe programs.

These programs are crucial in helping small businesses focus on their operations and not lose themselves in the struggle to survive Going forward, this is more important than ever.

We need support of the good governance that's already in place.

And very importantly, we need continuity and focus with the BIA.

We need a 12-year term, not shorter.

We do not need an RFP process of less than five years.

This is not what the petitioners had supported.

As a member of the ratepayer board, I've seen far too much time spent on solicitation and petition activity ahead of the next renewal instead of doing our actual work.

The focus and stabilization provided by a longer term means we do much more and more effective work.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, David.

Lily Wu is the next speaker.

Lily, are you there?

Hi.

Hi, everyone.

Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

My name is Lily Wu.

I'm speaking in support of renewing of the Yiu District BIA.

I'm the owner of Sia Noodles, a woman-owned business.

I've been doing business in Yiu District for five years.

BIA is very important for our small business.

Yiu District is a dense population area.

BIA helps this area more clean and safe.

With BIA's help, we can focus on our business and not lose the struggle to survive.

We also have increased events and promotional marketing that attracted people to this area.

We need to continue to focus with the BIA and need a 12-year term, no shorter.

Please don't have our RFP process less than five years.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Lily.

Let's see, David Delgado is the next speaker.

Hello?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can go.

Hello.

Oh, good morning City Council peoples.

I'm here today in support of the University District Assertive Neighborhood Outreach Program.

My name is David Delgado.

I'm their outreach worker, the social worker for the program.

Last time I spoke with the council, I talked about the benefits of having a social worker focused in one area with ability to address community concerns as well as the skill set to provide needed services for unhoused neighbors.

I continue to answer calls from the SPD residents and businesses regarding people that are either unhoused or experiencing mental health crises.

And I find ways to address whatever issues the community has while respecting the individual needs and autonomy.

Most times I tend to find a win-win when it comes to the community concerns that without a BIA outreach worker in the U district, normally amounts to a 911 call.

If I'm addressing anywhere between two and five, I know my position is freeing up the 911 system.

And most of the time, a social worker is better armed to address these community concerns anyway.

The SPD is starting a community policing bureau program that I've been helping them learn the ropes of the neighborhood, as well as helping this group with resources.

Thank you, David.

Doug Campbell is the last speaker.

So we will wrap up after Doug, unless somebody signs up before then.

Go ahead, Doug.

Hi, I'm Doug Campbell.

I founded and have operated Bulldog News on the Ave since 1983. I am here to support the three amendments proposed by Council Member Alex Peterson.

And I'd say despite what you're hearing from other speakers, there are important ways that our current BIA is not being successful at restoring us to being a inviting retail shopping district.

This is the most critical factor for most businesses on the ave.

And yet, we are still in a shabby state.

And we need to consider the fact that the UDP board, which was supposed to be term limited, has abolished its own term limits, and a third of the board now standing for re-election have terms which should have otherwise expired.

The shabby state of the ABB helps create a case for the shiny new ABB upzone, favored by many of the core group of the UDP board, and yet this upzone will not support the livelihoods of many of the ABB's current retailers.

I support the new BIA because only a successful BIA can turn things around through neighborhood marketing and other services aimed at our retailers, but we must recognize why the current BIA is partially failing.

Sorry to say.

Thank you.

Thank you, Doug.

Okay.

I do not see any other speakers signed up, so we will conclude the public hearing, public comment portion of this hearing.

and move on to discussion of the U District BIA and the amendments that we've been discussing or been hearing about.

So we've got Yolanda Ho from Council Central Staff to walk us through the amendments.

We also do have, I believe, we have Phillip Sip from OED if we have technical questions.

But Yolanda, please introduce yourself and proceed.

Yolanda Ho, Council Central Staff.

So I will be walking through both the first, the substitute bill that was attached to my memo, as well as the described three amendments sponsored by Council Member Peterson.

As for the amendments, I will do a brief description of each amendment and then give the floor to Council Member Peterson to speak to the amendment, if that sounds good to you all.

Okay.

So the substitute bill is a technical clarifying changes The intent was to kind of clean up the legislation.

I'll note some of the more notable changes were additional council findings regarding the COVID-19 emergency that was recommended by our law department.

We wanted to clarify some of the terminology used to calculate the assessment so it's a bit clearer in the legislation and also change the responsibility for contracting with the program manager from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to the Office of Economic Development as per our city policies that were adopted in 2016. Also just consolidated the seats held by business tenants so that there's a total of three seats for business tenants, two of which are tenants subject to a triple net lease.

So that's just a quick overview of the substitute bill.

As for amendment one, this would reduce the duration of the U-District BIA from 12 years to 10 years.

Chair Morales, I can address my amendments at the end of Yolanda's presentation, if that's all right, to present them holistically.

That's fine.

Sure.

OK, go ahead, Yolanda.

OK.

All right, so Amendment 2, there are two options, kind of depending on whether Amendment 1, which shortens the term of the BIA, is adopted.

So if Amendment 1 is adopted, then the committee should consider Amendment 2A, Program Manager Option 1. This would limit the contract term of the initial program manager, which is currently the U District Partnership, to one year before the Office of Economic Development is required to conduct a competitive selection process for the BIA's program manager, which would then be for a five-year contract.

Towards the end of this contract, OED would then run the process again to select the BIA's program manager for the four remaining years of the BIA.

Should the BIA be reauthorized, the organization serving as the program manager at that time would be allowed to serve as the interim program manager for one year.

So the intended effect of this is to essentially provide two five-year terms depending on if the BIA is reauthorized.

And this is if the BIA is for 10 years.

So if Amendment 1 is not adopted, the committee should then consider Amendment 2B, Program Manager Option 2. Similar to Option 1, this would limit the contract term of the initial program manager to one year.

The subsequent program manager contract terms are then adjusted to be six years followed by five years.

And again, the provision that the organization serving as a program manager at the time of reauthorization would be allowed to serve as the interim program manager for one year.

So in this case, we would have two six-year terms.

And Amendment 3 would limit the number of seats held by University of Washington on the BIA Advisory Board to 35% of the board, or a maximum of five seats, whichever number is lower.

I will note that the amendment, the version of amendment three that is attached to my memo was incorrect.

So there is a new version, version two that does not, so the amendment that was attached to my memo incorrectly adjusted the number, the percentage of rate payers from 80% that held seats on the board from 80% to 75%.

That was incorrect.

It should only, be the seats for the University of Washington.

So just as a note, the University of Washington currently holds five seats on the BIA's current board.

Without this limit, the UW could hold up to seven seats based on the 35% cap that I discussed last week during our committee because of the other provisions of the board.

due to the fact that there would be a minimum of 20 seats on the board, BUDA could then have seven seats.

So that is a quick walkthrough of all the amendments.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Okay, Council Member Peterson, would you like to speak to your amendments?

Thank you, Chair Morales.

And I want to take a step back here for the audience.

We have more people viewing today.

So I want to just take a step back and provide some high level comments and then get into the specifics of these amendments that are before us.

And as I understand it, Chair Morales, the motions to actually pass these amendments will occur next Wednesday, June 3rd.

Is that your...

That's right.

Today we'll discuss the amendments, but we won't actually vote on them until the next meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

So big picture, I want to thank several people who have been working really hard on this.

I'm very, very thankful to Council Member Morales as the chair of the committee for working with me to move ahead with this legislation, which is in District 4, the district I represent.

I'm grateful for the work from Yolanda Ho, who we just heard from, from our City Council Central staff.

Philip Sit and Bobby Lee of the Office of Economic Development have been very helpful, as has the City Attorney's Office.

And I want to thank all the small businesses who took the time to speak today about the BIA, a study completed by Peter Steinbrook.

confirmed that 65%, nearly two-thirds of businesses along the main street of the Ave in the U District are owned by women and people of color.

So I was really happy to see the Durkin administration put forward the legislation with the scope that includes preventing displacement.

Preventing displacement is now part of the economic development mission of this BIA if reauthorized to go forward.

The U District's a very special place.

We've got the world-class university there.

We've got a light rail station that's opening up.

We have the most diverse, one of the most diverse, best international selections of food in Seattle.

There's a lot of naturally occurring low-income housing in the U District, as well as rent-restricted low-income housing.

Many youth in the U District are experiencing homelessness, so there's a lot going on in the University District.

This is one of the reasons I'm a supporter of the Business Improvement Area being reauthorized.

Business Improvement Areas are positive economic development tools that keep districts clean and safe throughout our city.

The U District BIA funds a clean and safe program.

They've got the REACH program, assisting unsheltered and other high barrier individuals.

During the COVID, this COVID crisis, the BIA has been linking many of the small businesses to relief programs.

And despite all these benefits, there has been, over the last five years, a perceived imbalance of voices on the BIA ratepayer advisory board, particularly those small business owners that have triple net leases.

Triple net leases means they're paying the taxes, insurance, and common area maintenance.

It's all passed through to that small business owner.

And many of these small businesses have worked really hard to advocate for their community, both inside and outside the BIA.

So I wanted to make sure that BIA honors some of these concerns that have been raised over the last five years.

We need good governance, better representation, and preventing displacement.

So very happy to see the legislation that came down from Mayor Jenny Durkan.

had some improvements already in there in terms of preventing displacement being added to the economic development mission, reinstituting term limits of the members of the BIA advisory board, adding representation of those triple net lease businesses, and requiring a competitive request for proposal process for the program manager.

The existing program manager for the BIA is currently the University District Partnership, and they have had this program manager contract for the last five years.

So it's essentially been a sole source contract to the U District Partnership.

So let's talk about these amendments.

So the first, I support the substitute bill.

Thank you, Yolanda, for explaining that.

It is primarily technical in nature, the substitute bill.

The first amendment would alter the length of the BIA term.

So right now it's five years.

So my amendment would take it to 12 years.

So it would double it.

There was a lot of discussion today in the comments about we need a long-term BIA.

So this would be accomplishing that.

It's not the 12 years, but it's 10 years.

It's still doubling the length of the term.

We've heard concerns from some of the community that think The BIA should not be renewed or the BIA term should be only another five years.

I think that doubling it is more than reasonable.

The second amendment is about the RFP.

There was a lot of the talking points I heard from members today at the public hearing was saying we need RFP process every five years.

That's what these amendments are doing.

It would be five years and five years.

However, we need to get started on the RFP to actually have the Office of Economic Development do a request for proposals.

We have an expanded mission, which includes preventing displacement.

Preventing displacement's very important to me, and I know other council members as well.

So this is essentially grandfathering in the University District Partnership, which will have the sole source contract for six years, the past five plus another year, so that the Office of Economic Development can then issue the RFP.

The University District Partnership as the incumbent will be able to compete for that, then whoever wins that will have that contract for the next five years.

So it is, they are five-year increments, and it builds in the grandfathering the next time we reauthorize 10 to 12 years from now, so that there is that continuity.

The last amendment is simply to, the University of Washington makes a voluntary contribution to the BIA, has representation on the BIA ratepayer advisory board, this amendment simply preserves the existing situation where they would continue to have their five seats on the board, which is a significant representation from the university on this business district board.

And so they would continue to have that.

It just clarifies, because the BIA board might grow, it clarifies that it would be the lower of the 35% of the total for a University of Washington or five members.

And happy to answer questions about these amendments.

Thank you, Chair Morales.

Madam Chair, If I may, just because I'm not on Zoom, I'm hoping that you can just, I don't know how you want me to do this to tell you if I have questions or concerns, how we, I just, I don't want to just interrupt you.

That's what I'm trying to say here.

I will be happy to call on you now, Council Member Juarez.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

And in the future, what I'll do is I'll just text you like I do with the other council members and say, I have a question so I can get in the queue.

Thank you.

I want to thank Council Member Peterson and the community that came out with these concerns.

And I took detailed notes at the last committee hearing on May 20th about who was supporting, who wasn't, what their concerns were.

And I want to thank Council Member Peterson for kind of paring down some of the core issues that in the beginning weren't there, but now we've kind of pared them down to what the real issues are.

And what I could gather from today of the over 25 people that spoke, I think we only have three people, two of them being business owners, that support all three amendments.

And I understand that that isn't reflective of everybody in this district and what this means.

But I guess what my concern is, I just want to start off with, it's clear everybody supports the renewal of the BIA.

And where we have the rub, if you will, is the three amendments.

And some of these, I can't support at least at this juncture until we learn more and we vote.

I don't see the purpose of, I'll start with the RFP.

If, you know, I'm kind of old school, if it's not broke, then don't fix it.

And some people believe, I think they use the word shabby, and some people felt that, you know, you need, it isn't good governance in that the system that we have now doesn't work.

From my understanding and what I've learned and what I know to be a BIA, I really support intense local control.

I don't like another layer of bureaucracy and I don't want another process unless there's a need for one.

I'm also concerned that there are no other BIAs that have, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Council Member Peterson, that have another overlay of governmental intervention in having an RFP.

I just don't see the purpose of it.

and I followed it, and I want to thank, I think it was Phil who did a phenomenal PowerPoint last week on the OED, or from OED on the BIA and its whole history and why you have them and how they're community-based and what they provide.

I don't see a need for doing that.

I don't see a need for incurring or adding another governmental city, if you will, participation when they're already there, when OED already has a staff person dedicated and they're working with community members on all the issues that we heard last week and this week of the purpose of the BIA.

So I can't support another level of governmental participation or intervention, if you will, for an RFP.

I don't see the purpose of that.

I don't have a position yet on limiting the board with the University of Washington.

I'm still not, I have some idea of some of the numbers and the money that they do contribute, whether it's five members or five seats or 35%, I'll probably look to Council Member Peterson offline to get some more information.

And then on the First Amendment, the 12 to 10, again, I'm going back to what I know formally as legal counsel as well, why the whole purpose of having these BIAs and intense local control for people who are on the ground.

And I know that the BIA for the University of Washington, I believe, has been around since 1996. and I know how much money, where the money goes, what they're doing with it.

I just know that at its core, some of the lowest BIA started seven years and some of them would go into perpetuity.

I don't know what the magic is between 10 or 12. It doesn't make sense to me to, I know Council Member Peterson, you talked that what you've done is you've taken five and you've doubled it, so you pick 10. So I don't see the, the need for that.

I feel like it should stay where it's at, that it's working.

I know that you have a couple of business owners who stood up today and shared that they weren't happy with and have support the amendments and feel that this organization isn't accountable.

I don't know if that's an audit, maybe it's something different, but I don't want to politicize this issue for three people or three groups or three businesses because I know that there is a lot of issues about upzoning.

from the former council and what we dealt with.

And I'm really skeptical of the tyranny of the minority, particularly if we have an institution that's been standing since 1996. And quite frankly, I think it's been working.

I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but if we have room for improvement, I need to know where the flaws are, not just say I'm not happy with the current UDP.

And so that's where I stand now.

I don't see myself supporting amendment one.

I don't see myself supporting Let's see, the RFP, and I'm not sure where I'm at on the University of Washington board seat, whether it's 35% or five seats.

And again, I can talk to Councilmember Peterson offline.

And again, Councilmember Peterson, thank you for always being open and sharing your comments with me and your concerns.

And I look forward to working with you on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Councilmember Lewis has a question, but I would like just a little clarity.

I don't know if this is a question for Yolanda or for Philip, but my understanding is that it is typically the advisory board that manages the process of program manager contracting.

And this is the only program manager we've had for this BIA.

So maybe you can tell me in other situations, if rate payers are dissatisfied or if they want a different program manager, what is the process for them?

And what would it mean for OED to become responsible for this process?

And the reason I'm asking is because what I'm wondering subsequently is if this sets a precedent for OED managing a similar process if all the other BIAs decide that they want to follow suit.

Fair thing.

Could you guys all hear me?

Yes.

OK, great.

So to answer the first part of your question, as cited in the citywide BIA policies, the rate payer advisory board is required to hold a annual rate payers meeting, which is a public meeting.

They're obligated to vote upon the work plan and the budget for the following year, along with the status and the recommendation of the program manager.

Those three elements are voted upon by the rate payers, and then that serves as a recommendation to the city to enter into the contract with the program manager identified.

So that process happens annually for all the BIAs in Seattle.

Okay, and so there is already a process, but it is not managed, you know, there's not an RFP issued by OED to manage that process.

It's handled by the board.

That is correct.

And then OED along with FAS serves as a kind of a providing oversight and we attend these public meetings in order to tally the votes, hear public comments.

And then at that time, then we come back and agree or disagree to enter into a contract agreement with the program manager recommended to the city.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

So I just wanted to say generally here that the University District, while it's not in District 7, is a community that I'm extremely familiar with as a former undergrad at the University of Washington.

where I patronize many of the businesses on the app and continue to.

I know that it's a very unique and dynamic business district that is facing a lot of the challenges that a lot of the business districts around the city are seeing in terms of the displacement of small businesses.

in terms of challenges around crime, challenges around just the general kind of cleanliness of the neighborhood, which is a critical service BIA has provided.

I wanna really critically engage on these amendments that Council Member Peterson has brought forward, because I do think we need to have a conversation about making sure in constituting a new BIA, that we are carving out some space for the voices of the triple net lease holders and some of the other legacy businesses on the app that, you know, unless they do have a bigger role, these legacy businesses may not be there in a decade or in even five years.

And we need to make sure even though the BIA is not going to be a be-all end-all to prevent displacement and preserve the character of the business district, there are some mechanisms that the BIA can use and some things the BIA can do to really advance those common values that all of us hold.

So I guess what I'm signaling right now is I don't know exactly where the goalposts are going to be set, but I'm going to keep an open mind and I want to work with Councilmember Peterson now that these amendments are out there over the course of the next week here and beyond to really make sure that we're building something together that is going to advance our values and also respect, protect, and expand the services that the BIA has already been providing.

And I think that we can do that by all coming together and, you know, I respect Council Member Peterson's leadership on this and the issues that he has put on the table and forced this committee and our community to really take up and discuss.

And I think it's an overdue conversation and a very welcome one.

So I'm just signaling my intent, keep an open mind and continue to work with you on this over the next week or so and see what we can come up with as a committee.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Peterson, do you wanna respond?

Thank you.

Thank you colleagues for that, that input on the district BIA.

You know, having, you know, as the representative of district four, when I was a legislative aide, I actually worked on one of the prior renewals of the BIA.

And, you know, it was very small originally.

It was just part of the app that was in.

Now the BIA is, almost all of the university district.

It's a $1 million annual budget.

So I think it deserves to have, and with the expansion of the mission to prevent economic displacement, I think that it's beneficial for everybody to have a process where the program manager is having to be chosen among, rather than just a sole source contract for the RFP.

In terms of, you know, this, the RFP process is already in the mayor's legislation.

So there was support from it, from the executive.

You know, I don't, I don't know what the magic is to the 12 years.

I don't know where that came from.

That's completely unique in terms of that length of time for a BIA.

So doubling it seems reasonable to 10 years.

So I look forward to hearing more from my colleagues if they have more data on what's going on in District 4. I would love to hear that.

A lot of the speakers, you know, are on the BIA ratepayer advisory board already.

So I just want to be clear that, you know, it's hard for people to call in, you know, 930 in the morning they're running their businesses right now most of them so I do hope that there's some understanding that I do understand my district I understand what's what the needs are there in terms of what the process could be that's reasonable and I think that you know again with the economic that is what we really want to be focusing on and we want to make sure that organizations are poised to do that.

And I think that is a healthy process.

So I appreciate the comments and look forward to talking more about it.

Yes, Madam Chair, Council Member Wise?

Yes, go ahead.

My question for Council Member Peterson, and again, thank you.

I understand how passionate you are about representing your district.

So from District 5 to District 4, I get it.

Let me just ask you, and just be candid, I don't want to go on and on about whether or not I'm a Husky, because I'm not.

So hopefully that won't count against me.

Let me just ask you this.

Explain to me why you phrase this or talk about this being, if it's even nefarious to some degree, and correct me if I'm wrong, from my notes and my research, about this being a sole source contract.

Tell me what that concern is besides, obviously there's the obvious commentation like, oh, only one person is getting this contract all the time, therefore that's bad governance, and that's not representing everybody.

Can you expand a little bit more on this particular concern that you have?

And I understand that it is a million dollar budget and that we are looking at the economic displacement and we know that that's being more codified in policy as we move forward as a city, as we grow, particularly after HALA and the up zones and everything else.

So can you just give me, a little bit more information about your concern and what you've been hearing in your district, your businesses, but also, you know, this doesn't just stay in district four.

This will be citywide and other BIAs looking at this.

And I think the council, the council chair or madam chair brought this up too, you know, what would be the effect with other, if I understand, is there five other BIAs out there?

There's none in the north, and by the way, But can you focus on that and maybe what the effect is citywide, not just your district?

Sure, happy to.

Yolanda, is Yolanda still there to answer?

I'm here.

Also, Phillip is here too to help answer any questions regarding the impacts.

So one of the unique things about this business improvement area is the involvement of the University of Washington.

So are they are they a traditional rate payer or is there something different about their how they're defined in this.

Yeah the University of Washington and Philip correct me if I'm wrong but it is a voluntary rate payer so they do not have to pay in their specifically cited in the ordinance, in the legislation as a unique rate payer.

And so they have elected to pay a certain amount.

I think it's around 35% of the total assessment.

And so that they have selected the amount that they are contributing to the BIA, whereas other rate payers are assessed According to a specific formula that is described in the legislation.

And then the state law requires that.

ratepayers who want to petition for a BIA, that it's 60% of the ratepayers in terms of the assessed value, is how much of that 60% or 65% now, how much of that is the University of Washington approximately?

Philip, do you want to talk about the petitions?

Sure.

The current process as stated by the state RCW is 60% of the impacted rate payers are higher.

In the case of where a single entity represents more than 25% of the petitions, the threshold at our city local level increases to 65% of support.

In this current reauthorization, the University of Washington represents 34.89% of the petitions.

So that's the total calculations.

Keep in mind also governmental entities like the University of Washington, the Port of Seattle, for example, are generally exempt from BIA assessments unless they're in a competitive marketplace.

It was determined through the most recent creation of the 2015 U District BIA that given the size and the magnitude of both benefit and impacts that the universe creates, that they should be a rate payer in the district.

So that's how they were crafted into the original ordinance.

And last part, there are 10 BIAs in Seattle currently.

So the University of Washington makes up half of the 65% of support that's required?

for real?

Currently, yes.

Based on my opinion, yes.

So the reason I'm asking those questions, just clarifying that, is that that does make the BIA and the University District unique.

The generous involvement and contribution voluntarily of the University of Washington, that also gives them a certain number of board seats on the rate payer advisory board.

So having the program manager having it compete, it just makes more sense in this context.

I do want to thank you for that third amendment.

I appreciate, it's important to acknowledge the role that institutions play in our city.

They provide jobs, they provide important services to our community, but they shouldn't have a disproportionate influence on what happens and how our decisions about how our neighborhoods change and grow.

I'm eager to talk to you about that particular amendment and make sure that BIAs are set up with the purpose of giving smaller payers, smaller businesses a collective voice.

So I think that's something I'll wanna talk to you about.

Council Member Juarez, did you get your question answered?

No, what I'm getting at is, Number one, how this would affect the other BIAs, but for the fact that the UW is unique.

And Council Member Peterson, if you could just kind of walk me through what the whole, what I'm guessing at without, I'll just be candid, is that you believe a sole source contract is giving the University of Washington, as the chairwoman suggested, a disproportionate amount of representation.

Therefore, if you have an RFP process, this would negate that.

So can we focus on that sole source contract, UW's participation, and whether or not they have disproportionate representation?

And secondly, which I think we should think about, and I don't really care one way or another, could this mean that the University of Washington, since they're participating voluntarily, just completely withdraw from the BIA?

And if that's the concern, then if it's $1 million, does that mean that the UW is contributing anywhere between $300,000 and $400,000?

No.

Oh, thank you for that question.

So I think the concern is setting a precedent.

I was trying to address the concern about setting a precedent for the other BIAs.

I think the U District is unique because of the University of Washington's involvement, which is greatly appreciated, by the way, their involvement.

I think that And Phillip from OED can talk about this because I'm focused on what's happening in District 4, but I think that the University of Washington's involvement does make it unique.

In terms of the competitive process, I do also want to emphasize that I do think that there should be a competitive process when awarding these dollars.

at the beginning of your remarks when you mentioned that, that is an important principle, I believe.

And I think that's why it's put into the legislation, this legislation to begin with from the executive.

But Philip from OED perhaps could address how precedents are set with this legislation.

I thought that each piece of legislation would be unique in how it's reauthorized, but I think we do have a strong case to make that The involvement of a large institution is what makes it unique in District 4.

So we do believe that a creation of a new RP process in separation of the annual public meeting could create precedence.

Obviously, that's unknown.

Each ordinance are explicitly designed for the local needs and the local design process.

But in the case of a future renewal or a creation of a new BIA, I think one can make the case that future proponents and opposition can cite the U District example as whereas a BIA could be renewed or formed, and then a year later, an RP process under OED supervision would be enacted.

So I think that that precedence could occur based on whatever version of this legislation is passed.

But isn't it up to the, doesn't the city council ultimately approve the legislation?

Correct.

In terms of the proposed language that's transmitted to OED for review for legislation to be drafted, they could design or, uh, they could design at that initial stage to request RFP language to be inserted, or it could be a situation where a formation of a renewal where a separate group might request council to embed that language citing the U district BIA as a precedent.

Okay, thank you, Phillip.

Other questions or comments about the proposal?

I have one last follow-up, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Phillip, first of all, thank you.

I loved your PowerPoint last week.

It's one of the best I've seen in a long time, and I'm really big on PowerPoints with information, not a lot, and explain stuff with pictures, so thank you.

And you too, Bobby Lee.

How much does the University of Washington contribute to this BAA?

I have to pull up the exact figures, but if I am looking at my notes correctly, I think it's somewhere slightly north of $430,000.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, colleagues?

Okay.

Council Member Peterson, any final comments that you want to make about this?

Thank you, Chair Morales.

I just want to thank, again, central staff, Office of Economic Development, all the people who took the time out of their day to testify at the public hearing.

We're also getting a lot of emails as well.

People can still email UdistrictBIA at Seattle.gov, and we'll look forward to the discussion on June 3rd.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

Yes, as Council Member Peterson said, the next committee meeting on this topic will be June 3rd, 2 o'clock.

You can sign up on the Council website two hours ahead of time if you want to comment or go to the website, udistrictbia.seattle.gov.

Before we adjourn, colleagues, thank you to Yolanda and Phillip for being here and providing assistance to us to help us understand this.

The last thing I want to do, colleagues, yesterday my staff circulated a proclamation recognizing Pride Asia Day.

And so as chair of the Economic Development Committee, I want to ask for your support before we adjourn in signing this proclamation.

So I will that now.

I do want to stand with the city to raise the pride flag.

I'll be doing that on Monday and I'd like to bring from the council a proclamation for pride month.

I'm honored to stand with my neighbors and my community to celebrate and remember the continuing struggle for visibility, just like the fight for visibility and against criminalization at Stonewall in 1969 sparked with the resistance from black, brown, and trans members of the Pride community.

As a former member of the Seattle Human Rights Commission, it's important that we recognize the diversity within our communities and not merely recognize the communities as a monolith.

During this pandemic, we're reminded about the impact of our shared struggle and experience.

We were elected to bring the voices and perspectives of our communities to City Hall to correct the historical wrongs and not to perpetuate them.

That's why today I'm asking my colleagues to join me in recognizing May 31st as Pride Asia Day.

Pride Asia was founded in 2012 to celebrate, empower, and nurture the multicultural diversity of the LGBTQ community through the Asian, excuse me, Asian Pacific Islander lens.

Before I ask Lakeisha to call the roll about affixing your signature, do colleagues have any questions or comments about the proclamation?

Okay, Lakeisha, please call the roll and colleagues, if you'd indicate, please, if you would like your signature added to the proclamation.

Council Member Juarez.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Morales.

Yes.

Terrific.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

I appreciate it.

And I'm looking forward to helping raise the flag on Monday.

And I want to thank the API community and the LGBTQ community for bringing the proclamation and look forward to sharing that with you.

OK.

Thank you.

Yes, this concludes the May 27, 2020 meeting of the Community Economic Development Committee.

Thanks for coming, everybody, and for sharing your comments.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Peterson.