Okay.
Good afternoon.
This is a meeting of the Public Asset and Native Communities Committee.
The date is December 1st, 2020, and the time is 2 o'clock p.m.
I'm joined by Council Member Hobo, Council Member Peterson, and Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you for being here.
Council Member Deborah Juarez, Chair of the Committee.
And let's do the call to order.
And now we'll move on to approval of the agenda.
If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.
I will go to the chair's report.
Welcome to the final meeting of the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee of 2020. We have 14 items on the agenda.
Agenda item one is an appointment to the Seattle Indian Service Commission.
That is Mr. Michael Reichert, Sr.
Agenda items two to 12 are appointments to the Seattle Center Advisory Commission.
Director Nellis is present and he will have five minutes to speak to these 11 items.
The agenda was published last week, so we've all had a chance time to review each item or the actual packets of the applicants.
There will be one vote on all 11 appointments.
Upon completion, we will transition into agenda item number 13 regarding Seattle Center, where Director Nelums will present on Council Bill 119664. This is legislation to provide flexibility for the Seattle Repertory Theater in their contract during the time of COVID-19.
I believe there's a PowerPoint presentation and also in the record, the facility and use occupancy agreement.
And finally, agenda item 14, the Seattle Parks Department will present on Council Bill 119746 to execute an amendment to the Sandpoint Tentacenter concession agreement.
Superintendent Jesus Aguirre will present on that.
I believe Councilman Peterson will present an updated amendment with proposed substitute, which is also attached to your materials.
With that presentation on agenda item 14, there is a PowerPoint.
I'm sure you all had an opportunity to look at the fiscal note and summary, and then the amendment to the concession agreement.
So at this time, we'll move to public comments.
So let's open the remote public comment period.
I ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to operate this system.
It remains the strong intent of the Seattle City Council to have public comment regularly included on meeting agendas.
However we reserve the right to end or eliminate this public comment period 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 are able to conduct our necessary business I will moderate the general public comment period in the following manner.
Public comment period for this meeting is up to five minutes, and each speaker will be given two minutes.
The clerk, Degeen Kamkar, today will call on two speakers at a time and in the order in which you registered onto the online sign-up list.
If you have not yet registered to speak, what you would like to, you can sign up before at the end of this public comment period by going to the council's website at Seattle.gov slash council.
public comment link is also listed on today's committee agenda.
As you all know once the speaker's name is called the staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that is their turn to speak.
The speaker must also touch star six on their phone to unmute themselves after their name is called.
Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.
As a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda.
Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.
Once you hear the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comment.
If speakers do not end their comment at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.
Once you have 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 Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.
I'm sorry, listening options listed on the agenda.
So at this time, we will begin public comment.
And this period is now open.
Negin, will you call on our speakers, please?
Or how many speakers do we have, Negin?
We have two speakers signed up.
OK, great.
Call both names, and then we'll hear from them.
We have Ed Braunston and then David Haynes.
Ed Braunston, if you want to go ahead and press star six, we'll begin.
Hi, folks.
Thank you, Nagina.
Can I be heard now?
I hope so.
Thank you.
I'm here to speak in favor of item number 14 and general terms on the agenda.
I'm Ed Braunston and for the past 24 years, I've served as executive director with the Outdoor Straw Foundation.
Many of you know, but others may not, that Outdoors for All is a locally-based nonprofit based at Magnuson Park that enriches the lives of thousands of children and adults with disabilities throughout the recreation.
Since Tennis Center Sandpoint developed their community and recreation center in the park, they've been a positive partner at Magnuson, which is also where we operate.
I know of Tennis Center Sandpoint's advocacy not only for residents in the park to have access to physical fitness and social connections that come from learning to play tennis, They also know of Tennis Center Sandpoint's advocacy for Access Tennis Seattle which promotes wheelchair tennis.
Outdoor Straw welcomes the idea in general terms that Building 41 a former gas station on the former U.S.
Naval Station Puget Sound at Sandpoint that's a mouthful could become a welcome center for the parks.
We would welcome the opportunity to help lead or collaborate towards this goal particularly given its proximity to our plan for next door $11 million renovation of the historic building 18 firehouse, also based at Magnuson Park.
A good friend of mine, a US Army veteran, who has been involved in Outdoors for All, benefiting from our adaptive and rehabilitation program, said to me, you know what?
Kindness costs nothing.
He's so right.
So thank you, council members and staff, for your service to our city.
Thank you for the kindness that you are fostering.
And thank you for helping foster a positive community place, which Magnuson Park is. to our overall community.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ed.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for being such an asset to our community.
We really appreciate it.
Who's next, Nageen?
Next is David Haynes.
He's been listed as non-present, though I want to confirm with IT.
Yes, we do not see that caller.
Seems that we have no other people signed up.
That will end our public comment period.
It's now closed.
And we will move to item D, which is our items of business.
Number one is the, I'll have, it's the appointment, the reappointment to the Seattle Indian Service Commission of Michael Reichert.
And again, can you read that into the record?
Number one, appointment 01574, reappointment of Michael L. Reichert as a member of Seattle Indian Services Commission Governing Council for a term to November 30th, 2022.
Thank you, Nageen.
I shall present this appointment today.
Mr. Michael Reichert Sr. is seeking reappointment to the Seattle Indian Service Commission.
This governing council is a public development authority, a PDA, between King County and Seattle and was formed to carry out programs to expand housing and job opportunities.
Seattle Indian Service Commission is currently administering a housing assessment to improve the overall living conditions of American Indians and Alaska Natives in King County.
Mr. Reichert's extensive experience with Catholic community services, as well as his management experience in social services, housing, advocacy, make him an ideal candidate to continue working on this council.
And I should add that I've known Mr. Reichert since I was in high school.
So he's a big asset to Indian country and what we've done with tribes, particularly in housing, advocacy, You name it.
So I'm really glad that we're looking to reappoint Mr. Michael Riker Sr. back to the Seattle Indian Service Commission.
I support his reappointment.
Are there any questions?
Seeing none, I move the appointment that we recommend confirmation of appointment 01574. Can I have a second?
Second.
Second.
Thank you.
The motion has been moved and seconded.
If there's no further discussion, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation.
Councilmember Juarez?
Aye.
Councilmember Peterson?
Aye.
Councilmember Herbold?
Yes.
Councilmember Mosqueda?
Aye.
Councilmember Juarez, we have four in favor.
Great, so the motion carries and the committee recommends City Council confirm the appointment of Mr. Michael Reichert, appointment number 01574. Thank you.
Let's move on to items 2 to 12, which are all appointments to the Seattle Center Advisory Commission.
So what we're going to do is, Nageen is going to read items 2 to 12 into the record.
Those are 11 appointments.
And then we'll move them all at once.
And then we will invite Director Nehlems to speak to these appointments and the reappointments.
So I'll let you go ahead and do that first, Nageen.
Go ahead.
Agenda item two, appointment 01700, reappointment of Gloria Connors as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2021. Agenda item three, appointment 01701, reappointment of Todd Lieber as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2021. Agenda item four.
appointment 01702, reappointment of Will Ludlam as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2021. Agenda item five, appointment 01703, appointment of Michael George as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2022. Agenda item 6, appointment 01704, appointment of Koichi Kobayashi as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2022. Agenda item 7, appointment 01705, reappointment of Mark F. Dieter as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2022. Agenda item 8, appointment 01706, reappointment of Donna Moody as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2022. Agenda item 9, appointment 01707, appointment of John Olenski as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2023. Agenda item 10, appointment 01708, appointment of Brian E. Robinson as member of Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2023. Appointment 01709, the reappointment of Holly D. Golden as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2023. And then agenda item 12, appointment 01710, reappointment of Sarah C. Rich as member of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission for a term to September 28, 2023. Thank you, Nagin.
So we have 11 appointments, well actually we have 11, of the 11, 7 are reappointments.
So Director Nellems, can you please speak to these appointments, reappointments, and introduce yourself for the record?
And anyone else who's going to be with you today?
Okay, thank you.
It's just me for this segment.
I'm honored to be here.
I am Robert Nelms, director of Seattle Center, and it is a great joy of mine to have 11 appointments in front of you for Seattle Center Advisory Commission.
Our advisory commission is a great group of people who provide direct feedback, advice, consulting, and they actually roll up their sleeves and help deal with a lot of the issues here at Seattle Center.
They've established policies, guidelines, and they will submit to this committee and the city council a regular report on the progress that Seattle Center is making.
So the fact that seven of these members are folks who are currently on the Advisory Commission and are being reappointed are great because they've been with us for a while and they're willing to continue to volunteer and to help us.
And then we have four new members who are going to bring new energy, new thoughts, and new perspectives to the commission if you agree with their appointments.
And so if you'd like, Council Member Juarez, I can just go down each one and just give you a couple of bullet points on each person, or how do you want me to do this?
Well, actually, that would be kind of nice.
I know there's a lot here and I'm familiar with the seven reappointments, but not the four.
And we had I had a chance to go through the packets this morning.
But if you want to briefly go through them for my colleagues and the viewing public, that'd be great.
Thank you, Mr. Thank you.
OK.
Well, let me start with, I'll just go down the list, the reappointment of Gloria Connors.
And I think it's important that I'm gonna just give you just a, not a lot, but a little background about why it's important that these folks are on the Seattle Center Advisory Commission, because what they do in real life is going to be beneficial to us as we look forward to coming out of COVID and starting to social gather and doing events and so forth again.
Gloria Connors is an event producer.
She is someone who has worked with us on numerous events from New Year's Eve to Bumper Shoot to other things.
But she's someone who understands the business and the needs of our producers, which means that she helps us look at how we present the campus, how we set up rates, how we provide support, how we do infrastructure that could help enable us to do even more events, et cetera.
So she brings a perspective that no one else on the commission has because she does this for a living.
Todd Lever.
is a associate principal at the Seneca Group.
He's someone who's currently the chair of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission, and he not only has that project perspective and understands development, master planning, all of those types of things.
He's doing those things for Amazon.
But he's also a board member of the Seattle Center Foundation.
So he's our bridge between the Seattle Center Advisory Commission and the Seattle Center Foundation.
And he brings those two groups together.
And the closer they come together, the more support and advocacy we have for Seattle Center.
Will Ludlum is a PR expert.
He's the president of Weaver, Shadwick and West.
He is a phenomenal marketer, brand developer, etc.
And he helps us with not just our message, our story, our branding, but making sure that as we're doing things, we're doing things not just for the right reasons, but we'll be able to tell those stories so that people understand what those reasons may be.
And he also helps us bring in others to the conversation.
The appointment of Michael George, he would be one of our new members.
He's a commercial real estate consultant at Kidder Matthews.
He lives downtown.
He has a couple of young kids, and he's a co-founder of Parents for a Better Downtown Seattle, as well as a member of numerous boards throughout our community.
He's someone who cares deeply about the downtown community.
He cares deeply about Seattle Center and what it can do to enhance that.
and he will be an outstanding new member of our commission.
Kobayashi, excuse me, I always mess that up.
I apologize to Kobayashi again, but he's a phenomenal urban and urban designer and landscape architect.
He's done projects all over the world.
He's done projects in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, Hong Kong, Dubai, Japan.
So he's going to bring a critical eye to the campus.
And as we do capital projects, major redevelopments, as we start to think about how we enhance the campus, his eye and his expertise and his experience will enable him to bring a lot of great insight to how we move things forward.
the reappointment of Mark Dieter.
He's a philanthropic leader in our community.
He's been the head of three different philanthropic organizations.
And his backstory is that he has roots that go back to Seattle Center, all the way back to his grandfather, who helped bring the World's Fair here.
Mark is the vice chair of the commission and someone who is just, he sees this as a place that his family helped create and he has a lot of ownership in it and he brings a lot to the table.
The reappointment of Donna Moody.
I hope all of you know Donna.
Donna does all sorts of things.
She's my favorite restaurateur at Marjory's.
Donna goes all the way back with us to the master planning process that we went through.
She was on the committee that former Mayor Nichols appointed way back when.
And ever since then, she's been a member of the Advisory Commission, and she continues to want to be a part of Seattle Center.
She sees Seattle Center as a very democratic space, a space that our community needs, and she wants to make sure that it is open and accessible to everyone in our community and that they have the ability to enjoy that.
John Olinsky, this will be an appointment.
He's an architectural building envelope consultant and he basically has some historical chops and will bring to us the ability to make sure as we talk about redevelopment.
If we talk about major projects and major maintenance, et cetera, how do we enhance the campus that we have and how do we make sure that we can rehabilitate the existing and historical buildings on our campus?
That's what he does for a living and he will bring that expertise to the Seattle Center Commission.
Ryan Robinson, he's a real estate pro, founded a company with his dad and he does real estate and finds housing for folks who need it.
He's a great member of our community.
He started Save Our Sonics way back in 2006, and I'm pretty sure that virtually every council member has met Brian because that's how he rolls.
I've been friends with him from way back when, and I think that he will He brings a perspective about the larger community.
He brings a perspective about people whose voices aren't at the table.
You look at him, and you may not recognize that, or you may not see that.
But he will always talk about who's not here and how do we get their voices heard.
And so I just love the energy that he will bring.
And he will be on my case and on your case until we have Sonics back here in Seattle.
He doesn't need to be on my case about that.
He knows that.
I know Brian.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I hope he's watching.
Yes, he will be here.
He's something else.
I love him to death.
And then the reappointment of Holly Golden.
She is a land use partner at Hillis Clark Martin and Peterson attorney there.
She also, you know, lives nearby, visits Seattle Center, but, you know, she brings a land use and legal perspective to the commission as we think about, you know, how we, as we start to navigate things like what will we do eventually with the site for KCTS or will we ever have an opportunity to redevelop Memorial Stadium?
These things all will be right in her wheelhouse as we've talked about land use, etc.
And so she brings that expertise to the commission.
And then the reappointment of Sarah Rich.
Sarah is a marketing pro.
I mean, she likes to downplay that now because she's working part-time as a consultant because she's really a full-time mom right now.
But she's been the marketing retention manager at the Seattle Times.
She's done digital marketing manager at Retani.
She's just a joy.
And she was part of a strategy that I embarked on years ago, where we got fabulous Get Engaged members.
to come on board for their one year with the commission.
And then Sarah was one of the first that we asked to just stay and be a regular commissioner because she brought that much value to Seattle Center.
So those are our 11 appointees.
Like I said, I couldn't be prouder of them.
They're just great people.
I'm really glad you went through those.
I forgot we had worked with a couple of these members on a lot of different issues.
I'm really glad on the reappointment pieces particularly when we were going through the reimagining of Seattle Center, Memorial Stadium, NHL, OBG, and all these folks.
And they're all the neighborhood, a lot of them live in the neighborhood as well.
Great.
So with that, is there anything else you want to add, Mr. Nelson, before I ask my colleagues if they have anything to add?
Oh, no.
Like I said, I couldn't be more proud or honored to be submitting these nominees for appointments.
Colleagues, is there anything any of my colleagues would like to add to any of these appointments from number 2 to 12, 11 appointments?
Madam Chair?
Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to express my appreciation for all of the individuals who are willing to serve and especially want to reiterate the comments that were just made about the importance of folks who are continuing to re-up their time, their re-appointments.
And notably, Holly Golden has been a tremendous asset to this council as we've thought through some really tough policy decisions in front of us.
So I just wanted to say thanks to her publicly.
I'm really glad you gave her a shout out, because I was going to, then I didn't want to play favorites.
But I'm really glad she's going to be back on there.
We've worked with her in the last four years on all kinds of stuff, including on SDCI stuff as well.
So thank you for that, Councilor Mosqueda.
Anyone else?
OK, hearing none, I move the committee recommend confirmation of all 11 items, appointments, 01700 to 01710. Do I have a second?
Second.
Did I get a second?
Yes, second.
My vice chair, did he use a second?
The motion has been moved and seconded.
No further discussion.
Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee on the vote?
Councilmember Warren?
Aye.
Councilmember Peterson?
Aye.
Councilmember Herbold?
Yes.
Councilmember Mosqueda?
Aye.
Councilmember Warren, we have yes and four yeses.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
The motion carries and the committee recommends the City Council affirm appointments 01700 to 01710. All right.
Moving right along, let's go to item number 13. This is an ordinance relating to the Seattle Center Occupancy Agreement with the Seattle Repertory Theater.
Negin, you want to read them to the record and then I'll say a few words?
Yep.
Agenda item 13, Council Bill 119964, an ordinance relating to the Seattle Center Department authorizing the Seattle Center Director to execute the third amendment to the Facility Use and Occupancy Agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Repertory Theater.
Thank you.
Mr. Nillums, I understand that you are going to present on this with your PowerPoint and you have a representative from the Seattle Repertory Theater and you have some other folks you might want to introduce.
You want to go ahead and take us away?
Oh, there's Vanita.
Sure.
Hi.
Well, again, I'm Robert Nelms as director of Seattle Center, and a member of our team, Julia Leavitt, is here.
Julia did all the heavy lifting on this.
So if I present, just keep looking at her and saying thank you.
And then we have Anita from Seattle Rep.
Great.
So are you going to just take us through this PowerPoint, or who's in?
Oh, Nagin's doing it.
OK.
Um, good to see you, Julia.
You too.
So go ahead.
Yep.
That's up.
Yep.
So I won't spend a great deal of amount of time on this, but there's just as background for the Seattle Rep, it's one of the oldest theaters and it is the oldest theater on the campus.
And it's been here since right after the World's Fair.
It's, I think it's really important to know that it was kind of, even though the theater was here, the actual rep itself was, when it was built, was like the first new facility constructed on the campus since the World's Fair, and also the first public-private partnership.
And I know sometimes people kind of say, you know, without public-private partnerships, there would be no resident organizations or facilities at Seattle Center.
virtually everything that's here, other than the original structures, are from public-private partnerships.
And the Seattle Rep started that entire process.
So we can move to the next slide.
I kind of skip over why we're doing this.
Everyone understands COVID has kind of run rampant through a lot of different things.
This is a different approach here with this third amendment for the Seattle Rep Facility Use and Occupancy Agreement.
This legislation will authorize the director, me, to execute this amendment.
And basically, when you boil it down, this is what's going to happen.
One, there's a fund that has been created, the SRT Replacement Trust Fund.
What we're going to say is, okay, rep, you don't have to make your contributions to that fund in 2019 or 2020. That fund has over $800,000 in it.
And then it will also allow the Seattle Repertory Theater to draw upon that fund to help with their operating expenses.
That fund was set up way back when we negotiated this agreement, in actually Amendment 1, I believe.
and it was solely designated for replacement maintenance and the repair of the theater.
And so it could not be used for anything like operating expenses.
Well, with COVID, you know, the replacement and maintenance and repair of the theater was kind of a secondary thing.
Survival is the initial and the most important thing.
And so this amendment will allow the Seattle Repertory Theater temporary condition that will extend through June 30th of 2022 that would allow them to draw on that Seattle Repertory Theory Replacement Trust Fund and use it for operating expenses purposes.
I think it's important to note a couple things.
Go to the next slide, please.
I think it's important to know that the trust fund is the Seattle Repertory Theaters.
This is managed by them in cooperation with the city.
The lease basically says that they have to use it for certain things, and the city has to approve it.
And no money is being used in this at all.
No city money, I should say, is being used at all for this.
because back in 2009, the city stopped making contributions to this fund as part of Amendment 2. And so Seattle Repertory Theater, as part of this, will maintain a minimum balance of $160,000.
They will be able to draw down about $700,000 if they so choose.
And then they will be required to reimburse the funds or any funds used for operating purposes as they go forward.
And so I think this is, in our world, this is kind of a way of using existing funds in a different way and allowing people to survive in a way that would be beneficial to not only them, but to our community, because the rep will be there and will be standing tall again.
And in our world, this is something that, because the rep agrees that they will reimburse the fund over time, this is something that is a win-win for the Seattle Center, a win-win for the city, and a win-win for a Seattle rep. And with that, I'll ask Julia if I missed anything and she would like to add anything, because like I said, she did all the work.
Hey, Julia.
Thanks.
I want to apologize for my winter attire.
We have our windows open here in the armory for air circulation.
It's cold.
I was going to ask about your hat.
I'm not going to lie.
I was looking at your hat.
And once you put a hat on, you can't take it off because your hair, anyway.
So I think Robert covered everything really well.
I just wanted to clarify, there was one point, I think, where he mentioned that the city had stopped making contributions into the fund in 2009. There's actually two separate funds.
So the city has a fund that it holds, which is city money.
And this SRT fund, as Robert said, is a completely separate fund that only holds Seattle Rep money.
And that's all.
Okay.
Yeah, we stopped making a contribution to the city fund in 2009. So thank you.
I just wanted to make sure you gave Vanita an opportunity to talk about Seattle Rep's perspective.
No problem.
Thank you.
I just want to extend my thanks to Robert and Julia.
It's so helpful.
I'm so grateful for this option available to us.
Just clarifying again, this is Seattle Reps Fund that have been put aside over the last several years.
I've been here only a year, but my predecessor has been really wonderful in putting these funds aside.
And they were set aside for capital-related projects But today is a different world.
We are in the process of just figuring out how to pay our next payroll.
And I think these funds would be extremely helpful as we plan to navigate through this crisis, which is expected to last at least another year from today.
We are hopeful it'll be seven months or so, but we still have a long way to go.
And we couldn't appreciate more you allowing us to do this.
Thank you, Lenina.
Is that all on your team?
Because I want to let Councilor Herbold speak.
Yep.
Councilor Herbold.
Thank you.
As I understand the agreement, it addresses not just the 2020 contribution to the fund, but the plan 2019 contribution.
And just wanting to hear a little bit more about whether or not that is an indicator of a financial difficulty that is separate from the pandemic and whether or not that there are concerns that that there might be an outcome where maintenance might be delayed that would have otherwise been paid out of the fund?
And if so, what maintenance might be delayed?
Julia, you want me to answer a couple of those things?
I'm going to ask you the same.
Do you want to go ahead?
Sure.
I can answer both questions.
So the 2019 contribution into the fund was expected to happen in June 2020, right in the middle of the pandemic.
So really it was, we were right in the middle of a crisis already.
So it has nothing to do with the prior year.
As a matter of fact, we reported a slight surplus in our financials for the fiscal 20, for fiscal 19 as well.
So there are no concerns there in terms of issues with the financial instability of the organization.
The second thing is, as Robert mentioned, we have $160,000 set aside for maintenance of capital projects.
And I went back to our operations team before Julia and I put these numbers together to determine what projects are coming up our way the next couple of years.
And that's the good number that we could come up with.
So I don't think anything serious is going to be put aside.
And again, I want to highlight that this is only in the case of, you know, we can't meet payroll.
We're trying our best through our fundraising efforts and others to to keep us going and not tapping into this.
Yeah, I hope that helps answer.
Thank you so much, it does.
Good.
Is there any other discussion or any other questions from my colleagues?
OK, well, remember, whereas Madam Chair, Councillor Mosqueda, go ahead.
Thank you.
Just to put a finer point on it, can you reiterate for us the financial implications for the Seattle Rep if this doesn't pass today, just so we have it in context of the urgency?
Sure.
So we are right now planning to, we are in the process of budgeting for our reopening.
And we have, I would say, a gap of about several million dollars to a relaunch.
Obviously, some of that would be coming through fundraising.
But timing of fundraising cash is very, somewhat unpredictable, which is understandable.
So I would say it's not, it's something that would come in really handy for us over the next seven to 12 months before we actually come back into business and are able to sell our tickets.
Great.
Thank you so much.
Yeah.
So this is just our amendment, like you were saying earlier, to the 1996. Mm-hm.
Yeah.
Mm-hm.
I was thinking the last two came out, but they didn't.
This is from way back.
Yeah.
Just double-checking the summary.
Yeah, our agreements go through, I think, till 2026 right now.
Yeah.
Yeah, I was just looking at that now.
Yeah, OK.
Is there anything else from my colleagues?
Great, thank you.
Chair?
Oh, thank you so much.
I just want to thank Director Nellens for working with the tenants of the Seattle Center campus, particularly the our arts organizations.
It's really important that we do everything that we can while also considering the city's financial outlook.
to ensure that they come back stronger than ever.
They're such an important part of our regional economy, as well as the heart and spirit of our city.
So thank you so much.
Thank you.
I really appreciate this.
And you have no idea how much the artists are thankful.
We are launching a couple of online and streaming events and everything is gonna work out eventually.
We just have to get through this.
Well, thank you.
Well, and I'd just like to thank you and the Council Member Juarez also, and all of the council members for your continued support for the arts and cultural institutions in our city.
I tell people all the time, if we didn't have those, I wouldn't want to live here.
So thank you.
Well, big shout out to Council Member Herbold and former Council Member Licata.
Councilman Herbold has always been a big promoter of the arts and the scene and the theater and the music.
So thank you, Councilman Herbold, and I'm glad you're on this committee.
Not that you're not important, Councilman Peterson, I'm just saying.
We thank him, too.
Yeah, we thank everybody.
I'm going to do a little Councilman Mosqueda here.
I want to thank everybody for everything.
Okay, so anyway, let's move.
Thank you.
So I move the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 119964. Can I get a second?
Second.
Thank you.
The motion is moved and seconded.
I'm guessing there's no further discussion.
Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation?
Council Member Juarez?
Aye.
Council Member Peterson?
Aye.
Council Member Herbold?
Yes.
Council Member Mosqueda?
Aye.
Council Member Juarez?
That's four in favor, none opposed.
That means the motion passes and the committee recommends City Council pass Council Bill 119964. Thank you.
Thank you.
Are you leaving, Mr. Dellums?
Leaving where?
Oh, this meeting?
Yes, yes.
Bye-bye.
You don't have to go.
If you want me to stay, I will.
It's good seeing you and Julia.
It's good seeing Vanita Gupta as well.
Yeah, well, thank you.
And it's good seeing people smile.
So thank you for having some positive things.
Thank you.
OK, so we're going to go into item number 14, which is Council Bill 119746. This regards parks and recreation and amended concession agreement, which we've had an opportunity to review with the Tennis Center at Sandpoint.
Again, can you read it to the record?
Agenda item 14, Council Bill 119746, an ordinance relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation, authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute an amendment to the amended and restated concession agreement with Tennis Center at Sandpoint LLC at Warren G. Magnuson Park.
Thank you.
We have some presenters here.
Jesus, you know what to do.
introduce yourself and your team, and then we'll move forward.
Great.
Thank you, Councilmember.
Thanks to all the Councilmembers.
I have to say it's a little refreshing to be here transacting some regular business that isn't pandemic-related, so I really appreciate that opportunity.
And so I will kick us off, but with me we have Brian Judd, who is the manager of Magnuson.
Park, in addition to many, many other Hat City wares.
And then we also have Scott Marshall from the Tennis Center.
So I'll kick us off, and then the two of them will take the lead in the discussion.
But what we're here today is to request an amendment to an agreement that was originally signed between the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Tennis Center at Sandpoint back in 2010. That agreement resulted in the Tennis Center being built at Magnuson Park, and then it was opened in 2013. So the Tennis Center, and I'm assuming most of you have been by there, but provides tennis programs for all ages and including, as with all of our other tenants, provides public benefits as part of the agreement that we're looking to amend.
And we'll get into more detail there when Brian and Mr. Marshall go through the presentation.
This amendment essentially is related to building 41, which you heard Mr. Bronson testify as well on, and this is a former gas station that's sort of adjacent to the Tennis Center property, and of course adjacent to the new property, that new building that Outdoors for All is going to build.
This originally was going to be a pro shop for the Tennis Center, but since that agreement was signed in 2010, a lot has changed.
have discovered that the cost for renovating that building is much higher than we expected, and things got much more complicated when the Cent Point Historic District was established just a year after the agreement was signed.
So in addition, you know, as Ed mentioned, we've gotten significant community interest to redevelop that building, and some folks want us to think about redeveloping it into a visitor center.
So we're asking to amend the agreement to take that building out of the agreement.
That would allow us to pursue other plans, other options for that.
The agreement also has an extension or an option for an additional five-year extension to the original agreement that we have with the tenant center.
So as I mentioned, we've done a lot of, there will be some discussion about public benefit and I will say, and I appreciate all the work of this committee and help supporting us and guiding us in our work on public benefits.
And we've got a new policy in place, we've got better reporting mechanisms, we're much more transparent in terms of the public benefits that come to the public through these agreements and really are looking to ensure that we're responsive and provide access to our community members.
So part of this agreement, you'll note, you'll see there's some free and reduced cost programming.
And we're posting those on our website so folks understand what's available.
And we're holding people accountable, frankly, and I'm not picking it all on the tenant center, but just generally all of our agreements, we've gotten better at holding folks accountable to ensure that the things that folks said they were going to do, we're actually able to do that.
So all of that is reflected in this amendment agreement.
I really want to thank all of you for your guidance on the committee, as well as Tracy Ratcliffe, who's been really supportive and helpful in helping us work through all of this.
With that, I'm going to turn it over to Brian, and he's going to run us through the presentation and give you a little more background.
Well, before Brian kicks off here, we got Tracy Ratcliffe with us, Ratcliffe with us.
And I'm guessing Mr. Marshall is from the tennis group.
And Brian, who we've worked with before, will be walking us through this.
But hats off to you, too, Jesus.
In the last four or five years, you've really worked with us and Tracy and really bolstering the public benefits piece on the offsetting on public assets and when we actually want to put the public back in public, access, equity, all of those issues.
I have to say from when we started back in 16-15 to where we're at now, I think we've come a long way and a lot of that has been under your leadership, so thank you for that.
Thank you.
So you're handing this off to Mr. Judd to walk us through the PowerPoint?
Correct.
Brian?
Great.
Are you able to see my screen here?
Yes.
Great.
Let me just put it in slideshow format.
There we go.
Hi, everybody.
As Jesus mentioned, I'm Brian Jed.
I am the manager out of Magnuson Park, amongst a few other things.
And Scott Marshall is with me here.
He's the general manager of the Tennis Center.
Welcome, Scott.
And we are here to talk about proposing an amendment to their concession agreements.
I first want to center everybody about kind of what we're talking about here.
So on the left here is a zoom in on the Magnuson Park map.
And you'll see that the Tennis Center Sandpoint is right here.
And the Building 41, the old gas station of the Naval Air Station is right next door.
And that gives you a sense of what we're talking about here on the map.
I also want to just point out the Tennis Center's location to all of these fields here to the right and kind of down to the south there.
That's going to be a key point for their public benefit that they have kind of outlined in their agreement.
And to the right is the footprint of the tennis center itself showing the two indoor courts.
And so just so folks can kind of see where it's at in the park and the relevance in terms of that footprint.
It's 10 indoor courts, just to clarify.
Oh, I meant two indoor buildings.
You're right, 10 indoor courts.
Thank you.
Is the Brigg Outdoors for All, is that their building?
They're a part of the brig, yes.
There's a few tenants that are in the brig, yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
And Scott, why don't you go ahead and take the lead on this PowerPoint or this slide to give a little background on your business and how you got started with Parks.
Sure.
Yeah, thank you for the intro, Brian.
I'm happy to be here.
There's a lot of history with this project.
I mean, there was community interest to develop a tennis center, you know, 50 years ago.
really myself and my business partner, Johan Tan, you know, we really got involved in the later end of that process.
But, you know, this is 16 years of involvement in this project for Johan and I.
We started, we made a proposal to the parks department in 2005 to bring a tennis center to the park.
And it took us eight years from the time of that proposal to actually open the tennis center.
And now we're in our eighth year of operations Clearly there was a community need for this.
I mean, the demand has exceeded our expectations.
We're probably have one of the highest occupancy rates of any tennis center in the nation.
So it's, you know, I think one of our greatest challenges is to, you know, balance all of this demand and making sure we offer programs for all ages and skill levels.
You know, it was, It was quite a struggle to get this point.
I should mention that as part of our history.
We operated for three years inside of one of the naval hangars, a hangar 30, where Johan, my business partner, was doing a little bit of everything, feeding balls, being the GM of that facility.
So it took a lot of community effort and just incredible history to get here.
So we're pretty proud of what we've created.
and hopefully that provides some of the background.
Great.
Thank you, Scott, very much.
And here we are now at 2020. A little bit of further background on the concession agreement itself that's currently executed.
It was signed and executed in 2010. It was a 20 year agreement.
And as Jesus mentioned, building 41 was supposed to be a pro shop and various kind of dollar signs and the historic district that came afterwards.
We've learned a lot about public benefit as everybody here has mentioned.
And so what this amendment really does outline is, first of all, transferring the management of building 41 back to Seattle Parks and Recreation so that we can open it up to different kinds of development.
And there is some interest in having it be a visitor center in the park, amongst some other ideas.
And the public benefit language has been strengthened to align with our current standards.
And Exhibit G outlines a pretty clear menu of examples for the Tennis Center to form its annual public benefit plan.
It's important to note here that that plan will be submitted and approved on an annual basis.
which means that it will allow us to meet emerging needs that we can't anticipate today, and that the outreach and the efforts to get people to access those public benefits really are supposed to be focused in primarily on the residents that live in Magnuson Park, and that is spelled out in that exhibit.
and, you know, Councilmember Peterson's office also strengthened this section of the agreement as well, along with really capping it at a 20% offset from the base concession fee.
Also included here is an additional five-year term extension option and some administrative changes around, like, due dates of rent and things like that that are a little bit more routine.
And before I let Scott chat a little bit more about how he delivers public benefit, I do want to give a little bit of a comparison that the 20% cap that is outlined in the agreement is fairly comparable to what we provide today.
So if you were to take the full concession fee for this year, and 20% of that is about $18,500 of public benefit offset.
This year, we approved about $14,500.
A little bit lower, but this provides the tenant center some capacity to increase its public benefit deliverables.
So it's a real win-win with the amendment.
Scott, why don't you jump on in and talk a little bit about your delivery method and how you plan to outreach to Magnuson Park tenants?
Yeah, sure.
Thanks, Ryan.
I think I just first want to point out, you know, in every year that we've been in operation, you know, we've exceeded We've offered more public benefits, I guess, than what we've been getting credit for in the form of a lease offset.
So, you know, we're doing a lot of this just because we feel it's the right thing to do.
You know, some of the things that we have done since the beginning, we've, I mentioned my business partner, Yohantan, he's actually the general manager of the facility.
He has donated his time every year to offer free clinics to some of the kids living in Magnuson Park.
So, I mean, that was just one of the many things we've done.
I mean, Ed Bronson, who did the public comment earlier, he mentioned the Access Tennis for All, the wheelchair tennis program.
We've offered subsidized rates for the wheelchair tennis participants.
We have the Aces for Autism program.
We've had a scholarship program since the beginning, but based on feedback from the Parks Department and Council Member Peterson, You know, we understand that, you know, the folks living in the park really should be more of the target for our scholarship program and some of the other subskis that we're doing.
And so that has become more of a focus for us going forward.
And we have recently developed a partnership with a nonprofit group called the Seattle Tennis Education Foundation, STEF for short.
And through that partnership, we are hoping to offer a lot more scholarships to kids living in the park.
So that's, you know, we're pretty excited to see what can come about with that.
That's a relatively new partnership.
And unfortunately this year, you know, we haven't really seen it come to full fruition because of the COVID shutdowns.
I mean, we've been shut down almost half of the year now.
So hopefully that gives you a little bit of a perspective of what we've been doing.
Mr. Marshall, I just want to add that, The reason why we push on the public benefits, it's because it's a public asset.
Because the city of Seattle people own it.
And therefore, there has to be the values and the policies that we have across the city and the county.
And that's the race and social justice and equity.
So that's the overlay in which we look at these.
And the keeping it public and open and access is our guiding principle.
And not just to the tennis club, but to everyone that uses the city assets and when they lease them and when they invest in them and they have capital improvements and we have offsets, we are continually doing that balancing.
So while I appreciate that you're there and we have a public-private partnership, it's not lost on any of us that when that property came up through the county and then the city and then we changed the deed to put housing out there, those are the type of things, the policy questions and the policy issues that this city and the city councils, and quite frankly, residents and taxpayers would ask and require, is that we have the open access public piece.
So that is my little rant there, why I really pushed hard to expand public benefits and asking for variables and numbers and deliverables of the type of people and the type of outreach that we're doing to ensure that everyone in Seattle has access to not only Magnuson, but we do the same thing on Lake Washington.
We do the same thing with concession stands that are on public property.
So this is just across the board, and you will find the same kind of standards, obviously, within the county.
So I want to thank you and you and your business partner for the work that you've done and the years that you put in to make this a success.
And as you know, we work closely with Ed Bronson and a lot of the groups there.
So I look forward to working with you on this and moving forward on this.
So thank you.
And likewise, thank you.
Yeah, I know this will have some more discussion on this.
Is there anything else from the group before we move to my colleagues who may want to add anything?
And Kessler Peterson, I know you have something, but I'm going to tee you up for that in a minute.
I just want to wrap up the discussion from any of the other council members, including yourself, on the discussion of this piece.
Council Member Juarez, Council Chair.
Hi, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much.
Just a quick question on building 41. I think some examples of what the future use were mentioned.
But you know in in light of the comments that you just made about the need for this to be a public serving public asset.
Can you talk a little bit more about the stakeholder process that's going to be undertaken for what that building could potentially be.
And that's my daughter.
She said hello.
He's concerned about the process as well clearly.
Thank you.
Yeah, no, I'll start and Brian can certainly chime in.
You know, we don't really have a plan yet in place.
And typically with these buildings, what we would do is kind of do an RFP process to allow folks to give us their ideas.
And then we sort of go through a process to vet them and both to make sure that they're viable, to make sure that there's some obviously connection to recreation, because it has to be related to our recreation, parks and recreation activities.
And then we'll go through, we would go through and select someone to do it.
I mean, I think the key piece here is we at the department don't have any funding available for any of this.
So it would have to be something that a partner or group of partners could come together and help us develop it.
There has been interest in creating visitor center, but again, that's just one of the ideas that's out there.
I don't know if Brian, you've heard of other potential uses there, but we don't yet have a plan for it.
We want to sort of take it out of this agreement so then we can actually control it, manage it, and be able to begin that process.
Councilmember Herbold?
Thank you.
Just following up on Councilmember Mosqueda's question, are there environmental remediation needs associated with that property?
I would guess yes, because most of ours are, but that gas station probably, Brian probably knows better, but obviously that would be part of the planning.
Yeah, I think with Magnuson Park, you can always assume yes, in some way, and considering it was a gas station, we believe so.
And I think that's part of why it was so costly to the Tennis Center about 10 years ago when they were looking into the estimate.
I think, Scott, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you stopped when it reached $650,000 or something like that, and you haven't even got the design?
I mean, that's, you know, the cost, but it would be significant.
Yeah, I think part of the issue, we did some geotech work and found some levels of benzene, you know, 14 feet down.
So there's probably some cleanup work that would need to be done as part of a renovation.
It just depends on the extent of the renovation.
But we were talking about at the time of completely renovating that building.
And that was a cost effective.
Thank you.
Great.
Is there any other?
You didn't do any retrofitting on that, because I know we dealt with a lot of capital costs on retrofitting.
Did you do any of that on there, Scott?
Nope.
Okay.
Okay.
I was just going to say, to be clear, the tennis center that we operate in now was built from scratch.
It was not an existing building.
Only building 41 was existing.
Okay.
So I'm going to move to move, and then I'm going to tee you up, Council Member Peterson, because I know you have an amendment, okay?
So I move the committee pass Council Bill 119746. Is there a second?
Second.
The motion has been moved and seconded.
So we're going to have a discussion here.
Councilor Peterson, I believe you have a motion that you are ready to present.
Yes, Chair.
So this is, colleagues, this is just to insert the version that has the strengthened public benefits in it.
And then I can speak to that a little bit.
I move to amend Council Bill 119746 Attachment 1 by substituting Version 2 for Version 1B.
OK.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
Second.
Oh, second.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Okay, the motion has been moved and seconded.
So any discussion on that?
Oh, Councilor Peterson.
Thank you, Chair Juarez, and thanks to everybody at the Parks Department and questions from my colleagues.
This is all syncing up nicely for this amendment, which is really getting the strength and public benefit in here.
You know, Magnuson Park's an amazing regional asset, and it also comes with a lot of old buildings and some other challenges we mentioned with remediation that need attention and investment, rehab, maintenance.
The parks department works really hard to try to balance the needs of the physical assets and the benefits, maximizing the benefits to the public.
Fortunately, the tennis center itself is a rare newer building at Magnuson Park.
Two of the main reasons for having this concession agreement on our agenda is to amend it and extend it.
The key amendment that was mentioned was to free up this smaller, old adjacent building, building 41. That's not going to be renovated by the tenant center organization.
And making this change will open it up to building 41, the smaller building, up to some new opportunities that the superintendent mentioned.
I also want to make sure there's a robust community process.
But getting back to the concession agreement that we're amending, this is an opportunity to re-examine and update the public benefit section of this agreement.
The original agreement between the city government and a tennis center was executed many years ago.
Since then, hundreds of additional low-income families now call Magnuson Park home with the recent renovation of the large Mercy Magnuson non-profit housing project.
That's in addition to the existing low-income residents of the solid ground housing.
Now there are 850 low-income residents who live at Magnuson Park, 600 of whom identify as BIPOC.
So as a council member for District 4, these low-income residents are my main focus when I look at Magnuson Park and all that it has to offer.
And actually, I'm really focused on the community center building, the old community center, which is not even part of this discussion today.
But you'll hear me talk a lot about the community center, because that's something that'll be also a main asset for the residents who live there.
So back to this concession agreement, we wanted to update and strengthen the public benefits and to emphasize the benefits for the low-income residents of both Solid Ground and Mercy Magnuson who call Magnuson Park home.
So we worked with Central Staff, Parks Department.
We want to thank Scott at the Tennis Center for really being on the vanguard of we are able to update and say, hey, you need to focus on the 850 low-income residents right there.
Let's make sure there is an emphasis for them.
That is what this amendment does.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you.
This is not specific to this particular amendment.
It's more sort of general to the question of the value of the public benefit versus the corresponding percentage of the offset.
How do we determine that the value of what we're getting in scholarships and such equals the value of the reduction in concession fees?
Is it just a simple math question?
I'll let the superintendent, but I have some thoughts.
Some of it is math, and I'll let Tracy, and some of it policy and some of it is us just looking at these agreements and what the deliverables have been, what the outreach has been, what the access has been.
And as just quick example, in the last four years, we had to really struggle with the public benefit piece regarding slips on Lake Washington.
Very interesting, but I'm gonna let the superintendent address that a little bit more, because we have these discussions about this all the time.
And thank you, Council Member Herbold, that's a really good question.
Yeah, no, and you covered it.
It's a great question because every one of these agreements is slightly different, right?
The service that each of these tenants provides, it's slightly different, whether it's tennis lessons or availability of moorages.
And a lot of it is just simple math.
And we, you know, there's a valuation that goes along with the services being provided.
But more and more, frankly, we find that it's really important on the accountability side is making sure that we understand clearly who folks are reaching out to.
And in this case, frankly, it's a little easier because you have all of the low-income residents that Council Member Peterson talked about that are yearning for lots of service that we're able to provide.
And this is a great opportunity to do that.
But it is, it is in many ways math.
And then we sort of look at what the valuation of this public benefit is. compared to the rent.
But Brian, I don't know if you want to add any more specifics to that.
With this particular agreement, I would say that this is the information that Scott and his team have provided us, and we have grounded it in their prices and their pricing model.
And, you know, at some point when we're working on these public-private partnerships, we do, after doing some due diligence and really nailing down the numbers, we believe that it's a good faith estimate of what's to come.
And that annual approval and review that goes to Jesus every year really allows us to make sure that we keep it, keep the integrity of it.
That's really kind of our process.
Yeah, I would add that in the last four or five years, and Tracy, if you want to add anything, we've really ramped up the accountability piece about public and the offset.
When we first started looking at some of these concession agreements and contracts four or five years ago, and again, a lot of it was because we weren't looking at it through a racist social justice equity lens, and we weren't pushing some of these lessors and concession operators.
to show us how they were doing outreach, not just to their neighborhood or just to their group, but citywide.
And so we've been getting those numbers back and Jesus's team has been phenomenal.
Tracy has been amazing and just doing the tally for me and saying, you know, they do 300 outreaches, workshops.
This is women, this is children, this is people of color, this is low income, this is people with disabilities, you know, what schools were being, were being, They're going to schools to recruit for different programs, Conservation Corps.
I mean, we could go on and on.
So it's a really good question.
Tracy, did you want to add anything to that besides what I just rambled about?
The only thing I will say is that for all of these lease agreements, yes, they're all their own special agreements.
But we have tried to quantify, I think, the value of the services provided.
And I give Parks a lot of credit for working with us on that, because I think that was the thing that was a little less clear and consistent among the various lease agreements that we saw early on where you value this class or that outreach activity slightly different for this one versus the other you know organization this one's a little bit more straightforward because you can see we know what the cost is for them to for example clean the restroom so we can quantify that and say they get the value of that you know cleaning and that you know represents the offset the scholarships for you know, the tennis membership, we know what the cost of that tennis membership is.
So some of these are a lot easier to quantify than other organizations and the services that they provide.
But I would say overall, I think we have all tried to be much more rational about it and transparent about it.
And in particular, the issue about outreach and making sure that the public actually knows about these public benefits because prior to a few years ago, if you weren't really diligent in trying to ask questions of a particular organization that might be sitting in a parks facility, you wouldn't necessarily know that those benefits existed and how you access them.
And I think now actually parks puts up on their website, if I'm not mistaken, Jesus, where people can see where there are public benefits available to them that they can partake in.
I think there have been a number of things that we have improved and tightened up as it relates to the public benefits related to parks facilities that are being leased out.
Yeah, we've really tried hard and we've endured some lawsuits, but I think we're okay now.
Is there any other discussion from anyone else on the panel or my colleagues before I move this?
No.
Okay, well, then I will go forward then.
If there's no further discussion, we will vote on amending Council Bill 119746, Attachment 1 by substituting Version 2 for Version 1B.
Will the clerk please call the roll on the proposed substitute?
Council Member Juarez?
Aye.
Council Member Peterson?
Aye.
Council Member Herbold?
Yes.
Council Member Mosqueda?
Council Member Mosqueda?
Aye.
Thank you.
Great.
We have four in favor, none opposed.
So the motion carries and the Council Bill is amended and we will now consider Council Bill 119746 as amended.
Will you please call the vote?
Oh, you need a second.
I'm sorry.
I need a second.
Second.
Thank you.
Can you please call the vote?
Council Member Juarez?
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
So let me just wrap things up here, if there's any more discussion.
We are gonna move to adjourn.
The next meeting of the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee is scheduled for January 5th at two o'clock.
And if there's anything else for the good of the order, Councilor Musqueda, is there anyone you wanna thank?
She's not there.
Just you, Madam Chair.
Okay, thank you.
With that, we stand adjourned.
Thank you for being here, folks.
Bye.
Have a good day.
Bye-bye.
Thank you, Councilor Peterson.
Thank you, Jesus.
Thank you, Brian.
Thank you, Scott.