A MOTION proposing the allocation of future lodging tax collections to support arts, culture and heritage programs, workforce housing and youth services, and capital or operating programs that promote tourism.
There are two items on the agenda. One is the motion that would recommend the allocation of lodging tax. And the second, and this is new for the first time, is the Interlocal agreement that's been transmitted since our last meeting, which if there were to be an allocation of lodging taxes by the county, would be the vehicle by which those funds are transmitted in pursuant to the terms thereof to the public facilities district. We'll have a briefing on that. That's item six. So I welcome for this briefing, Jeff Mom and Andrew Kim from our central staff, and we'll let them take it from there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Andrew Kim with counsel, central staff, the staff report for this item begins on page seven of your packet. Today's staff report builds from the staff report from the first hearing on this topic back in July. As members may recall, the first hearing focused on proposed motion 2018 0266, which would state the county's intent to specify the allocation of the county imposed 2% lodging or hotel motel tax that would become available beginning January 1st, 2021. The portion of the staff report from the first hearing remains unchanged, and today we will focus on proposed Ordinance 2018 0374, which would authorize the new agreement and an amendment to the existing finance agreement with the F.T.. And this was transmitted by the executive shortly after the first hearing. With that, if I can direct the members to page 15 of the staff report. The proposed ordinance would effectuate a portion of the proposed motion by authorizing the Executive to enter into an agreement with the BFD to make an annual contribution to the FDA as specified by the proposed motion. Attachment A of the proposed ordinance, which is on page 35 of your agenda, includes the agreement between the county and the FDA. The total contribution to the FDA would be approximately $184 million over the course of the 25 year lease term between the FDA and the Mariners. The agreement is contingent upon an executed lease between the PFC and the Mariners consistent with the May 23rd, 2018 lease term renewal sheet, which can be also found on page 111 of your agenda packet. The agreement requires that the lodging tax contribution be used solely for major capital improvements to the basic infrastructure of the ballpark. And it does not include expenditures related to baseball operations, routine maintenance of the ballpark or facility upgrades with direct revenue generation potential. The agreement also requires the BFD to inform the county of any proposed improvements on an annual basis. And lastly, the agreement requires that the BFD include the lodging tax, a contribution into a separate fund and not be co-mingled with other BFD funds, in particular the capital expenditure fund mentioned in the lease between the Mariners and the BFD. The proposed ordinance would also authorize an amendment to the existing 1996 financing agreement between the city and the county by adding provisions pertaining to advance advancement requests made by the PFC related to the lodging tax revenue contributions. By way of short background, the 96 financing agreement agreed that the county would issue general obligation bonds to fund the construction of the ballpark appropriate and transfer public funds to the PFG to finance the construction of the ballpark and have both the county NPF to acquire real estate for the construction of the ballpark. The amendment amendment number six outlines the process step BFD must follow to make the request an interest payment provision should the county issue debt to fund the event advancement request. Mr. Chair, that concludes my portion, and with your permission, I will turn it over to Mr. Mom. Let's let's see if there are questions on that portion and members have questions on that. Just I've got one you mentioned there, Andrew, at the end, the potential for issuance of debt. That's a new to me in terms of my understanding what the request was. Can you elaborate on that, please? Sure. So that that would just add a provision to the 96 finance. So there's two attachments to the proposed ordinance. Attachment A would be the agreement, a new agreement between the BFD and the county to transfer a portion of the lodging tax attachment B would be an an additional an amendment to the original 96 financing agreement between the city and the county. And that amendment would add provisions to the original financing agreement to it. If the BFD were to request an advancement of the lodging tax revenues, then that and and the county were to provide that advancement using issuing general obligation bonds. There are some provisions to to direct on how that issuance of the bond would occur and how that payment would also occur. Does the PFA, under this proposed agreement, have the right to require the county to advance funds prior to their availability because these aren't really available until 2021? And so we would have to issue debt. Is that would we be obligated to do that if the request came in under the terms of this agreement? I don't think they're obligated. We'll look into the details, but I think they're obligated. But it's just another option. If should the county want to issue debt to provide the advancement of those funds requested by the BFD? So I think just as a provision, as an alternate, as an option for the county. You have anything to add on that, Mr. Mom? We've got new microphones here, so you'll sometimes see us pause a little bit to try and figure them out. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Geoff Mum, council staff. This is one of the issues that I've flagged in my in the analysis section that we need more link reviewing. All right, well that sounds like a good launching point for you to go. Thank you. So now at the bottom of page 16 of the staff report, and this is the analysis of the audience that Andrew just briefed you on the issues in attendance. The proposed ordinance states that the Seattle Mariners draw nearly 3 million of fans to Safeco every year, and approximately 55% come from outside of King County, according to more current data from and this is actually from the Mariners. This is a typo. It's not from the D. In 2008, approximately 45% of the attendees came from outside of King County and on average 49% since 2014. Figure one, which is on page 17, provides more details of the percentage of attendees by each county, by each county in the state. From 2014 to 2018 and 2018, approximately 25% of the attendees came from Snohomish and Pierce Counties. In addition, Figure two shows average attendance from 1994 to 2017 for Safeco for the Mariners compared to Major League Baseball as a whole. And this information comes from ESPN Sportsnet. And the next issue is the economic benefits. And I'll let me ask you, Jeff, because this seems a little out of context. Why are you sharing this data with us? This is just to put into context that some of the the whereas clauses in the ordinance just to go to drew up to current detail the next issues, the economic benefit the proposed ordinance states. The Safeco Field is expected to generate $46 million for local jurisdictions and $140 million for Washington state in the next 20 years. And we found that this data is based on the being venues and populous architecture. 2014 Safeco Field Long Term Capital Needs Assessment Report, which used a 20 year net present value basis and projected to generate Safeco to generate 81 million in tax revenues to the PFA and 140 million to the state and 46 million to local jurisdictions . And these are so the total tax benefit is would be 260 million through 2036, which was the timeframe of the consultant's report. Another issue in the ALA or in the agreement, rather, is the extension of the lease. And we think it's important to note that the new this proposed agreement between the PFG and the counties states that a transfer of lodging tax receipts shall continue for the term of the lease as it may be extended in accordance with its terms. And since there's in the underlying term sheet, there's terms for the PFA in the Mariners it's 25 years long, but it also includes an option for the Mariners to extend the lease for three additional years twice. So the Mariners could extend extend the lease on their own for six years, which would under this language which would obligate the county to continue making the payments to the BFD. It's my understanding in consulting with the executive staff that this is not the intent. The intent is only to have the payment scope for the term, the 25 year term on the lease. But if that's it, if it is the will of the council to it to change that, that's an issue that should be flagged. And also in the agreement, the underlying note. Here in your staff report that as written, it could be another 70 for just shy of $74 million on top of the 184 million. Yeah, we calculated that by just taking the what is estimated to be the last year's payment to the PFA and just holding that's that constant for the for the next six years. The Amendment to agreement section in the agreement and the underlying agreement in Section three of the new agreement states that the agreement may be amended at any time by mutual written agreement of the parties. And we wanted to flag this if the Council may wish to consider the Council's role in reviewing or authorizing future amendments to this agreement. The parties are the from the executive branch in the party, especially related to the duration or any dollar amount in amending the agreement. And then there are some other edits to the underlying agreement that legal counsel has flagged, particularly just making sure that it is in the right form. And making sure that it's relevant with existing county statute and state law. And so that's the that's the summary of the of the analysis of the proposed agreement. Next to me. Happy to offer any updates that have happened since this committee last year ever deliberated on this issue. As Andrew said, on July 30th, the the executive transmitted the proposed agreement. And then in relating to the transit oriented development bond allocation, which we briefed the committee on last time. To date, nearly $50 million of the $87 million has been awarded, and that when we produce 141 units of affordable housing. 1041. I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah, that would be really expensive. And then just technically, the staff has determined that a document provided in the last staff report by the Mariners, which is which is known as the Skanska report, it's the list of the upgrade improvements that we talked about last time that it was formatted incorrectly and that it really totals up to approximately hundred and 84 million, which is slightly less than what we had originally reported at 190 million. And then I'm happy to go through the answers to the questions that were brought up during committee. If you want me to go through those, or if you want me to direct members to them. What's what's the pleasure of the body? Do we want to have Jeff highlight those answers to the previous questions? Customer one Right part. I think you have a lot of people in the audience. Okay. Take your suggestion on that. I'm seeing nods. All right, Jeff. Sounds like you got a pass on those. We can do our reading there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Anything else to add from central staff? Do members have questions for Andrew or Jeff based on the staff report or otherwise? No. All right. Let's hear anything I have to say. I can't hear. It's not too much. Thank you. I have a very soft voice, and I will work on speaking up if you can help us by making sure our volumes up on this new system, that would be great. All right. We're up all the way. All right. Next, we will turn if there aren't questions to a panel of guests that we've invited. And I'd ask them to just come forward. The first is Paul Moore. Who? Paul Moore, I'm sorry, who is a board member on the watch state, major League Baseball Stadium, Public Facilities District. Then we have Jerry Johnson, who is general counsel for the PFG. Dan Barrett, the executive vice president of CAA slash icon who was the lead lease negotiator for the PFG. Brian Slater, the senior project manager from being DEVENUS, the lead consultants for the long term capital needs. And Pat Tangent AIAA Principal Project Manager with Populous, who was the lead architect on the long term capital needs assessment. Thank you all for being here, and we appreciate your willingness to attend. Jerry, how how do you want to handle this? Do you have to have an order in mind? I have the table there in front of me. Once you have the table in front of you. Is that why you're sitting back there? Mr. Zimmerman, this is your first warning. You're disrupting the proceedings. If I. If I come after you again, you'll be removed. No second chances. Thank you. All right. Jerry, do you want to lead us off here? Assume there's some opening remarks and very provocative question. Introduce the panel. All right. And I've had a helpful suggestion from an audience member to pull that microphone right up to your mouth so we can all have a better chance of hearing you. Thank you, Chair Dombrowski and council members. I'm Jerry Johnson, a partner in the Pacifica Law Group, together with the National Sports Facility Practice based in the Denver office of the Hash Blackwell firm. We serve as counsel to the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District for the negotiation of the lease between our client and the Seattle Mariners. Thank you for this opportunity to participate this morning. Allow me to extend the apologies of the board chair, Virginia Anderson, who is traveling out of the country and unable to be here today. The board is represented here today by a member by board member Paul Moore, a long time leader in the international district community, and respected advisor and manager of numerous mixed use projects undertaken there over the years. Paul also played a leadership role in assessing the long term capital needs of the ballpark in the run up to the lease negotiations. Paul Together with representatives of our two critiques, sorry, two key consultants will discuss that work with you shortly. This work was commissioned jointly by the Mariners and the PFG. Together we selected the team of Populus, widely recognized as the leading sports venue, design and architecture firm in the country and beyond, even venues nationally recognized sports venue planners and project managers. Today, the principals of both firms who worked on our projects are here Pat Townsend for Populus and Brian Slater on behalf of BMD venues. Also joining me at the table this morning is Dan Barrett, a principal in CAA icon. Dan was selected by the FDA as our lead negotiator for discussions with the Mariners. Down in his firm are widely recognized among the foremost sports business consultants in the country. His many other sports major sports venue clients include our neighbor, the Washington State Public Stadium Authority, for which he recently conducted a comparative financial analysis of the Seahawks new naming rights agreement for CenturyLink. The residents of our entire team were provided to you separately. With those introductions, I will turn this over to Dan to review the term sheet the PFG has signed with the Mariners. In that regard, we previously provided a summary, I believe we have, of the principal ways in which a solid majority of the PFO board believe the term sheet represents an improvement over our current lease. After discussion of the lease, we'd like to turn to the capital needs assessment introduced by Paul and supported by our facility consultants. I would propose that we close by addressing any questions you may have about the proposed agreements between the county and the FDA, which I think I can answer. All right. Very good. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you, Jerry. Our council members, thank you for allowing us to present today. My name is Dan Barrett with CAA Icon. I'm going to go through the general parameters of the lease term sheet that we've negotiated with the Mariners. As you know, we represented the PD's interests in this negotiation. I'm going to highlight some of the differences between the existing agreement and the proposed agreement. I'll start with the term of the agreement. The original agreement was a 20 year deal, which is coming up at the end of this year. There were several extension periods, but those extension periods are by mutual agreement. So effective December 31st of this year, there is no lease. There are no existing terms in place going forward. And anything that would add any going forward by either party requires mutual agreement by both parties. So it's an important element to understand. The lease does expire, there aren't any automatic renewals. We have reached a tentative agreement on a 25 year lease, which is five years longer than the original term. And it also includes two three year options to extend on the same terms as the 25 year extension. The rent for the original agreement started at $700,000 a year. It has escalated by CPI since that time and is currently just over $1,000,000 a year, just below $1.1 million per year. It escalated a little over 2.3% per year over that period each year. The proposed term sheet includes a rent of 1.5 million, also increasing by CPI each year. The original agreement included a profit share provision. Can I ask you a question? The rent. How is the rent determined? It was part of a series of trade offs. We went back and forth on what what terms we thought were important. We felt that an increase in the rent was something that we wanted to achieve. But there were other elements to the agreement, including a capital contribution that I'll talk about in a moment of 3.25 million. That was part of the overall agreement. And how we looked at a rent. Rent is just one element of it. When we look at leases, we look at all of the stadium occupancy costs. So we look at rent, the contribution to capital, revenue sharing, taxes that they're subject to, etc.. I imagine that comparables are hard to find, but it doesn't sound like comparables were looked at to determine where. They were. Absolutely. So when we when we looked at this agreement 21 years ago, when I was at Deloitte Touche at the time, we compared this deal to 12 other new stadium deals and we compared all the occupancy costs for the stadium at that time. This time it's a little bit more difficult because you have a mix of new stadium deals and you have renovations and you have lease extensions. And so if you look at the original deals that were built around the same period of time, some of those buildings are currently being replaced. Some of them have lease extensions and some of them have uncertain futures right now. And we can talk about those specifically if you'd like. But all of those were looked at in terms of their deals as well as what we were structuring here. I'm just going to give just if you were to break it down and take the office space for the team alone, which is at the stadium. Do you know how many square feet that is? I don't. Off the top of my head. And just if you were to look at that times of market rate for office space in the city at 25 bucks a foot, I'd probably estimate triple net these days, just a million and a half a year. Right. So like I said, there's a little light, there's different elements that if you add up the rents and I don't I don't want to sit here and take the Mariners position or make the Mariners arguments. But just try to understand. How if you take if you if you look at a real estate lease and you look at rent, that's the primary element to it. Who's responsible for operating expenses? Who's responsible for capital repairs? What are those expenditures? And if you add up the rent, the revenue sharing, the capital expenditure contribution, you end up with about a $10 million a year payment. And then if you look at the overall expenses of it, they're substantially more than that. So that's how we looked at it. It's very difficult to compare a stadium lease with a traditional real estate lease. They're just very different. And when we look at the comparable stadium leases, we're looking at what's happening in Atlanta. We're looking what's happening in Denver and Houston, in Texas with the Texas Rangers. Those are kind of the deals that are being done right now. And that's what we were comparing against. Well, it's 1.5 million per year, correct? Rent. Correct. Again, one element of the overall deal. Okay. Yeah. The next piece is another component of rent or stadium occupancy costs as we would look at them, which is a profit sharing element. The original agreement called for the PFA to share in 10% of net income from from the operations of the Mariners in the first 19 years of the agreement. There was no revenue sharing to the PFG or no profit sharing to the PFG. And the reason for that was when the original agreement was made, there was a $200 million catch up provision, which was an accumulation of losses that the Mariners had realized, as well as their contribution. Towards the stadium. And so for that reason, there was no sharing or no profit sharing during the first 19 years. They've caught up as a result of profits realized during that period, and this year will be the first year that there's profit sharing. So we wanted to make sure there was more certainty and less risk with that. It was an important element from the Mariners perspective to get rid of that provision. We're not aware of any provisions in Major League Baseball or even in Major League sports where there is a operating profit share provision like this. And so in order to achieve that certainty and eliminate that risk from the fees perspective, we went to a revenue sharing model which called for one and a half percent of ticket revenue, the first hundred million in ticket revenue to go to the PFG to be used for capital repairs. That percentage increases to 2% over $100 million. We estimate that that would be about 1.3 to $1.5 million a year growing over time. Another important element that we addressed in the lease was the performance standard of the applicable standard that the Mariners were responsible for in terms of operating and maintaining the facility. And in the existing lease, the applicable standard or the level that they have to maintain the building at is compared to buildings that were built between 1990 and 1999. Several of those have been replaced already. 20 year old building in Atlanta was replaced with a new building in Cobb County. The Texas Rangers are replacing are having their facility replaced in Arlington after 20 plus years. And in the case of Atlanta, the contribution from the public sector is between three and $400 million. In the case of Texas, the city of Arlington's contribution is 500 million out of a $1 billion project. There's also Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Baltimore facilities that are looking at renovation plans or potential replacement in the case of Tampa Bay. So we wanted to make sure our applicable standard going forward was comparing to the better the better stadium or the better condition stadiums in Major League Baseball. So we replaced the buildings that were built between 1990 and 1999 with the top third requirement. In other words, the Mariners have to maintain, improve and upgrade the facility to meet the top ten or top third of Major League Baseball stadiums. So regardless of how much money is available in the fund, they're going to be responsible for meeting that obligation. And one thing that we wanted to make sure to clarify in this lease that was not as clear as as the original lease was that that means upgrades as well as necessary infrastructure and necessary improvements. Our goal and our objective from the start was to try to make this building last beyond not just this 20 year period, not just to the next 25 year period. There's often been talk about this being a 100 year building, and our goal was to try to have funds available to avoid situations where the facility gets deteriorated in the back end isn't maintained. And we wanted to make sure that that applicable standard was in place to maintain that. In addition, we also wanted to make sure that the PFA had more control over how those expenditures were made and what expenditures get made. And so in in the current lease, the Mariners are required to submit an annual management plan which explains their one year plan to maintain the building. The BFD doesn't have any approval rights over that in the current lease. In the term sheet, we have a a a plan that requires the Mariners to submit a one year plan and a ten year rolling plan that the PFG actually has to approve. So the PFA will approve the management plan and the capital maintenance plan on a one year and ten year rolling basis to make sure that the facility is continuing to be maintained. And again, it's regardless of whatever funds are available in the reserve funds, the Mariners are responsible for that. I mentioned that that in the current agreement the club is responsible for major maintenance and capital improvements. The upgrades is a little bit less clear. We wanted to make sure that upgrades were specifically identified in the term sheet to make sure that those improvements get made. We wanted to avoid a situation that the Arizona Diamondbacks and Maricopa County are in and Phenix, where they had a dispute over $187 million worth of capital improvements. They went to arbitration. They ultimately ended up settling after about a year and a half with the Diamondbacks getting their lease terminated five years early and being able to explore options within Arizona as well as outside of Arizona for a a liquidated damages fee of 25 million, reducing by 5 million each year. So a relatively nominal fee there that we want to avoid that uncertainty in this agreement. We also felt it was important and and the PFG has been looking at the neighborhood around the ballpark and trying to make improvements there. We wanted to identify a funding source to do that. And so the term sheet calls for a an immediate $2 million deposit into a neighborhood improvement fund. And then there is a portion of rent at the FDA's discretion to contribute to that neighborhood improvement fund that is expected to reach about $25 million, in addition to the $2 million over the period of the lease. One of the small that's. Kind of one of the interesting twist on this. It's a $25 million item. What is the intent of the BFD with respect to those improvements? What do they want to do with the money? I don't know if you want me to take that or. Sure. The discussion basically is that they want to make sure this isn't a fund to do major development around the ballpark. It's really a fund to try and improve the safety, the desirability, the fan experience around the ballpark, whether that's painting, landscaping or other projects to make it more safe, more desirable. That was the original intent for that neighborhood improvement fund. There was a district study master plan that was done by the PFG that looked at some of those different elements. But that was a primary purpose there. All you want in on that? Sure. Yeah. One of the things that the BFD, because of our desire to protect the public interest in the stadium, is to look at the surrounding area and to make sure that, as Dan had mentioned, that the fan experience is a good one, that pedestrian safety is in there and that whatever gets develop is compatible with the BFD and the Mariners want to happen inside the stadium. Thank you. Thanks, Mark. One of the smaller items that was discussed but was a source of economic impact of the PFG is that historically they've had a share of insurance expense. We've now put that insurance expense on the Mariners 100%. So that obligation goes away from the PFG. An important element that that we wanted to make sure to address was the non relocation of the team. Under the current agreement, the Mariners are required to play 90% of their games at the stadium. The the requirement to play those games is part of the existing lease since the time that that lease was constructed. The industry has gotten a little bit smarter and a little bit more. I shouldn't say smarter. They've advanced in terms of how the non relocation provisions are addressed and now they're typically addressed in a standalone bankruptcy remote document. So there's a standalone non relocation agreement that we have required the Mariners to enter into that provides more safety and more protection from the parties perspective that the team won't relocate over the 25 year period. Another element of the existing agreement requires that the the club to pay the PFG 20% of net profits from the sale of the club. If 80% of the of the team is sold. That provision has not come into play given even even though there was a sale of the team, it did not. There was a there were some carve outs for the 80% as well as to existing owners. So that provision never came into play in the original agreement. We modified that agreement or that provision to provide more protection for the PFA and the community. And what we wanted to try to do with that provision is to incentivize a new buyer to extend the lease by ten years. So it would take it from 25 to 35 years and also encourage the Mariners to sell to local interests. And so local interests would be defined as someone, a local buyer would be defined as someone who has lived or had a principal business in the area, in the Seattle area, for at least ten years. If if if the Mariners sell to members within the existing ownership group or anyone who agrees to a ten year extension, there is no payment. And I should point out that there was a cap in case I didn't point out there was a $20 million cap in the existing agreement. If if the PFA is so excuse me, if the Mariners are sold during the first 15 years of the term or if it's sold to someone who extends the agreement for ten years, then it's a $20 million payment to the PFA. However, the club is restricted from selling to any owner that doesn't extend the agreement by ten years and the last ten years of the agreement. If if for some reason a court doesn't uphold that provision, then we get 10% or the PFA gets 10% of the gross proceeds of any sale. So we're really trying to put a penalty in there in the event that they try to sell it in the last ten years of the agreement without a ten year extension. So we're really trying to incentivize local ownership and we're trying to incentivize ten year extension on the 25 year term. And then the final kind of major provision, there was a disposition of the ballpark at the end of the term. There really was no provision for demolition of the ballpark once the term ends. We made sure that there was a provision that allowed for demolition of the ballpark, if that's what the community chose, as well as the PFG would retain any proceeds and any of the reserve funds in the event that the club was no longer playing in the Seattle area. And that basically summarizes the comparison of the of the existing lease versus what the term sheet is currently proposing. Okay. Dan, thank you for that. We'll have some questions. First comes from Ron Perlman, Councilmember Up the Grove and Councilman Raquel Welch. Nathan and Peter today. And I thank you very much for providing this opportunity for a discussion and listening to the public later. Getting back to your reference to a study, can you speak a little bit to the safety study for this $25 billion that was done by the PFG? You said that study was done to enable it to spend $25 million around the facility. The and maybe Paula, Jerry, you guys can talk about that. I think he's talking the district master plan that was done. Oh, by the PFG that we. Yes. So the the city in conjunction with the public stadium authority for for the football and the public facilities district for baseball did a a neighborhood study. And this involved also Pioneer Square and the international district, Paul. Correct. And you were involved in that, I think. So do you want to. Share this study was done probably about maybe eight, ten years ago. And basically the purpose of the study at the time was to try to get the city's comprehensive plan to include the stadium district as part of the comp plan. And in in that study, we looked at what could happen in the neighborhood, what are its needs and what are its wants. And basically, it laid out a lot of physical alternatives and also had some preliminary price tags on those so that the dollars that were presented in that study were very preliminary and early on. And I don't think that it is the aspiration of the D to take on that whole financial burden. That's just a reference point in terms of the kind of thing that might be useful or helpful within the district in general. And the idea of the Neighborhood Improvement Fund, Paul, is much more narrow. Yeah, the neighborhood improvement fund is is being proposed by the P of the focuses of more around the immediate surrounding of the stadium. So that's the basis of of where we're going with that particular proposal. $25 million is a significant figure for that area. And I was wondering if you can fill in a little bit about how you would spend $25 million? We we wouldn't we would not. It's a city that's a city study. And again, that is not something that we that we would take on. That's not what the Neighborhood Improvement Fund is for. This is it would hopefully do things that are compatible with that. But and I would just point out that that the primary source for that neighborhood improvement fund is is the rent. So you pay the rent fees, operating expenses have to be covered, and then $250,000 gets set aside for capital improvements. The balance of that gets contributed to the Neighborhood Improvement Fund, which is around $600,000 initially and will grow over time. The total amount over the 25 year period gets used to close to about $25 million, but it's not an upfront payment or anything like that. It's a relatively small number over that, over time. Jerry, were you involved in the initial language creating the PFG? Yes. We're in that language as the mission to do our work around the district. I don't I don't recall that. So the the mission of the public facilities district and the statutory mission is basically to steward the ballpark. And the public facilities district looked at its own mission and recently expanded that to focus in addition to just the the immediate structure of the immediate environs around that structure. And it's our belief that a limited and focused minor public improvements to the streetscape to provide for fans safety and enjoyment sort of things that Paul spoke to are well within the statutory authority. I look forward to reviewing that with you. Thank you. Happy to talk with you about it further. Thank you. Thank you. Customer Ron Councilmember Up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I might do two questions and that's it. Well, the first one. Thanks for being here. This is a helpful and clear overview. I found it useful. I'm fortunate to be a landlord myself. I rent a little condo out that I used to have and I charge enough rent to cover the costs of the upkeep and maintenance of the condo. So why wasn't that a goal. Of the lease negotiations to charge enough to cover the costs of maintenance and upkeep, whether through rent or other payments? Well, we think that we've identified enough funding sources to cover a substantial portion of those expenses. We think that the risk is on the Mariners and not on the PFG. You can always negotiate a real estate deal where, you know, whether it's triple net or it's a gross lease. And in this situation, we identified the rent payment. We identified the 3.25 million that would go, which I'm not sure that I covered. Actually, there was a capital I didn't cover that. There is a $3.25 million a year subject to escalation commitment that the Mariners need to make towards the CapEx fund. So there's 1,000,005, there's 3.25 million. There's roughly a million and a half for the revenue share. And and then there's the emissions tax and the parking taxes. And those generate over the period, we think, a substantial amount to cover certain obligations, capital obligations that would maintain the facility. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my second, which is sort of a follow up to that. And given that. Do the terms of this lease. Require another government such as King County, to contribute funds in order to fulfill the lease requirements? The PFA hasn't taken a position on that, but the term sheet calls for the PFG to accept what the county decides and will accept any funds, funds, if any, that the county decides to invest. So that's up. And I'm no, I'm not asking this to make a political point. I'm trying to actually. Understand it then. So is there a shortfall in the lease in terms of the ability to maintain it under the maintain and keep. That facility up, barring some other government, whether it's the state or the county or whoever the Mariners come to to ask for more money? Is that that does the lease stand on. Its own without additional public funds? Well, is there enough money in the terms of the lease to maintain and keep the field up there at the ball field up without another government contributing funds? I take that. Sorry. Ultimately, it depends. It depends on how you define the issue and how you define the cost. There's in the Brailsford and Donnelly V popular study, you'll hear that there's $385 million of expected costs. You'll also hear that there are upgrade costs, varying numbers going from 160 to $190 million. It really depends on how you define the problem and how you decide to participate or invest in it. If I might just follow up before we start asking customer calls and then it comes from others to jump in. The 365 million maintenance costs that were done in the popular study are those fully funded by the economic terms in the term sheet without any outside injection of resources. So again, they don't include the upgrades. That was my question. Okay. 365 no upgrades. 385 three 8585. Does the rent and the contribution to CapEx and the parking tax and the ticket tax, does that cover that for the term of the lease 25 years? The revenue sources, depending on what your assumptions are, are estimated to generate about 350 to 355 million. Okay. So 20 to 25 million, perhaps short. About maybe 30. Okay. All right. I think that's what council member of the growth was trying to get. So council member council member Dombrowski. And I just to add the conundrum, of course, is that without a lease, none of those obligations exist. Right. And so the Mariners have made the request for county funding and informed us that their willingness to enter into the lease that we've just described to you that create those obligations is contingent upon some level of investment by the Council. And that's not in their signed term sheet that the PFA and the Mariners signed when they agreed to execute a lease pursuant to the terms. That's correct. There's a separate communication to that effect and that is what we understand their view to be and that is what they have stated publicly to be their position. And when did they first inform the PFA of that position after a couple of years of negotiating these lease terms. The my partner who. The party was aware of the club's aspiration for public support, some degree of public support during most of the conversations that two years of work included the the the capital needs study and a lot of work before we actually engaged with the Mariners, that conversation was about a year in length and during that period of time the PFA was aware that the club was going to ask them, or at least they signaled they were going to ask. Did they indicate the amount that they would seek? No. All right. And is that Gerry, while I've got you, does the public facilities district have its own taxing authority? No. The public facilities, district levies and admissions tax, which is collected by the county on its behalf, it's it's called a tax, but it's really a user fee, honestly, at all of the revenue that the PFA collects from both its admissions tax and it's much smaller parking tax are generated by the enterprise itself. They don't have sales tax. We have no broad based tax. All of the broad based. Boxes that were provided for the original construction of the ballpark sunset when the deck was retired a number of years ago. Thank you, Councilmember Cole, while sorry for interrupting your line. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for being here. This is really illuminating, and I'd like to start off right away that I'm a huge supporter of the Mariners and was thrilled when Governor Lowry called the legislature and a special session when the voters initially turned down the funding for the stadium. I want the club to be successful and it is showing that it can be successful. And it's and I want to be able to reach those applicable standards to be in the top third of all ballparks in the country. And even though fan base is down around the country, from what I understand in other ballparks, the Mariners have been doing really well, even showing signs of growth because it's a great stadium. It does need maintenance, it does need upkeep, and it does need upgrades to in order to continue that way. But I am very concerned and this is all very complicated, but as has been mentioned, Dan and Jerry and that there was nothing specific on the term sheet, but one thing that had been computed demanded by the Mariners, as I understand, and you have mentioned, was that it was non-negotiable, that there would be annual profit sharing in the new lease. So we get that and in return there would be some type of revenue sharing put into place. But my understanding is that what also was assured was that the Mariners would assume sole and unilateral responsibility to repair, maintain and upgrade the ballpark in order to reach those applicable standards. I don't know if I'm incorrect on that, but that's what my understanding is. And in Virginia, Anderson's letter that came out on August 15th, I think it made it very clear that the party would accept any funding that came about from the hotel motel tax, depending on what the council decides to do. But it wasn't requesting that we go ahead with that. And even in the closing two paragraphs, it was bolded in her letter that there would not need to be that. The PFA believes the negotiated terms for a new 25 year lease with the club would substantially increase increase the club's obligation to invest in the long term stewardship of the ballpark and give the PFA an even stronger hand in ensuring compliance with their obligations. But again, reinforcing that they were not taking any position or asking the county for these funds from the hotel motel tax starting in 2021. So I'd like to hear any other comment that you might have. When I calculated out what the public I think should contribute sum, it is a publicly owned facility. I came out with 24 to $25 million, which in fact has been mentioned here, and that would be to cover the gap between what the club's responsibilities would be and the parties responsibilities would be in covering basic maintenance. And we came out with the 25 or $24 million gap, which is what I'm very happy to to go forward with. That was kind of a statement, not a question. So if there's any response, I would be very pleased to hear that. Well, Councilmember Coles, I would I would just say again that what was represented in Virginia Anderson's letter with respect to the lease is correct. But unless the Mariners are satisfied with respect to the level of public investment that they may find acceptable, then we will not have a lease. I think, in these terms, I should say. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just somewhat following up on Councilmember Caldwell's line of questioning. This was not a unanimous vote at the PFG. And I wonder if you want to say anything about the no vote and the reasons that have been given quite publicly, and if there's any response to that from the folks who did vote in favor. There's this kind of split on the board that's of interest to me. I understand it. Put you on the spot, but you're here. You're there. You're on the. Spot. Well, I would say, I guess, first of all, that this body certainly understands that unanimity is a high standard and people, reasonable people can disagree. The board has only seven members. They all worked very hard over the course of the last two plus years with respect to the negotiation of this lease and providing guidance to us and understanding the needs of the ballpark and the board as its chair, Virginia Anderson explained, did not join in the request for public funding. A majority a solid majority of the board, five members agreed to a term sheet that provides that the PFA will accept public funding but and that the the condition on the lease, the contingency is not the parties condition, it's the clubs. But again, it takes two parties to have a contract. It's worth. Was there any substantive discussion about the rationale for the dissenting votes and what we think those reasons were and how they're addressed in the least? So the whether public funding would come into the into the facility was a topic of discussion. All of the discussions within the board about these terms were properly conducted in executive session. And certainly it's not for me to to discuss the those conversations in detail. So I would say that's an issue of this magnitude, obviously was a topic of substantial discussion throughout the period of time. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. And then Councilmember Caldwell's. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of us did get some correspondence from the dissent, the dissenting voters, and they appeared to indicate that after having the discussion, we thought that this is them speaking. We thought that the Mariners that 50 was being very generous to the Mariners. There's no reason why there isn't a good reason why the public should have the should be requested to participate by giving $190 million over 25 years to the BFD or the Mariners or the stadium. I don't know what time I suppose it is. And their argumentation, at least to me as one councilmember, was very reasoned, and it has had a lot to do with why I've been willing to support the proposition put forth by Councilmember Carl Wells that 25 million is very reasonable. It has been helpful, Jerry, that you and the others have helped clarify that even though the vote was 5 to 2, it wasn't tied to 5 to 2 in favor of asking. The King County government for money. It was 5. To 2 saying that if the King kind of government decides to support contribution for contributing funds to this. Endeavor, that you would it that they would accept it. Am I misinterpreting? So it's close, but it's a little more nuanced there. If the board was not did not vote on the public funding question, separately, the board voted on approving a term sheet that we reviewed for you and that you have seen. And one of the reasons that at least one and to some extent the other dissenting vote on that question was the objection to the Mariners contingency that public funding would come. So there was there were typically there was never a vote on whether to ask or even accept public funding as a free standing question. Oh, okay. Okay. And then finally, Mr. Chair, Jerry, did you say that the Mariners and then negotiations said that they would walk if they didn't get anything from King County government? Well, it the Mariners advised the club I'm sorry, the club advised the 50 throughout the conversation that they were expecting to ask and and hoped that the county would provide a substantial amount of public funding. They returned the term sheet to us, signed with an explicit contingency condition that they would not enter into a lease consistent with the term sheet if the county were not to do that. So they did say that they. Would not and they didn't. Five Well, they didn't specify a number. But they didn't specify the number. They did not provide an amount acceptable to the club. It's how it's been put in. And was that presented to you in writing? Is that. Yes, in writing? Well, it's not a public document. It is a public document. The press has quoted it. It was in an email returning the signed term sheet. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Councilmember Garcia, Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To any of you, I'd like to hear about the upcoming change to the naming rights of the stadium or anything about the naming rights. What I've been hearing is that could be happening. A new name different from Safeco Field and the expectation that that would to get for any organization or business to get the naming rights would involve quite a lot of funds to the Mariners or to the team. I'm not sure. And if that is the case, is the public able to be able to benefit from any naming rights? I mean, I we want to get more funds for this. Stadium. We're just some of us are questioning and that it should come directly from the taxpayers funds. And this seems to be like another category of funding that could be available. And if so, could that be used for maintenance and upkeep and upgrades? So just to. Under the current lease, the Mariners have the ability to sell the naming rights subject to the statutory requirement that that name be approved by the PFA after consultations with the state legislature. That's a function of that feature of the statute you referred to. Council member that providing for the original formation, the PFO and the construction of the ballpark, the at the moment the the naming rights the club is, as far as we know, not engaged in discussions about the sale of the naming rights. They really have nothing to sell until they have a lease. And I don't know, Dan, if you want to speculate about the. Well, know that they are. I'm sorry. They're beard and I usually don't need a microphone. The naming rights are something that that the Mariners the Safeco deal is going to end. And so they will be looking for a naming rights partner. Jerry is right that until they have a long term lease, it's going to be unlikely that they'll be able to sell a long term naming rights agreement. Naming rights get highlighted frequently in these negotiations and in the political discussions regarding stadiums and arenas. And they are typically retained by the team in these negotiations. There's trade offs. You know, the naming rights are really not any different from sponsorship revenue or concession revenue or parking revenue. They just are a bigger number typically, and they're much more high profile. But we talked about naming rights during negotiations. Again, we made a series of trade offs in our negotiations and felt that getting the the rent and the CapEx contribution and the rep share were numbers that we felt were certain or certain. There's no guarantee that they will be able to sell naming rights to the building. The Washington Nationals for years have been trying to sell naming rights to their new building. Dallas Cowboys took them a number of years to sell it to AT&T. We would expect that they would sell the naming rights. But right now, we don't know what that amount will be. We don't know what term that will be. And we wanted to make sure we got the certainty of other revenue streams to cover CapEx going forward. I thought. Thank you, Dan. And but it's a logical to assume that said, the proceeds from naming naming rights sales could go toward maintenance and upkeep and upgrades. It's. It certainly is possible. Just like we're we're requiring them to commit 3.25 million directly to CapEx, a dedicated funding source, we could say give us 50% of naming rights towards capital expenditures. And that may be less than 3.25 million. And that would be a potential tradeoff that we weren't willing to make in that situation. We've got 3.25 escalated over 25 years is going to be a substantial payment. There are other agreements. If you take the Dallas Cowboys, for example, the city gets, I think, 10% with a cap of $500,000 a year. That that cap, the payment is substantially more. 10% is substantially more than a cap. You know, there are political ways to to get pieces of naming rights. But we think we wanted to go to the substance and make sure we had enough dollars that were certain. So is it theoretically possible that the sum of the proceeds could go to the public? It's all part of negotiations. So if we asked them for that, they would ask for some other trade offs. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Just following up on Councilmember Caldwell's line of inquiry on the naming rights. It seems that that number could be could vary widely. It could be $10 million, $20 million or $40 million if you have not put any kind of capture or cap or adjustment to the financial terms of the deal based on the result of the naming rights sale, as I understand it. Is we did not touch naming rights. We did not want to have the trade off where we were participating in upside and being exposed on the downside. So just gave them all the upside. Correct. And we and they also have all the risk with any capital repairs, maintenance and up. Based on your experience with CenturyLink, I think you said you had an other stadium. Can can you or anybody here on the panel give us an estimate of what a 25 year naming rights deal for today's Safeco Field might buy? Sure. And the it's naming an existing building carries less value. Typically the naming a new building, because people are used to calling it something a three time park, monster park, Candlestick Park. Probably are familiar with Candlestick Park. And I used. To be familiar with Quest. Field, which I used. To be familiar with Quest Field. Okay, exactly. Exactly, exactly. So people get used to calling it something. People are used to calling this Safeco Field. So a buyer of naming rights will take that into consideration. Their original deal was a 40 million deal over 20 years, $2 million a year. We would expect that that would increase substantially from that level because naming rights agreements have increased since that since that time, whether they could get four or $5 million a year with escalation going forward over a 20, 25 year period, it's certainly part. Possible, but there is no assurance or no guarantee that they will sit. So it could be a $100 million item. It again with a renaming of an agreement. You know, there are typically shorter term deals, maybe a ten year deal, maybe a 20 year deal. But it's just like any sponsorship agreement, major sponsorship agreements could be five, ten, 20 year deals. It's very uncertain what the revenue stream is that they're going to get. But it could be substantial. Yes. Could it be $100 million? It's hard to say exactly. That's not. It's hard to say what the what the total. Anybody else have any thoughts on that? No. All right. One final line of question, if I might, before we wrap up here. And I do want to give these gentlemen a quick update, but we got a lot of folks who have come to testify, and we do want to hear from them, I guess. And Jerry, maybe you can help me with this, but the lack of a kind of a number with respect to the public investment outside of the PFG, in other words, take the lodging tax. We'll take it if we can get it. We don't have a position on the amount. I wonder, and it seems to have come kind of late. They delivered the term sheet to you saying this is conditioned apparently upon getting some lodging tax revenue. I wonder if the terms of the agreement that the paddy negotiated would have differed if you knew that there was going to be a substantial investment of lodging tax or outside tax money end of the deal, for example. The transparency seems to be reduced. We, as I understand it, have given up our right for the annual review of the books. What the public benefits would they have been different? Could there have been low dollar or free tickets for, you know, disadvantaged children, but would the naming rights pricing have come into play? This is a 180 plus million dollars we're talking about here. That is kind of you're saying, well, we'll take what we can get, but all of these terms seem to be related to one another. As you describe, the economic investment drives, the overall lease deal. And I just wonder, it seems like a big, big number to put in and say, but everything else remains constant. Everything else remains constant. Can you help me understand whether the PFG, if it had known that $180 million of outside resources were going to come into this deal, or would you have negotiated different terms along oversight, transparency, public benefit, or just economic obligations on behalf of the Mariners? So I guess the answer to your your your question, council member, is it what you're suggesting is, is pretty speculative that that's not how the conversation unfolded. What I what I believe is that the Mariners gave us as much as they did in terms of improvements over the current lease in anticipation of having public support. In other words, I don't believe that we would have gotten the lease that we have before us now through the term sheet had they had no expectation of getting public funding. And I think it is important to turn to the the scope of the potential need, because one of the major improvements in the lease stand pointed out and very central to the question that you have before you, is the scope of the Mariners responsibility to invest in the building, which is broader and potentially unlimited with the combination. And this is very important of a much stronger hand for the PFG in determining the scope of that obligation rather than being purely advisory as it is now, the Mariners have to have our approval. Their approval may not unreasonably be withheld. True, but it's still approval. So may we turn to the CapEx? I sure. But I we're not. To be honest, we have a lot of interest in the details and maybe we can hit the highlights there and we'll. Try to be efficient. I want to give Councilman one right power opportunity after they finish the year. So let's spend ten more minutes and then let's get to public testimony if that will work. Okay. I'll try to be brief. Council Chair Dombrowski and Honorable Council Members. My name is Paul Moore, as was introduced by Jerry. I am a member of the Board of the Public Facilities District that oversees Safeco Field, and I'm here today on behalf of the board. A major element of the lease negotiations was when we started looking at this, was to determine what the future cost would be in order to keep Safeco Field in the top tier of ballparks in the Major Leagues. What we did at that time, and I think it's been mentioned before, is the public facility district and the ballclub jointly agreed to fund and participate in a capital needs assessment study. Basically, we jointly selected the consultants, the indie venues and populous architects. They. Began their study in 2015 and completed it in the spring of 2016. Initially, they were looking at our requests at a 20 year horizon. Subsequent to completing the study, we asked the peer to ask them to extend that commitment to 25 years, which they did in both the PFA and the Mariners have accepted the results of the study. The consultants estimated that the necessary improvements, those improvements that are needed to keep save Greenfield in the prime condition with the top third of comparable stadiums, would cost about $385 million over the 25 year period. And this includes, of course, contingencies and escalation. The consultants provided us also with some concept of upgrade improvements, which neither the Mariners or the BFD made any approval at the time. Since that time, and I think the council has received a document from the Mariners that they have listed a number of upgrade improvements over the 25 year period that add up to around $190 million. So the $385 million is what we believe and the Mariners believe are the necessary improvements to keep the ballpark in top shape over the next 25 years. With me at the table and Gerry is in two are Brian Slater from BTV. Then you the venues and that dangling firm populous architects who can answer any questions you might have about their study and about the capital needs. All right, Pat and Brian, give us the highlights, given where we are on the program that you think we need to know. Okay. The dialog you've heard. My apologies. My name is Brian Slater. I'm with B.A. Venues. Thank you for having us here this morning. We've covered much of it already, but over the next 25 years, the cost to maintain Safeco Field and a first class condition is estimated at $385 million. This is additive to maintenance and operations costs, which are detailed in the report and estimated at about 250 million over that same term. There are also upgraded concepts that are more fan focused concepts that are estimated at. As Dan mentioned, anywhere from about 160 to $190 million. Those are the highlights of the study, and we're happy to dig into any of the details that you all see fit. Thank you. Councilmember Up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as I'm asking this, you might not be the right person, but just to kind of get to a bottom line, you add up the maintenance costs you identified and the necessary improvements. Compared to the revenue that's generated without any outside money. What's the gap in the terms of the lease? If you take the revenue that's anticipated, on one hand the necessary improvements in maintenance, on the other hand, do they equal or what is the dollar delta? What's the gap? That's not over the course of the lease that's not funded. That would that would require outside funding, again, just for the necessary improvements and the maintenance. So including the 250 for maintenance. So it'd be about $280 million shortfall. There's about 30 to $35 million shortfall between the necessary improvements and the funding sources. And then if you add the operating maintenance items, that's about $250 million that the Mariners have estimated to be about 280 285 million. And that's what. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And that's what's proposed to be the team's contribution or a public contribution to be an out the the maybe I didn't ask that question correctly. The as I understand it, there's a specific dollar commitment from the team in the terms of the lease. And when you add up that commitment that's been made as well as the other sources of revenue, right? My math was different. I took the ability to fund the necessary improvements and the maintenance. There's there's two different numbers you're talking about. The maintenance that Brian just mentioned is annual operating maintenance. There was another number which was the upgrades. I think you're referring to the upgrades number. Okay. 162 190. And then we were talking about previously the the chair had asked about with. I guess what I'm asking is when the. With $180 million public contribution were that to be made? Does that allow funding beyond the necessary improvements and maintenance? Would that allow funding to go into that? I guess that third category that was identified as potential additional upgrades, you mentioned in the in the consultant's report, there were additional opportunities for new investments in the stadium beyond those that were deemed necessary. Would an outside contribution of $180 million allow the ability to go beyond the necessary upgrades? It would depend on how you restricted it according to the current draft of the inner local agreement. Those dollars would not be able to be spent on upgrades. However, it does reduce the obligation of the Mariners their overall obligation. But it could supplant. We have we have some situations in county government where the state gives us money for criminal justice. But they say you can't move your current criminal justice elsewhere. Would there be any restrictions if this money went to maintenance? Could money the Mariners were going put into maintenance then get pulled out and put on other things? Or do we have some know some plantation language in there? So I think as a as a practical matter, the did to turn back to the lease the lease the lease terms to contemplate lease terms as reflected in the term sheet. Do not subdivide the Mariners obligation to maintain the ballpark and invest in the ballpark consistent with the applicable standard. So all of the elements of the capital improvements required to do that, including the upgrades, fall within the scope of that obligation so we don't disaggregate them. If if your funding were to come as a result of the draft agreement and the legislation you have before you, that would be the only earmark, if you will, on the use of available funds for a subcategory of the full scope that the club is obligated to perform. Thank you. Councilmember Yvonne Roukema. Mr.. I'm hoping that perhaps because it's a fact finding meeting this morning, we might be able to hear from the general counsel for the Mariners because specific questions were raised, and I think they could best answer some of the questions that were raised in the process of the last hour. Thank you very much, Congressman. Right back for that suggestion. Are there any further questions for our panelist assembled here at this time? I want to thank each of you for making yourself available for your work. It's helped us understand this complicated deal a little better and understand some of the facts and circumstances around it. Paul, I want to thank you particularly for your service to the public on the board and for your decades of leadership in the Chinatown International District and working to protect the community there. So we appreciate you being here on behalf of the board. And with that, Jerry, you've got to kind of wrap up remark. And then I do want to ask if he wants to to have Mr. Rivera, general counsel for the mayor, heard the dialog and may have some additional. Absolutely. And I just wanted to thank you for this opportunity. And all of us here are available to you or your staff as you continue to consider this. Thank you, Jerry. You are just as they send you off here, the preeminent lawyer in this state for public facilities districts. And I asked you about taxing authority. Sometimes, as you know, lawyers disagree. And I kind of put you on the spot. But but would you take a look and confirm for us offline whether or not the public facilities district has existing property tax and sales tax authority subject to a vote of the people? Our our lawyers and staff are telling us that that that authority may be there. I heard you say that it lapsed with the pay off of the bonds, but would you take a look at that and maybe get with Miss Moore here to have a little lawyer dialog? Yes. You know, with that. Yes, I understand your question. I'm happy to respond to it. Thank you so much. Appreciate your being here. Mr. Rivera. Thank you for being here. You've heard the dialog, and I don't know if, Councilwoman, you've got a specific question or maybe Mr. Mayor just has some general responses to add to the dialog we've had. Well, thank you for making sure we excused. You are excused. You may go now. You're welcome to stay for the rest of this. I mean. No, Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I think a lot of general questions were thrown out here, and I think to the best of their ability, BFD representatives were trying to address some of the answers, but I think it's important to have specific answers from the from the Mariners themselves to some of the issues that were raised , especially some of the special and speculative questions. Sir, thank you very much for that. Thank you for being here, Fred, and go ahead. Thank you. I have three points I want to make. And, of course, I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. First, we respect and I sent a correspondence on this issue as well. We respect the party's decision to not weigh in on the political process as to whether this body should allocate funds to the PFG for stadium capital improvements. The notion, however, that's been suggested that the party was not aware that this was a revenue stream is is not accurate, as Mr. Johnson indicated today during during our studies of revenue streams to fulfill the necessary capital improvements, lodging tax had always been part of the available revenue stream to fund what is necessary over the next 25 years or so. It was no surprise to the PFG and I would further add that when the state legislation was amended in 2005 to restrict how the funds can be used by this body, the PFG was involved in those discussions and actually lobbied to ensure that capital improvements at professional sporting stadiums was one of the allowable uses for the tourism portion of the lodging tax. So I recognize that I believe none of the current board members were around in 2005, but the PFG is a body since at least then has been advocating to use this money for this particular purpose. The second point I want to make is this is, as I think a couple of council members have noted, the financial aspects are somewhat complicated. It's a complicated building. It's a 25 year term. So there's some complicated aspects to it. But one thing that I don't want to get lost is that the $180 million in upgrades is necessary. It's necessary to meet the applicable standard. The 385 million is the base work just to keep the lights on and the water running. The 180 million, which the Mariners will fully fund, is necessary, in the words of Mr. Johns, or the parties. Letter 180 million is necessary to extend the economic life of the structure. These are these are not these are not funds that cannot be spent. And if they're not spent, you have the situation in Texas where you have a stadium that's being demolished. In Arizona, where there is litigation for two years and a stadium that's likely to be demolished. The PFA and the Mariners recognized that and came up with the responsible. Financing plan to prohibit that. Lastly, on the notion of the naming rights, and that is that is a very good question. What hasn't been mentioned is that under the term sheet, the committed revenue sources that the Mariners are committing equal $615 million over the 25 year period. So at $615 million into operation and maintenance upgrades and capital improvements, in addition, any overruns that are required, whatever whatever funding is necessary to meet the applicable standard, the Mariners are 100% responsible for that, even if it goes beyond six $615 million over the 25 years, the way the club funds, that is through its revenue streams and one of those revenue streams is naming rights at this time. We have, I think, as Mr. Johnson or Mr. Burns said, we have nothing to sell. There is no lease as of January 1st. There is no naming rights partner as of next year. If we if we do have one, that is a revenue stream that goes into funding the $615 million commitment. And so it's not additive to that. So those are the three points I wanted to make. I'm more than happy to answer any questions of this body. Very good. Thank you, Fred, for being here. Questions for Mr. Rivera. Maybe I'll ask you, since you're here on the naming rights, the BFD representatives indicated they had no knowledge of any current status. Do you have a partner identified or any contingent or type of deal or an asking price for the naming rights? Can you give us any more information on that? We do not have any of those, and frankly, we're unable to. Given the currently situation there, there's simply nothing to nothing to sell as of now after December 31st of this year. So what is the team's current plans with respect to the name of the stadium starting next season, since signage would have to be changed here more almost to September? Is the plan to continue it as Safeco Field? We haven't gone that far. That's that's one potential is to leave it up. Key arena, for example, is still Katerina, even though there's no deal there. So what? We haven't explored what the options may be. Thank you. And then just a down in the details a little bit. One of the costs that have been identified is for a new or expanded parking garage. Is that in the 385 million number or the 180 million upgrade number. That world? You know, actually, it's not even in the 180. That's even another number that would be part of an upgrade. That would be the Mariners responsibility as a potential concept. So that is that's not part of either of those numbers. All right. That's helpful. Thank you. Other questions? Customer run rate Mark. Thank you again. And thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rivera, in the discussion about this effort to improve the safety and security around the facility, what conversations have the Mariners had with the PFG relative to this? What to me is a relatively new idea that I didn't when we were involved with the original setting up of the PFG , I as a member of the King County Council, I never thought of that as a mission of the PFG. But I'm curious, have there been conversations with you relative to this part of the lease negotiations? And again, I think it was Mr. Barrett, Mr. Johnson accurately reflected the give and take of a negotiation that took two years to get to this point. The PFG made clear that it was important to them that they have funds available to improve the neighborhood. And and as part of the negotiation, there was an agreement reached that they could take money out of our rent for that purpose. I'm not aware of any any specific projects they have in mind. Only some of the general ideas that I think were reflected this morning. And I don't have any other information beyond that. Thank you. Thanks, Jerry. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. All right. We will close our fact finding and staff work portion of this and turn to public comment. I want to thank everyone for being here and waiting patiently. And Mr. Zimmerman, you're now out of order.