AN ORDINANCE approving an agreement between King County and 4Culture on how the preservation action fund will be administered and governed in accordance with the 2015/2016 Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 17941, Section 74, as amended by Ordinance 18179, Section 2, Proviso P1.
Minutes are approved as read written. Okay. We're on to number five. This is proposed ordinance 2016 0119. It's an ordinance accepting an agreement between King County and for culture and the Preservation Action Fund will be administered and governed. And with that, let's bring in. Good morning. Every morning for the record Mary Bergeron from the council staff and the materials for the site and begin on page 11 of your packets. As you noted, proposed ordinance 2016 0119 is a proposed agreement between King County and for culture that would allow for the implementation of the Preservation Action Fund. This fund is a $2 million component of the 28 million plus fund, the Building for Culture program that the council approved last year, largely due to the early repayment of the King Dome. What the Preservation Action Fund would do is to allow for the preservation of and I will quote here from the work that you did last year, the acquisition stabilization or redevelopment of significant but endangered historic properties. You will see on page 13 of the materials a description of the components of the Preservation Action Fund as outlined in the agreement. And I'll focus on three areas in particular. First location. This program is designed to serve properties that are located outside the city of Seattle. And so that means essentially three areas are properties in unincorporated King County properties in the 20 suburban cities that have agreements with the King County Historic Preservation Office, or the cities in King County that have their own historic preservation function. Second, the partners that will be participating in this effort, the Preservation Action Fund, has been designed and the agreement is structured as a collaboration among four culture historic Seattle, the King County Historic Preservation Program, and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation. And third, that leads me to the mechanism of how this program is proposed to work and how the agreement would implement it. And that is that the partners would identify a priority property. Historic Seattle would then acquire that property, use funding from the $2 million Preservation Action Fund to renovate the property. Historic Seattle would then place a permanent historic easement on the property and would sell it, returning the funds to the Preservation Action Fund for Future Use. With that description, I'll turn to page 15, which begins the analysis of this agreement, and I will note that staff and legal counsel identified several issues that I will outline briefly. First is just a technical clarification. The approval of the agreement, the council at the time that you approved the Building for Culture program for I proviso this fund and required that an agreement be quote approved by the council the transmitted ordinance would accept it. And so you'll see that both Amendment one and title amendment one would change the language to the required approved. Next issue is historic. Seattle's ability to work outside Seattle, as I described this program would function in that historic Seattle would essentially be an agent of for culture doing the work needed to renovate the target properties. Historic Seattle is currently a public development authority that is chartered to work within the city of Seattle. And as a result of questions about historic Seattle's ability and authority to work outside the city boundaries, we reached out to historic Seattle and their legal counsel there is attached in your packet a letter from legal counsel from Historic Seattle , and the relevant components of that letter are summarized on page 15 of the Stafford. Report, noting that the city of Seattle would have to take action by ordinance to allow historic Seattle to work outside the boundaries and in addition, would need to authorize historic Seattle to enter into an agreement with either King County for work in unincorporated areas or with the relevant city for work in a suburban city. So on that, do we know if city council has decided to take this ordinance up? We do have staff here from historic Seattle, and I can defer that question to Mr. Kelly. Okay. And I want to say that I was on this board for a culture, and it was a fun board to be on. But at one of the meetings, I did not. But and at one of the meetings, historic Seattle stood up and said that one of our projects was so exciting that they had specific expertize they were willing to share with us. And it's wonderful to have partners stand up in a meeting and say, This is so exciting. I want to help you. And it's that kind of collaboration that makes this so special. So I don't know who was here from historic Seattle, but I was really impressed with their willingness to help us because they had that specific expertize. So I'm excited to see that kind of partnership continuing to develop because preserving these things are important to all of us, whether you live in Seattle or don't in Seattle, anything that's charming here we want to keep. So thank you. So you think that they will be doing that fairly shortly in Seattle? Okay. I'm going to ask from a council member, do you have question right there? I had a question on a prior topic that she got by. Okay. Do you want go back to that then? Yes. Okay. If that's okay. Thank you, sir. You laid out and I was trying to figure out where in your staff report it is located, but kind of three requirements. And one of them I think had to be if they were a non city of Seattle and a non unincorporated area. In other words, what I think you said 23 urban serving cities. Yes. And we do have Jennifer Meissner here, who is our historic preservation officer that can speak to that in more detail. But King County does, in fact, contract with 20 suburban cities for historic preservation services. In addition, a number of the larger suburban cities have their own historic preservation function. One of the requirements of this program would be that the building be landmarked in some way, hence the requirement that either it be in unincorporated King County, where our historic preservation office would oversee that, or in a city that either contracts with us or has their own function. And that's because that's the only way you can land more building than through the federal process, I suppose. Correct. And we do, as I mentioned, have Ms.. Meisner here if you want to. So just I need to get educated here. Among Shoreline Lake, Forest Park, Kenmore, Bothell, Woodinville and Kirkland. Which qualify or don't qualify? The shoreline has the shoreline. Historical Society Bothell is a very active program. Woodinville has a historic society trickling down. Good morning, councilmembers. I'm Jennifer Meissner. I'm King County's historic preservation officer. And to answer your question, we do have interlocal agreements with 20 suburban cities, including Kirkland and Woodinville. And many of the cities you just named. The City of Bothell has their own preservation program, so they would be able to administer and landmark properties within their jurisdiction . You got to be more specific on the cities I enumerated about Shoreline Lake, Forest Park and Kenmore. Kenmore has it. We have it in our local with Kenmore Lake. Forest Park. No. What was the other one? Sorry. Shoreline. Shoreline. Yes, we do have an interlocal agreement. Shoreline with Lake Forest Park. Be excluded from this. Well, I think the I, the excuse me the idea around protecting the properties was, yes. If they're located in unincorporated King County or within a jurisdiction that with whom we have an inner local, we would pursue landmarking. If not, the other mechanism to protect. The properties. In perpetuity would be through an easement, a historic preservation easement that would be held by historic Seattle. So there actually is an opportunity for properties located outside of those specific jurisdictions that have a program to be protected. But it would be through easement, not through landmarking. And easements would qualify for this $2 million fund. Yeah, the easement would lay out very specific requirements, preservation requirements, very similar to landmarking. But the difference would be the King County Preservation Program or the program within the jurisdiction would not have a design review authority that would fall for it through historic Seattle. Since they would be holding the easement, they would have specific requirements placed on each property to make sure that it's. Protected in. Perpetuity and that their public investment. Is is also protected. Okay. I just the easements a different path. What I'm what I want to understand is particular to my district and then particularly to the 17 suburban cities in King County that aren't in the 20. Right. And we cover with this fund. Yes. Every historic property one way or another. Yes. They any property would be eligible to be considered for the fund. It's just that protection. Mechanism would be different if it's not within and in a local city or unincorporated area. Okay. And thank you for that, Mary. What is the remind me of the source of these moneys? So this is from the Building for Culture program, which was a combination that bonds remember that the council issued a year ago from a combination of 2015 lodging taxes that were leftover after the kingdom that was paid off, as well as some future county lodging taxes post 2021 when the lodging tax, as you will recall, lodging taxes from 2016 through 2020 are going to pay off the football stadium after 2021, the lodging tax returns. And you'll remember that there are three components to the lodging tax. There's an arts and culture section which is dedicated to four culture. There's a tourism promotion bucket, and then there is an affordable housing bucket, which you will recall the council has earlier this year bonded against for the transit oriented development housing program. Okay. So thank you. It's the tax that somebody staying in a hotel pays or part of that tax. And have we we've done the affordable housing work there with the bonds and we've done the culture work. How about the tourism development piece of that revenue stream? Has that been worked yet? So there is in in the work that the Council did a year ago in approving these bonds, there is a fairly complex a year by year accounting of who pays what toward the debt service. And my understanding, and I was not involved in this effort a year ago, is that there is some portion of the tourism promotion bucket of the lodging tax post 2021 that would be involved in helping to repay the debt service on building for culture. But again, that was an action the council took a year ago. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And. Okay. Please proceed. Thank you. You stay there just in case you minded your question. Okay. Stay there. Just in case we need you and then we'll go ahead. So returning to our was I had noted that historic Seattle would need to go through a series of steps to be able to work outside the city of Seattle in response to the necessity of those steps. There is some clarifying language in Amendment One that legal counsel has worked up that would require confirmation to the county by for culture that historic Seattle has or will have the appropriate legal authority to administer projects outside the city of Seattle. So I think, Councilmember Boesky, that gets in some level to your question about historic Seattle's ability to get that approval from the city of Seattle. And who governs historic Seattle. They are a public development authority. They have a charter and a board. And their board is appointed by the city of Seattle. I can speak to that. All right. So the way it works in District. O. Is the executive director sports. Yeah. Imagine that. Was that a prerequisite for getting the job? It had to be, Kelly. What could be better than one visitor to. The same or wed, anyway? So. So moving on. And yes, we do have to Mr. Kelly is available to answer questions from their respective organizations on the bottom of page 15, the disposition of Properties. As I noted earlier, the Preservation Action Fund would not be a revolving loan fund whereby, say, the owner of a property would receive a loan to renovate their project their property. Instead, if a property is chosen for this program, historic Seattle would purchase it, renovated its place, a permanent easement on it, and then sell it, returning the money to the fund. I note that this has been discussed with a number of council members over the course of the analysis of this program. That is what is proposed in the agreement. That is a policy decision for the Council. And finally, I would note the permanent easement, which Ms.. Meisner spoke to. Any property, whether in a landmark city or not, would be subject to a permanent historic easement applied by historic Seattle, because historic Seattle would be holding that easement rather than either for culture or the county. Amendment One includes language that has been added in consultation with legal counsel that would require review by the county through the prosecuting attorney's office of a template for such an easement. We have received a recent template of a historic Seattle preservation easement. The amendment would require that the prosecuting attorney's office review that and require that any easements used through this program would be substantially in the form of the approved template. With that, I will jump to Amendment One, which is. Just up there for those two for a second. I have some questions on top of page 16. So you just explained the process that the sale proceeds would go to the path to be used for future projects. Suppose then we end up being able to grow that to a pretty substantial amount. Is there opportunity? I think at this point you can only do one a year, right? Is that. What? There's $2 million. So I think the intention had been that you probably wouldn't be able to do many more than one at a time. But I'll let you either. If we were supposed to. Culture term this. Historic fix something up that was, you know, in a dilapidated, dilapidated state that is now gorgeous and we sell it for $8 million. So we now have a lot more money in the account at that point. Is there any limits on us being able to do three projects for projects by project marketing? He's really saying no. So how many are going to be done at one time? Yeah, that's. That's really good dream. Yeah. Okay, good. I want to make sure it was expandable. Great. Okay. Thank you. On page 16, you'll see outlined what Amendment One would do. And this is an amendment that is sponsored by Councilmember Val. Amendment one would make changes both to the underlying ordinance and to the agreement itself, which is has been transmitted as an attachment to the ordinance. To the ordinance. The amendment would add a finding section to clarify that historic preservation can result in tourism promotion benefits, citing as examples Pioneer Square in the Pike Place Market and would note that the Preservation Action Fund would make it possible to provide similar public benefits in additional communities throughout the county. And then it would also make the accepted. Approved. Language change that I discussed earlier. For the agreement, the amendment would. Swap out the transmitted agreement with a new version that would make a couple of changes. First, it would note that all projects must meet the requirements of the underlying funding source, which again are the bonds that were approved by the Council as part of building for culture. Next, it would require that historic Seattle must demonstrate its ability to work outside the city of Seattle. And again, as I noted, for culture would need to certify that to the county. And then finally again, noting that the form for the preservation easement to be used by historic Seattle would need to be approved by King County following review by the prosecuting attorney's office. There is also a title amendment to make the approved except change in the title. That concludes my report. Again, we have staff from the various organizations here for questions and we have the amendment and title amendment available for. So if I'm clear on this, historic Seattle would sort of be our subcontractor to for culture. So that's great. So not that I think things are going to go wrong, but should there be something wrong? Like any subcontract, you can just say, we're not doing that anymore. Is that right? Or do we have to have a formal agreement that changes that? There are requirements in here about reporting. There are provisions in the agreement for termination, there are for culture, would be managing the fund and would have those responsibilities. And you said that the contract form would be substantially the same if there were changes. What changes it from being a minor change to a substantial change? That would be a question for the attorneys, but that that is typically the substantially in the form, as is, you know, the typical contract language when you say, you know, it must be like this and only minor changes, okay. Right. Are there any questions from anybody? Councilmember Thank. You. For following. Up on Mike prior. To say. Rude questions. That's all right. Our legal counsel has whispered in my ear that with respect to my and I'm sorry I waive the privilege counsel. With respect to my inquiry about Lake Forest Park example that that would require an are local agreement between the city of Lake Forest Park and historic Seattle in addition to the ordinance of the city. So council would have to adopt confirming that is their intent to proceed pursuant to the charter language in their charter. I believe that's correct that that historic Seattle would need to enter into an agreement. There have to be an agreement between the city. And then what would motivate Mr. Kelly historic Seattle to expend effort to enter into 17, up to 17 or local agreements with non covered suburban cities. And I'm looking for if we got a fair shot here, I want a fair shot for our communities on this regional source of dollars. And yes, exactly. I think we all share. And when you look down the project list, which was adopted by this council, but you know, you want to make sure that we're targeting the high profile projects, but that we serve history throughout the county. Yeah, I'm okay. Kelly, thanks for the executive director of Historic Sir. I like that people are paying attention to my last name rather than my first person. To answer your question, it's our mission. You know, it's our mission to preserve historic structures and throughout the region, quite honestly. And for the first time, I think in a long time, we really have a great team that we've assembled between Fort Culture, Jennifer and the County Preservation Program and the Washington Trust. And we're all well equipped with our own skill set to really make an impact in arts, culture and preservation in the county. So short answer your question. It's permission as the that's your entity preserved or protected any historic structures outside of the city of Seattle. To date, we have not in relationships with the cities in the county. Absolutely. So I'm on I'm also on the King County Landmark Commission. So I'm fully aware of sort of the complexity of of landmarking process. The quick by the numbers for those of you who aren't familiar with historic Seattle, we're a nonprofit, historic preservation organization. We educate, we advocate and we preserve. We've been doing this for 42 years. We've saved 45 buildings in the city of Seattle. We have 14 wonderful staff members, two and a half million dollar annual operating budget. 90% of that annual operating budget comes from eight properties that we currently own within our portfolio, and we have a $30 million balance sheet. So we've been doing this a long time. It's a great opportunity for us to continue to do it in the future in a larger scope. Thank you. If I might, it's. Seems like I'm interested in the efficiency or perhaps lack of efficiency in this process. We've got a lot of entities here. We've got a lot of our local agreements. We have a lot of legislative action that's required for $2 million. And that's a lot of money, but it's a lot of process and a lot of staff time and a lot of costs. And is there any alternative to simplify this? We're supposed to be the regional government here, but why. That is or maybe. It was a question. For Jim Kelly from Fort Culture. This is the proposal that was transmitted by the executive and had been originally proposed by for culture, as you might imagine. Mr. Dombrowski, this the question of complexity was one that both staff and legal counsel raised. But this this is the proposal that was transmitted. Before we asked. Mr. KELLY. I'm asking you, Mary, as our very talented, independent central staff analyst, whether there are other options. And I know this is late in the process, but this may be something on a go forward basis, maybe not for these dollars, but I'm interested in efficiency and and well achieving the objective as a regional historic preservation function. There are certainly many ways to achieve historic preservation. I had noted earlier that one of the most common ways is through a revolving loan fund in which owners of buildings use money from a fund and do the maintenance or renovation and then return the money. My understanding from for culture is the concern about that approach is that you wouldn't have the ability to grow the fund or to sustain the fund, but I would let them speak to that. So there are certainly other ways I had mentioned that this is a policy choice for the Council about this chosen way to approach the the proposal. But it is a proposal that for culture has developed. And as as I've talked with the team over the course of the year, one that they feel very strongly about in this case. This guy. Mr.. Kelly Number two, just answer. I would I a very interesting question, Councilmember De Bousquet, especially about the efficiencies, because you're right, historic Seattle has to get an agreement, for example, with Lake Forest Park so that they can do work in Lake Forest Park. That's a step. On the other hand, one would assume that Lake Forest Park has a historic resource that it's interested in preserving. I can assure you there are a number of properties there. It's a very historic community. So, yes, it requires a couple of steps to get there. But I would argue that those steps are actually, in the long term healthier because they get the city of Lake Forest Park thinking about historic preservation. They don't have their own ordinance. They don't have an inter local agreement. So to this point, historic preservation has not been high on their priority scale. So we enter into a conversation with Lake Forest Park to say, How about this expert historic preservation development entity working in your community? What advantages does that give you? And I think it begins a conversation that actually enhances the visibility and the viability of historic preservation. So rather than look at it through an efficiency perspective, I look at it as a through an advocacy perspective where we can expand the role of historic preservation in King County because communities better understand how it functions and get help in doing it right. Appreciate that, Mr. Kelly. The evidence you're using, the fact they don't have an area local agreement, is not indicative of the. With all due respect, the city's commitment. They in 1997 for their own Historic Preservation Commission, they've marked a number of properties with plaques in the community. It's a big part of their culture, actually. So I'm looking out and there are a number of these small communities throughout the county. I mean, tell us more about Dutchy has the points communities and I don't I don't know what their status are but the Beaux Arts but you know it's $2 million here but there's a lot of things that are going on here, too, to bring that to life in terms of action by multiple bodies. And and it just raises the concern about whether we're approaching this in the most efficient way possible. With respect, the 2 million is it's not going to be a revolving fund. Are they going to be grants? Is that the. No, no, they it is essentially going to be a loan, not a loan fund, but money expended to rehab a building. Money recouped when the building has been sold. And and who decides? Who decides on which buildings, which projects? Yeah, that's a very good question. It's one that we probably discuss in the greatest detail, and it's a collaborative project for entities that sort of go on this. Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, King County of Our Culture and Historic Seattle. And, you know, I hesitate to say what I'm perch to say, which is a building that needs the work. We will know it when we see it. We will recognize that certain buildings have a future life as a result of rehab. Some don't will avoid those. Is there a market for the building post rehab that will be a consideration that takes place. The significance of the building? Either it's a landmark or certainly eligible to be a landmark. So the buildings that we save have to have some significance. There's not a point system that says if you score a certain number of points, we're going to do that project. I just think it's for entities that are fairly well versed in this field and work very well together. And we hope that if you're aware of projects in your communities that you'd like to to say that you think or threaten you, bring those to our attention. But there's no science to identifying which is the most likely candidate. Well, who decides? Is it for culture or. The groups together? It's it. All four of us have to go along. What if there's. Oh, so there's a veto power under this agreement and it's basically, you know, agreements that you mentioned, Councilmember Lambert, how thrilled you were when Historic Seattle stood up in a meeting and said, we want to help. I think it's that spirit that's driving this. So it isn't necessarily contract language that says you get to veto because you have a stronger voice than I do. I think it's a project that's being entered into with the right intentions and spirit, and I believe that we will be able to identify projects that you will be pleased with. But I don't have any kind of scientific way to approach which projects do we choose and why would we say no? You know. County Council Member I would just note that Section six of the agreement and it's Exhibit B outlined the selection process and do note, as Mr. Kelly had stated, that the members of this Form four part team would either have to reach consensus or that the decision would default to for culture in terms of selecting a project. Okay, that's the answer I was looking for. What is the mechanism to decide if there's not a consensus? Ask a public question. Council Member WG There's an attachment, and I believe it's an attachment to the agreement that lists out projects and has values next to them. Do the project have to come from that list? No. That is actually a list of projects that were funded by building floriculture. Okay. Understood. So we don't have a sense yet of what the the order and list of projects might be. No, that's correct. And might I point out, Madam Chair, and I realize we're getting late through 60 communities that have similar funds, this is not something that's unique to King County. It's a preservation tool that we've not had at our disposal before, but it's been used effectively across the country. These revolving funds have generated. I think we have some statistics in a PowerPoint. Millions of dollars in tax revenue for buildings that were rehabbed and put back on the market. This one's particularly funny to me because I was on the board. There were some talk that this building might have to be destroyed. And at that point, I realized that I had space in my building that we're talking about, not today, not the courthouse. We're talking about the the town, the Townsend house. It's called the Trueblood House, Republican House. And so anyway, I went home after you and I had discussed it and talked to my husband about the potential of it being moved to our house and buying it. And so. So we had that discussion and so am I. I wish now because Redmond did change their ordinance where I actually could have done that. But so I am anxious to find out who gets it and where it goes, because I thought it was going to be my house when I got older. So and it's it's a very amazing house. Can I follow up on that? Because I know there is also what cultural relics you represent. Kirkland And there is that house that had to be moved. Is that it? If there's a project that's teed up for this, I think members of the council should know about it. That was exactly the that is exactly the project that we had in our scopes when we were talking about this. We knew that the people who owned the true blood house, basically their family was growing. They had outgrown the house. They wanted to basically tear the house down and build a new house on the site, realized the house had value, decided that they tried to save. It was actually purchased by Nickles Brothers, which is a company that moves houses for a dollar. And they spent about 120,000. They purchased it for a dollar. They don't move your house right now. You can get it for a dollar. But if you want to get it here a lot, you're going to look at the several hundred to get it there at any rate. So but that is exactly the kind of project that came along that the Preservation Action Fund could have gotten. The house for the dollar, found a piece of property, purchased a piece of property, put it in, put down the foundation, do all the hook ups, put it back on the market, reinvested in the fund. That's exactly the example that we're looking for. I think, Jim, this does speak to your previous comment about advocacy, because I think through all of our efforts and thinking ahead and forecasting what this Preservation Action Fund could look like, we've sat down with the owners and the parties that are associated with the Trueblood House and we're able to save this house without spending any money. It's purely an advocacy effort at this point, but it's it sort of speaks to the power that this action fund has and that the ripple effects from throwing the stone in the in the pond can be great in terms of preservation. All right. I am ready now, I think, for lot of questions answered to move the audience. Madam Chair. Yes, there was a motion. Is there a. Time sensitivity to this? Yes. What is it. That you bought house? It's about that you bought houses has been moved, but it can't stay where it is forever. Actually, I think the council member, Baldacci, the Trueblood House, is going to be saved by property, a private person. It has a market. Now, since the conversation started with the city of Kirkland and with the owners of the Trueblood House, somebody has stepped up and is basically moving the house to a private site. So the short answer to your question is not really it would have been time sensitive had we been trying to save the Trueblood House. But the Trueblood House, as I pointed out, is being saved on its own privately. Okay, let it be preserved. I'm sorry. I apologize. Will it be preserved? Are we what what what confidence do we have that it will be preserved with the private owners? I'm totally confident it's Kirkland and have any. Other local resident. So it will be a Kirkland landmark? It already is a Kirkland landmark. So it will be protected. Thank you. Madam Chair. Maybe I'm okay with moving forward today on this, but I would expect I'm interested in making sure every community in our region has a fair and equal shot at participating in this fund, and I could envision a number of ways to do that. But it might be that we require at least the opportunity for any city who would not be able to participate today either because there isn't an interlock. Call agreement with historic Seattle or they are not in partnership today with for culture another entity that they at least be invited and have an opportunity to execute that agreement before these funds are expended. Something like that. In other words, I, I want to make sure that because of the nature of how this is, that we're not intentionally but inadvertently leaving out a community. And I it's it's fairly complicated. So maybe that's okay today and I can figure out off line between now and final. But that's my concern. Well, actually, I think that what you're what you're asking for is very much what we would like to see. We'd like to see the Preservation Action Fund being an incentive program so that cities will sign up either with an interlocal agreement or start their own program. So if that was the outcome that more cities wanted to sign interlocal agreements to get access to these funds, that's great. Yeah. And they just may not know about this structure. Yeah. Madam Judge, I was going to make a I was going to make a motion. But given that the immediate preservation action that we were attempting to to implement with this is now handled. If if the council member would like a little more time to make sure that issue is resolved, there really isn't any time sensitive sensitivity that we have to move it out today. I certainly wouldn't want to print that because I share the objective there, obviously. But if that, I'll defer to other members of the committee. But that's my interest as I've expressed it. So I would just as soon let's let's say, move it to January and take it up at the next council meeting for actions that are a little time to address. You think it's just this complicated? It took me a long time to wrap my brain around it. And that's and so. This is just an area of particular interest to me. And I think the whole community, you see, for example, every time we come we talk about this, the Danny Western column with links is closing and the chanty is closing and our community's growing and changing so fast. And, and the work you do all you do I love it's amazing. And we have this is really just a little bit of money to help facilitate that. I don't want to do anything that would cause another loss. And perhaps if we get it resolved between now and Monday, we could relieve the committee and full council and get it adopted. I don't want to unnecessarily delay that. We're we're fine with that. Council member of the Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair. You may have noticed Councilman Bell has been sort of speaking on this one. My name is the sponsor. And as you may recall, this was originally referred to the Budget Committee. And I had a number of questions and concerns, and I wasn't much concerned as much as a different vision, I think, for how these dollars were to be spent. Some I just never, never got excited about the this the whole revolving fund idea and the target mostly because of how it it limits the use of the dollars and to a very specific purpose. And there's pros and cons to that and I know that and there are pros and cons to other ideas, and I never got there on this one. So what I did was but I know it's important, professionals at the agency feel strongly this is a good idea. I've colleagues here who have projects teed up and ready. So I acquiesced to this coming to Cao instead of budget and letting councilman due. Take the lead on it. In part, I was just so councilman asking you had some process questions too. And I just sort of, you know, it wasn't something I was going to fall on my sword for. And there's good things will come from this. And so I did want to let people know that kind of process, how to deal up here. And it was one of the things I thought that we would take up in January just as a work plan, because there are so many different issues and all these issues. And as both Mr. Kelley's have said, there are lots of exciting buildings and barns and structures across this county that are important to the entire fabric of this county. And as you said, a lot of the new people are coming that don't know the history of this county. And if it all disappears, that changes the charm of what we have here. So, Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. And we're clear in the agreement that covers this. It's intended to cover unincorporated King County in the cities outside of Seattle. I'm representing parts of syntactic tech and Berry Berrien. I share that the interest that's been articulated during the meeting that we make sure that the option is available throughout the county. But as a former board member for culture and a current board member of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, I know how fast some of these opportunities can slip through our fingers when we know about them and how fast opportunities can come up with a small window. So while taking this up in January and working on it is good, I want to make sure that we take it up promptly in January that we don't. While maybe the opportunity that was at hand immediately is taken care of, that we not miss other opportunities by making sure that we pause for a moment. Not longer than a moment of strong interest of mine. And I share that with you also, Councilmember. Are there other accounts that sort of give priority to areas outside of Seattle so that there's sort of equal weight all across the county? Are there other funding sources available? Well, for cultures, ongoing grant programs are available throughout the county and in and in the city of Seattle. There are no other funding sources that I'm aware of that are only dedicated for areas outside of Seattle. Jim That landmark challenge grant, which is a grant program for sure you make, Tim, of this landmark challenge grants is a grant program for historic properties in King County. And to be eligible for that, they have to be King County landmarks. There are no King County landmarks in the city of Seattle because Seattle has its own landmark ordinance. So our grant program tends to exclusively fund projects outside of the city of Seattle, just by the nature of the the jurisdiction. Okay, great. Well, we will take this up. Thank you for being here. And it's great to get more information about this. And all the great work on our landmark is all right with that woman. Thank you all. Thank you. And move on to number six. This is ordinance 2016 0459, an ordinance approving grant fund allocations for projects funded through the Water Works Grant Program. And this is round two. And so Mike Reed is our staff and that's would you take this away?