Panelists: Sue Cary, Bob Filley, Jan Hendrickson (Chair), Bob Mahon, Bill Rex, Jackson Schmidt, George Staggers, Rafael Stone, Greg Sundberg, Scott Surdyke, Josephine Tamayo Murray, Dinah Thoreson

P4 Staff: Sara Levin

Guests: Layne Cubell, Design Commission Coordinator; Stephen Lundgren, President, Seattle Community Council Federation

Panelists continued the discussion initiated at the 10-27-2000 meeting. Jan Hendrickson began the meeting with a quick overview of discussions that she and Sara Levin had with the City’s Chief Financial Officer, Dwight Dively, and with Council President Margaret Pageler. Jan and Sara briefed Dwight and the Council President on the Panel’s October discussion. Dwight indicated that there is not a good sense of who the Panel’s "client" is. Dwight also concurred that, at this point, the Executive sees P4 as an extra step, rather than a group who is adding value to a project’s development. P4 could ideally play a quality assurance role in reviewing projects. Dwight agreed that no projects targeted for review at this point are similar to the Pacific Place Garage. He also raised the challenge of working in the public light while trying to review confidential materials. Jan also reported that Dwight felt that the questions that Panelists raised during the Aquarium briefing were very helpful to the City staff.

From the meeting with Council President Pageler, Jan reported that the Council President said that P4 would be helpful playing the role of being a "reality check" on the financial information provided by the Executive.

Sara Levin shared with the group that, following distribution of the 10-27-2000 draft meeting minutes, staff from the offices of Councilmembers Licata, Nicastro, and Pageler expressed concern, and interest in meeting with the Panel to help clarify the group’s role.

The group’s discussion began with Rafael Stone pointing out that the Admiral Garage project was a good example of a project in which the financial information didn’t make sense. The problem was that the Panel received it too late to make a difference. He feels that the group could easily play a much more analytical role. Bob Filley pointed out that the two garage projects (Admiral and Pacific Place) were the opposite in terms of goals and economic sense.

Jan Hendrickson said that disclosure is the group’s biggest issue. The Panel currently only sees project advocates, and in their future work need to be more aggressive about digging beneath the surface of the information they’ve been provided.

Bill Rex referred to a statement in the draft memo to Council and the Mayor that includes projects in which private profits are being generated. He pointed out that the Aquarium and Museum of History and Industry projects (MOHAI has not yet been made a targeted partnership) are both partnerships with non-profit entities.

Greg Sundberg added that the feedback of the Executive and Council is confusing. Both groups have outside counsel which should be doing some of the analysis that the Council and Executive indicated they’d want the Panel to do.

Bob Filley asked for more discussion on Bill’s point about non-profit entities. Bob Mahon added that there is little distinction considering that, when the Symphony is a partner, they still need to generate profits. Scott Surdyke added that it is the City’s duty to invest in cultural institutions, with low expected return. There is a difference between this kind of partnership and a general land sale with a private for-profit partner.

Greg Sundberg asked whether the Panel would be some sort of Blue Ribbon Committee if outside consultants are already involved. Jan added that the group would have a role to provide some sort of oversight and ask questions.

Bob Filley added that political sensibilities are different with a nonprofit partnership – if the project is with a private partner and the City is investing $20 million more than perceived necessary, it is a different political story.

Jan Hendrickson reported that Dwight Dively had discussed that there are not any projects like Pacific Place Garage on the City’s radar screen in the near future. Greg Sundberg and others agreed that it would be unfortunate if the City didn’t get involved in any more of those types of projects.

Rafael Stone added that the group is limited when the project is an investment in a cultural institution. And with Pacific Place Garage, there were already consultants involved. Per Greg’s comment, what value could the Panel have added?

Josephine Tamayo Murray stated that there are three things that the Panel can add: Due diligence; ethics (i.e. balancing profit motivation with public good); and community welfare – meaning that the Panelists each represent the community, and can ask what the public would think of the particular project.

Jan Hendrickson added that even with the most scrupulous parties, P4 needs to be double checking and asking questions. Nonprofits can also advocate for particular projects. The Panel can evaluate the risks of the project, and make sure that the City would not be responsible for the long-term sustainability of an institution. The group should remember to focus on the Protocol.

Sue Cary agreed with Josephine, and added that Council President Pageler’s comments are illuminating. The Panel needs to be a reality check – to step back and ask questions as people without a direct interest in the project. These discussions can’t happen at the staff level, and are difficult at the Council level. However, is that a justification for the Panel?

Bill Rex reiterated his point that the projects the Panel has seen (or is slated to see) are already done deals. Bob Mahon added that the structure of P4 is such that to complete the Protocol, a project has to be far along. Bob Filley pointed out that the ideal time to begin review is when there are "bones of the deal", meaning that it’s not so early that there is nothing to review, but that there is part of a project for the group to react to. Bob Mahon asked how, in that situation, to work in the public light? Bob Filley reminded him that the group can go into Executive Session.

Jan Hendrickson told the group that she had mentioned to Council President Pageler that if the Panel did more analysis, there might be a renewed enthusiasm. She added to Bill Rex that some projects included in the City’s budget (i.e. the Museum of History and Industry, which Bill had pointed out as a "done deal") could still be in progress, with room for discussion and influence. Even after a deal is done, there is still room for adjustment – details of a contract or a financial structure can still be influenced.

Greg Sundberg suggested that if another Pacific Place Garage project comes along, the group would be set to review it. Isn’t the Panel currently just fitting itself to the existing projects? Bob Filley responded that the group should be working on some "practice" projects.

Jan Hendrickson suggested that the Panel take these issues to the Council and put the decision back on them.

Scott Surdyke is interested in the issue of public benefit and public investment, and how to formulate policies to take the financial burden off of the City and give incentives to the private sector to help create public benefits. Bob Filley responded that the City sets its priorities and has a huge staff to formulate the policies. The Panel is supposed to be more reactive – after the policies have been established and the projects are moving ahead. Greg Sundberg agreed.

Bill Rex made a motion to support Jan Hendrickson’s recommendation that the Panel put the decision back on the City Council. All Panelists present voted in favor of the motion.

Sara brought draft language revising the bylaws, per Rich Feldman’s suggestion at the 10-27-2000 meeting. The language would allow the Panel to vote on whether or not to accept a project for review. Bill Rex made a motion to approve the language. Greg Sundberg seconded the motion.

Bob Mahon strongly opposed the language, stating the having the group vote on whether or not to accept a project would be logistically difficult (given the intention for the full Panel to convene less frequently once the process is well established) and would also mean that the full Panel would be second-guessing what the Council or Executive deemed a targeted partnership. If Panelists don’t want to review a particular project, they don’t have to join the Project Panel.

Jan Hendrickson pointed out that Rich’s intention with the proposal was to allow the Panel to be removed from the political crossfire of a given project. Bob Filley supported Bob Mahon’s point, and said that the Panelists can self-select, but to refuse to review a project altogether is not in the spirit of what the group has agreed to do. The group should see politically hot projects, and should step up to them.

Rafael Stone countered that the group would not be backing away, but would be asking how much value they could add to a particular project. Greg Sundberg said that it is an issue of whether or not a project is appropriate. Bob Mahon added that the group should raise this issue with the Council, and ask the City to be serious in the projects they send to the Panel for review. If the City isn’t serious, the group should disband.

Layne Cubell, Design Commission Coordinator, did a brief presentation on the role of the Design Commission, and possible overlap with P4 review of projects. Layne, who had been listening to the Panel’s preceding conversation, told the group that even after 32 years, the Design Commission still struggles with defining its role.

Projects which both the Design Commission and P4 will review or are already reviewing include the Aquarium, Sculpture Park, and elements of the South Lake Union property disposition. The latest drawings for the Aquarium were recently reviewed by the Commission, which expressed a lot of dissatisfaction. The Design Commission will be involved in reviewing street vacations in the South Lake Union (SLU) area. The South Lake Union projects may also involve the City’s Design Review Board as well. Both P4 and the Design Commission are reviewing the "bigger picture" aspects of the SLU property disposition. The Commission gave input on the RFQ, but likely won’t see any discrete projects in the area for years. The Commission had a briefing on the Sculpture Park in October, and CityDesign Director John Rahaim is closely following the project.

The role of the Design Commission is to give input on design elements, and partly to assess the public benefits of the design – not the financial aspects. Layne reminded the group that P4 looks at financial elements, and the Commission does not. Layne asked how the groups can best coordinate. One way is to share minutes from review of overlapping projects, and to have staff and/or commissioners/panelists attend each other’s meetings when relevant. Layne and Sara Levin, P4 Coordinator, currently try to coordinate as much as possible.

Rafael Stone, who chaired the King County Design Commission, noted that changes recommended by the Design Commission don’t always bring economics into the picture. He asked whether the Commission plays a role in the RFP or in choosing a project’s designer. Layne replied that the Commission does not currently get involved in consultant selection, due to the conflict of interest provisions. Commissioners do sit on the selection panel and are encouraged to review the RFP if possible. Their role is advisory only.

Bob Filley asked whether the sharing of minutes between the Commission and P4 is reciprocal. Layne responded that it is.

Panelists: Maria Barrientos, Rich Feldman, Bob Filley, Jan Hendrickson (Chair), Bob Mahon, Bill Rex, Jackson Schmidt, George Staggers, Rafael Stone, Josephine Tamayo Murray, Dinah Thoreson

P4 Staff: Sara Levin

The group reviewed minutes from the September 15^th meeting and voted unanimously to adopt them.

Panelists spent the majority of the meeting discussing their role and the mission of the Panel. Dwight Dively was out ill and unable to participate as planned, so Jan Hendrickson began the discussion by explaining why this item is being discussed now. The Council will expect some sort of year-end evaluation of the Panel. Sara is proposing to do a mini report to the Council at the end of the year, with a more formal, comprehensive evaluation with process recommendations at the end of the Panel’s first full year of work, in March 2001. At this point, only one project has been fully reviewed (Admiral Garage), South Lake Union is underway, and the other projects are moving more slowly than the Panel had expected.

Per Jan, the group faces an ongoing struggle understanding their mission and focus. Jan has checked in with the majority of the Panelists and heard the following:

• the group needs more clarity around its mission;
• Panelists want to be sure that they are adding value;
• there may be need for a mid-course correction as the group has a better understanding of the work they are being asked to do;
• the Panel needs to focus more of its discussion around the questions in the Protocol document;
• some Panelists feel that they are focusing too much on design issues;
• Panelists would like assurance that they are on track;
• more clarity is needed regarding the Panel’s role in reviewing financial impacts;
• how should the Panel hear from opponents of a project – should the Panel make sure to hear another perspective on the project?

Jan opened the discussion up to the rest of the group. Bill Rex began by stating that he feels that the P4 Panel was started as a knee-jerk reaction to the Pacific Place Garage project, which ended up exceeding revenue expectations. Bill added that he feels that P4 is in the City’s way, and in the name of smaller government, the Panel should disband. He also stated that the way the Panel is currently functioning, recommendations are too late in the process. For example, the City has already stated its intentions to fund the Aquarium project. The Admiral Garage proposal was also presented to the Panel too late in the process, and was presented as a neighborhood proposal rather than a project with financial elements that the Panel could analyze. Bill repeated that he thinks that the Panel would do the City a favor by disbanding at this point.

Bob Mahon responded that part of the problem is the types of projects that have been designated for review. The Admiral Garage project was a political decision, and shouldn’t have been given to the Panel for review. The group should be focusing on the Protocol questions, most of which are financial, not on design or other unrelated issues.

Bill Rex stated that the Panel basically recommended that the Admiral Garage go forward because of the support from the community.

Jan Hendrickson added that she had heard from selected Councilmembers that reviewing this project was inappropriate work for the Panel.

Rich Feldman added that the group should exercise its right to decline reviewing a project. The point of the group’s work is to review a project early. Regarding the Pacific Place Garage, the City needed to have disclosed information early – the projected revenues, profit-sharing, etc. The Pacific Place Garage would have been a good example of how P4 could work best.

Maria Barrientos asked what makes any of the projects the Panel is reviewing or will review any different from the Admiral Garage. The Aquarium project is going to happen; the South Lake Union properties sale will happen – the role of the Panel is limited and seems to be a waste of time. Too many of the projects are too far along – how can the Panel provide any input of value?

Bob Mahon disagreed – the other projects are different from Admiral. The Panel does have a role with South Lake Union; they need to provide review of the financial elements of the project. The Aquarium also begs financial analysis – i.e. whether admissions projections are feasible, etc. Maria countered that the Panelists are not experts in analysis of museums, and don’t have the analytical tools to evaluate admissions. Bob replied that the Panel needs to make sure that the City is doing its homework and getting good analysis. Part of the Panel’s role is to reassure the public that someone is double-checking the City’s analysis in these projects.

Bob Filley stated that the Panel is not part of City government, is not part of approving a project, and needs to get in on a project early to be a resource; the group can challenge the tradeoffs the City is making regarding investment and return from a project. If a small group is involved early in the process, they can be a source for the City to bounce ideas off of, and can be an impartial pair of eyes on the deal. This all must happen early in the life of a project. That way the Panel may be able to positively influence the structure of a transaction. Bob envisions a working relationship between the Panel and the City – a partnership and a third-party check on the City’s work. If the Panel is purely an end-of-the road endorser or non-endorser, they should disband. However, if the true work is to participate in and influence the structure of the deal, the Panel should stay with it.

Jackson Schmidt reminded the group that the projects they’ve seen so far (South Lake Union and Admiral) are unusual. He thinks that the Aquarium will be a good test for the Panel. It is a controversial project, and P4 could serve as a clearinghouse for a lot of voices. Bill Rex responded that too many steps have already been taken with the Aquarium – how much influence can P4 have at this point? Jackson argued that the group needs to go through the review of that project to see.

Jan Hendrickson read an email from Dwight Dively which stated that of all of the projects currently slated for P4 review, the Aquarium is probably the most likely subject for review, and even that is vastly different than the Pacific Place Garage.

Maria stated that she fears that the Aquarium is a deal that is going to happen no matter what; if the Panel had a project to review early on, they would have more of a role and clear influence.

Josephine Tamayo Murray added that it is an issue of project and process – what type of projects does the Panel review and where in the process do they get involved? Who is the gatekeeper on what projects the Panel reviews?

Bob Mahon added that he is concerned about all of the complaints regarding timing. What can the Panel add at such an early stage? Bob Filley clarified that the early stage he is referring to is the "bones of the project" – when the City is 90% sure that it’s heading in a certain direction. The Panel can help the City to understand if the right structure is being used for the project. The Panel shouldn’t review a project before that moment, but can start to add value at that point in the process.

Maria raised the issue that once people politically support a project they are not necessarily going to change their position. The dealmaking begins and happens behind the scenes. What would the Panel review if most of the negotiating were happening behind the scenes?

Bill Rex added that so far the Panel for reviewing a project has been formed when legislation was to be passed to contribute money to the project. How is the Panel supposed to recommend against that? Rich Feldman stated that the Panel can challenge or examine the assumptions. Bill stated that he still feels that the City is using the Panel.

Bob Mahon requested that Bill make sure his concerns are known in whatever the Panel reports to Council on its progress. He also stated that the Panelists were asked to do a job and should do so – they should look at the financial information of a project, be an outlet for feedback and ask questions.

Rich supported Maria’s statement that a lot happens on a project behind the scenes. Pacific Place Garage was a prime example of this. The group needs to figure out how to respond to the public’s cynicism and increase communication with the public. The Mayor originally wanted the group to increase openness on public-private partnerships and to help give the public more confidence in government.

Jan Hendrickson stated that the Panel needs to make the statement that their review is limited if it does not happen early on a project. The Panel would have impact on a project if the timing were right. She also has the sense that the Panel was set up so that the City wouldn’t be embarrassed by a project that comes to public light at the 11^th hour. Bob Filley agreed and reiterated that he sees the Panel as having a working relationship with City staff putting together a project. He sees the Panel as valueless if it is an endorser of projects, but if Panelists can be part of the discussion as the transaction is crafted, in a proactive role, they would be adding value. The Panel needs to help the City probe the alternatives for a project. The biggest challenge is to get the Panel involved at the earliest stage.

Jan added that the Panel could make a statement by choosing not to review the Aquarium. Dinah Thoreson asked what exactly the Panel is supposed to review on the Aquarium project.

Maria suggested that the Panel could theoretically have reviewed the RFP for South Lake Union before it was issued – they might have had some early influence at that point.

Jan posed the question of whether it would matter if the Panel said that the South Lake Union property sale wasn’t meeting the public benefit objectives.

Maria reminded the group that they need to clarify what the point of the SLU property sale is. Is it to spur economic development? If so, the City needs to be clear about that. Is it to build a skybridge across Mercer Street? If not, the City needs to be clear about that. Rich added that the City needs to be clear about what kind of economic development is the goal – is it a tax base or jobs?

Bob Mahon stated that the Panel needs to be more assertive in asking for information and for involvement. The information is there and the group has been told, via the Protocol, what questions to ask. Bob Filley and Maria added that the City needs to somehow prioritize what public benefits (especially regarding South Lake Union) are important. This gets back to the issue of the working relationship – the Panel doesn’t want to issue a report that doesn’t focus on the right issues.

Bob Mahon reiterated that the City gave the Panel the questions to focus on (the Protocol) and the Panel needs to carefully scrutinize the responses to those questions. They don’t need to be weighted.

Rich added that the Aquarium is an appropriate project for review. Perhaps the Panel should start the practice of voting on whether or not to accept a project.

Rafael Stone added that the Panel needs to be involved at the beginning and thinking of other issues that can add value to a project. That can’t be done when the Panel is given a done deal to review. They need to meet with City staff on an ongoing basis and to propose changes. He was very frustrated with the Admiral Garage process – the project had no economic value to the City and it was given to the Panel too late. Jan Hendrickson added that this again brings up the issue that the Panel needs to know the City’s objectives with a project.

Sara Levin stated that, as the staff person for the Panel, she should be more proactive with City staff and get the Panel more involved, earlier. Also, as the former staff person for the Public-Private Partnership Task Force, there was substantive discussion by that group about when review of a project should occur and how to make sure that meetings were open to the public. Bob Filley added that there is a time for public meetings and a time for meetings to not be open. Sara added that, especially with real estate transactions, there are concerns on the part of City staff of how to make sure the Panel gets enough information to review a project, but that certain documents, if made public too early, could threaten the project negotiations. Bob Filley then reiterated his comment about working sessions with Panelists and City staff.

Jackson Schmidt added that meetings should be structured around the City’s response to the questions in the Protocol.

Sara Levin told the Panel that Council President Margaret Pageler, at the Legislative Committee meeting in October requested that the P4 Panel review and comment on the Ethics and Elections Commission’s proposal to change contract language to hold contractors to conflict of interest standards. (The full Panel had a briefing and short discussion on this issue at their September meeting.)

The Panel unanimously agreed that this type of review is not within their purview. Two Panelists (Bob Mahon and Josephine Tamayo Murray) would be interested in reviewing and commenting on the proposal as private citizens, but not as representatives of P4. Sara will communicate this to the Council President.

Panelists: Maria Barrientos, Sue Cary, Paul Chiles (Vice-Chair), Rich Feldman, Jan Hendrickson (Chair), Bob Mahon, Bill Rex, Jackson Schmidt, George Staggers, Greg Sundberg, Scott Surdyke, Josephine Tamayo Murray, Dinah Thoreson

P4 Staff: Sara Levin

Ken Bounds, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, began the presentation by thanking the Panel for their time – the Panel will likely be reviewing several Parks projects in the future, including South Lake Union Park and the Olympic Sculpture Garden. The Aquarium project involves rebuilding the Seattle Aquarium to meet current standards. The City plans to transfer governance of the rebuilt Aquarium to the nonprofit Seattle Aquarium Society (SEAS). SEAS has been a fundraising partner with the City since 1982, and plays a similar role to the Seattle Aquarium as the nonprofit Woodland Park Zoo Society does to the Zoo.

Ken walked the Panel through a chronology of City policy decisions and legislative actions on the Aquarium, beginning with the building of the current facility with Forward Thrust bonds in the mid-1970s. In 1988 the City adopted the Harborfront Master Plan which called for expansion of the Aquarium and purchase of Piers 62/63. At the same time, a County-wide bond issue for open space and the Aquarium failed. A Central Waterfront Citizen Advisory Committee was convened in the mid-1990s to develop a Master Plan. The Central Waterfront Master Plan was adopted by the Council in 1997, providing policy direction for development of the Aquarium and adjoining park. The Council also accepted the Aquarium Implementation Plan, which outlined the steps and a schedule for design, fundraising, and development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) for a new aquarium. Around that time, it became clear that development of the new Aquarium would not be a sole City function. In 1998, the City reaffirmed its partnership with SEAS, contracting with the nonprofit for a charrette of a new aquarium. At that time, SEAS was not able to take on a major capital campaign.

The Council approved $500,000 in the 1999 budget, to be matched by SEAS, for design and financial studies. Money approved in the 2000 budget was also matched by SEAS (2 to 1) for continued work on the Aquarium Master Plan Implementation. These financial commitments reaffirmed the City’s partnership with SEAS and allowed continuation of project planning per the Implementation Plan. Concurrently, the SEAS Board of Directors began adding community leaders to its membership and working towards being able to meet a large financial commitment to the project. In March of this year, the City Council adopted a resolution which subjected the project to review by the P4 Panel. The Council also approved an MOU between the City and SEAS, a non-binding agreement regarding the City’s financing of the Aquarium project, governance transition, and project design.

Dwight Dively added to Ken’s presentation. The MOU is a non-binding agreement – a road map of where the City and SEAS would like to go with the project. Section 2 of the MOU deals with ownership of the facility. Similar to the Benaroya Hall project, the City will own the facility and SEAS will own the exhibits. Daily operations will be turned over to SEAS before the new facility is built. SEAS must raise $60 million before this happens. A Design-Build process will be used, in which SEAS is the developer, and contracts with the contractor, architect, etc.

Section 5 of the MOU deals with financing of the project. The City will contribute $21.5 million, the private sector $100 million, other public sources $36 million, and SEAS will secure $42 million in debt (not guaranteed by the City) to be supported by Aquarium revenues.

Within the next year the City and SEAS will develop a management and use agreement – a contractual agreement between the two parties which also outlines in more detail the financial terms. SEAS has committed to keeping all of the City employees, and the City will work to make sure that City staff employment status is maintained.

Ken Bounds mentioned that when the MOU went through City Council, there was a lot of concern on the part of Councilmembers, especially in regards to the location of the project. The Aquarium is to be designed from the inside out – exhibits are designed first, and then the building. The City is re-examining the options for locating the building, and considering how to keep the public open space at Piers 62/63. The reconsideration of location has delayed a lot of work for the next steps in the agreement. The expected opening date for the new Aquarium is approximately 2004-2005. Building over water is prohibited at certain times of the year due to fish passage. The new design would put the building on a structure above the water, which would make fish passage easier.

Panelists asked several questions of the presenters. Questions and Panelist discussion are highlighted below:

• Sue Cary asked where the east/west pedestrian links are, and whether the animals will be displaced in the transition to the new facility. Ken Bounds responded that the links are at the hillclimb at the Pike Place Market. Depending on the site selected and the size of the building, there may be no way not to close down the facility – building a 160,000 square foot facility on the south end of the site will likely require closure of Pier 59.
• Scott Surdyke asked what will happen to the open space if the facility is located at Pier 62/63. Ken replied that there are options, including demolition of the shed for use as open space. John Braden added that there has always been the intention of having open space at the site – where it is depends on how the building itself is sited. Scott added that everything that the public wants could conceivably be accommodated, except retaining the waterfront views from the condominiums across the street. Ken Bounds reminded the group that during the summer, Pier 62/63 is not accessible to the public, as it is gated for summer concerts. He feels that the area should be unlocked, and would like to ensure design of a facility that allows both the concerts and public access.
• Greg Sundberg asked about parking in the area. Ken replied that the City is looking at what parking and access barriers are at the waterfront, and asking whether the City needs to promote more parking and access in the area. There are currently no Metro bus services in the area. The City is looking at these issues all along the waterfront. Sue Cary commented that we in Seattle need to think about not driving everywhere and having to park our cars – other cities can do it, why can’t we? Ken noted that there are 100,000 + parking spaces in downtown Seattle – parking can be seen as a management issue.
• Dinah Thoreson asked whether SEAS has a site or size preference for the new facility, and whether a 200,000 square foot site would eliminate future expansion. John Braden replied that the overwater coverage could lead to problems with expansion, as the Endangered Species Act limits overwater coverage in either of the two possible locations. Also, the distance between the viaduct and the waterfront may dictate SEAS preference. At one spot it would be noisy for open space and quiet for the Aquarium, while if the site were flipped, it would be vice versa. Bill Arntz, Aquarium Director, replied that it is ultimately a City decision.
• Jan Hendrickson asked how far SEAS has progressed with fundraising. Bill replied that they have not gone far – they cannot go to large donors until the site is settled. Ken added that they also want to get the site selection settled to know where the City stands. SEAS has raised all of the matching funds for the development/planning match.
• Jan next asked what the Aquarium attendance growth rates have been in the past, and what they are projected to be. Ken answered that attendance peaked in the mid-1980s. In order for the facility to increase attendance, they need new major exhibits. The current facility can’t house any – a new facility will. This building is not big enough to generate more attendance. Attendance is weather-dependent, more marketing is needed, and 2/3 of the attendees are tourists.
• Scott Surdyke asked how to ensure that the new Aquarium will be state-of-the-art. Ken replied that being state-of-the-art is the goal. Technology consultants have been working with the Aquarium, and a lot of work has been done on programs to make sure that flexibility is built in, especially if the facility doesn’t open until 2005.
• Bill Arntz added that the focus of discussion around an aquarium is often the exhibits. However, this facility is a "three-legged stool" which includes education, research, and entertainment. The key is integrating the three legs – which will likely happen in the new design.
• Rich Feldman commented that the group needs to understand the risks, especially the debt, attendance issues, who is liable, and what the other financial risks are. Ken noted that three different financial feasibility studies have been done. He would like to know what City staff can do for the P4 members to help the panelists do their job. Maria Barrientos commented that they need to know how the project meets public benefits, and what those benefits are. Jan Hendrickson added that the large panel needs to select a project panel for review. Sara will circulate a list of who the interested parties are, so that panelists who select to review the project can complete disclosure forms.
• Bill Rex pointed out that for the Admiral Garage review the panelists were told from the outset that the project was not economically feasible. Dwight Dively added that it would be helpful for the panelists to do a financial review for this project. Part of the point is that the City would have to spend the money anyway. Bill added that the group needs to have the City define what the Panel should be looking at. Rich Feldman added that the Protocol document will be helpful for a review of financial and public benefits. Bill Arntz pointed out that quantifying some of the public benefits may be difficult – i.e. for the educational aspect, children don’t pay admission to the facility. Ken added that one distinction is that this is a public facility being replaced by another public facility.

Sara noted that the latest design for the facility will be reviewed by the Design Commission on 9/21/2000.

Carol Van Noy, Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission, spoke about a proposal to address potential conflict of interest in public-private partnerships with the City and a private contractor. The proposed language is in response to part of Resolution #30072, which outlined the public-private partnership review process. The resolution requested that actual conflict of interest be added to the enforcement purview of the Ethics and Elections Commission. Highlights of the proposed language discussed are below:

• Sections 3a and 3b of the language deal with gift restrictions. The contractor is prohibited from giving a gift of more than $25 in value to a City employee unless the gift is given as a result of a familial or personal relationship that predates the contract.
• Section 3c prohibits using or permitting the use of City property provided or generated as a result of the contract for any purpose other than to perform the contract.
• Section 3d prohibits the contractor from having a beneficial interest in any matter upon which the contractor acts in the performance of the contract, unless that beneficial interest was disclosed at the formation of the contract.
• Section 3e prohibits a contractor from having a financial relationship with any City employee who has participated or will participate in the contract, or any member of the employee’s family, unless the financial relationship was disclosed at the formation of the contract.
• Section 3f prohibits the contractor from rendering any opinion or judgement in performance of the contract that is influenced by any considerations other than the City’s best interest.

This proposal will go to the City Council’s Legislative Department and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee (chaired by Council President Pageler) on October 5^th. Carol noted that she and the Commission members involved had a difficult time crafting the language for the proposal. The Ethics Code applies to City employees – contractors don’t have the same loyalty to the City that an employee would. The final proposed language was based on language used by the Los Angeles Metro Transit Authority.

Sue Cary asked about the dollar limit – what if it starts out below but change orders bring it above the limit? Carol responded that subcontractors would likely be involved.

Sara distributed a list of projects and the status of P4 review. All of these projects are also being reviewed by the Design Commission.

Dinah Thoreson asked whether panelists are precluded from donating to the Aquarium fundraising campaign. Sara will follow up with Carol Van Noy about the potential conflict of interest issue.

Panelists briefly discussed their role in relationship to upcoming projects. The project panel for South Lake Union previously had a good discussion to clarify their focus. Bob Mahon asked whether the panel should be involved in policy issues or only as fiscal watchdogs. Jan Hendrickson added that performance measures should be a part of what the group addresses, to ensure delivery on the public benefits.

Sara mentioned that the group will need to work on an end-of-year status report to the Mayor and City Council. At the next meeting, Design Commission staff would be interested in doing a brief presentation on their role versus that of the P4 panel.

Next meeting day/time: Friday July 21^st, 2000 7:30-9:00 a.m.

Panelists: Sue Cary, Paul Chiles (Vice-Chair), Rich Feldman, Bob Filley, Jan Hendrickson (Chair), Bob Mahon, Jackson Schmidt, George Staggers, Rafael Stone, Greg Sundberg, Josephine Tamayo Murray, Dinah Thoreson
P4 Staff: Sara Levin
Guests: None

Welcome and introductions

Panelists who recently reviewed the Admiral Garage proposal briefed the full-Panel on the outcomes, and discussed elements of the review process itself. Those Admiral Panelists present agreed that they received the proposal too late in the process to do anything other than give a "yes or no". They felt that their feedback would have been more useful at an earlier stage, when the City would have an opportunity to respond to their recommendations and make appropriate changes to the proposal. Panelists requested involvement earlier next time, and a chance to see materials at least two weeks before a briefing. Given the nature of the materials that Panelists were asked to review for Admiral, which included several conflicting parking studies, the group would like ample time to review and prepare questions for City staff.

Josephine Tamayo Murray suggested that in the future Panelists visit the neighborhood that will be affected by the project. She visited the Admiral District before the Panel’s review, and was able to learn more about the community and neighbors in the vicinity of the project. Sara also reminded the group that there had been a suggestion to hold review meetings in the affected neighborhood.

Sara spoke on behalf of Bill Rex, who had briefed the City Council Finance, Budget and Economic Development Committee on the Admiral review. Bill feels that, although the group was in agreement on recommendations for this project, there should be provisions for writing a minority report. Also, Bill stressed the importance that in a presentation to Council (or the public, or media, for that matter) the Panelist be clear as to whether they are speaking on behalf of the group or as an individual. (See Guiding Principle #12 below.)

Greg Sundberg asked the Admiral Panelists whether a formal City parking garage policy had been presented to the group, to help with their analysis of the project. The City does not have a formal policy, and Sara circulated two policy memos from the Strategic Planning Office which address the parking policy issue.

Panel Chair Jan Hendrickson proposed language for "Guiding Principle #12". The principle responds to Panelists’ requests at the last full-Panel meeting to have a principle addressing the group’s relationship to each other and their work.

The language as proposed was:

Panelists agree to communicate in an open, candid and respectful style during the course of their work, to support panel processes and decisions, and to clarify to external parties when speaking on behalf of the panel or as a private citizen.

Bob Mahon requested that the word "decisions" be struck, as the Panel makes recommendations, not decisions. He also pointed out that supporting Panel decisions does not allow room for a minority report. The group discussed the need for their own due diligence, and the fact that their process is open and should allow for differing points of view, both within the group, and from outside parties.

Jan Hendrickson reminded the group that the Chair and Vice-Chair act as media spokespeople for the Full Panel, and the Chair of a specific Project Panel will act as media spokesperson for that group.

Panelists adopted (by a vote of 12-0) the following language for Guiding Principle #12:

Sara Levin had written a draft set of bylaws for the group, which had been circulated prior to the meeting. Panelists had provided Sara with comments and revisions ahead of time. Sara made minor changes to the document (revisions which would not change the intent) prior to the meeting. Major revisions were left for the group to discuss. Below are highlights from the group’s discussion of the draft document:

The group requested that language be added to address staggered terms. Panelists agreed that it will be important for the group to have continuity, and that their terms should not all end at the same time. Sara will circulate a list of Panelists, and whom they had been selected by (Mayor/Council/Panel). One member from each group will volunteer to serve an extra year. (Article I: Section 2: Selection and Length of Appointment)

Jan Hendrickson and Jackson Schmidt also asked that the draft bylaws be circulated to the Council and Mayor’s office for their review. The group agreed that they would like to make sure both Council and Mayor support the bylaws.

The group agreed that the Chair and Vice chair should be selected at the first full-Panel meeting in January of each year, and that the current officers will serve until their terms are over. (Article I: Section 6: Chair and Vice-Chair selection)

The group added language to clarify that, in the event that the both Chair and Vice-Chair are unable to preside at a meeting, the Chair will designate another Panelist to fulfill his/her duties. (Article I: Section 7: Duties of Chair)

Bob Filley will write language to address the timeliness of Panel involvement in review of a project. Panelists agree that a Project Panel should be formed and involved early in a project’s life, so that their recommendations will be meaningful. Rich Feldman asked whether there is a process for the Panel to decline to review a project, especially if not provided with enough lead time for sufficient review. (Article I: Section 8: Project Panels)

Jackson Schmidt will draft language addressing the minority reports. The group supports having a provision for submission of a minority report, and discussed what level of disagreement in a Project Panel would call for a minority report. Some group members were concerned that a specific process (i.e. the exact number of Panelists it would take to create a minority report, etc.) would be too great a level of detail. Jackson will write a general statement on minority reports. (Article I: Section 8: Project Panels)

The group struck a section in the draft document regarding Panelist Restrictions, as identical language is in their Panelist Handbook. Greg Sundberg reminded the group that he had requested clarification from the City Law Department on two points: whether the group is subject to the Open Public Meetings Act, and issues of Panelist liability. Sara informed the group that the Law Dept. is working on a memo, and will remind them about it. Greg Sundberg will work on revising the conflict of interest language slightly. (Article II: Section 1: Conflict of Interest)

Dinah Thoreson suggested striking the section restricting Panelists from voting by Proxy. Others agreed, and Bob Mahon pointed out that the need to have a vote by proxy is lessened with the provision for a minority report. (Article III: Section 8: Proxies)

Sara asked the group for ideas on full-Panel briefings by City staff. Panelists proposed several topics:

Panelists: Maria Barrientos, Sue Cary, Paul Chiles, Jan Hendrickson, Bob Mahon, George Staggers, Rafael Stone, Greg Sundberg, Josephine Tamayo Murray, Dinah Thoreson; P4 Staff: Sara Levin; Guest: Bea Kumasaka, OTAK (planning, engineering, and design firm)

Welcome and introductions

P4 coordinator Sara Levin welcomed the Panelists and asked everyone to introduce themselves. This was the first meeting of the full Panel. Panelists not present were unable to attend due to last minute meetings, out of town business, and jury duty.

Selection of a Chair and Vice Chair

Jan returned, and Paul Chiles left the room while the group discussed his candidacy for Vice Chair. George Staggers and Sue Cary spoke to Paul’s experience and expertise in real estate, and his academic background as well. Rafael Stone reiterated that Bill Rex would also make an excellent officer. Panelists agreed that a balance between the types of expertise of the two officers would be important. Jan’s financial/public sector experience would balance well with Paul’s real estate work. Paul would bring his experience with neighborhood commercial real estate work to the position as well. The group voted 9-0 for Paul Chiles as Vice Chair.

Guiding Principles

Finally, the group discussed whether or not they should have a specific media policy. The group raised several questions: How should individual panelists communicate their positions on a project with the media? Should the Panel have a guiding principle about communication with the media? How should the group handle minority reports? How will the full Panel coordinate with the smaller project-specific panels? The group would like to make sure that Panelists feel that they are able to freely communicate their views, but to also respect the work of the project-specific panels and the full Panel. Jan Hendrickson will draft a potential guiding principle to address this issue.

Regular meeting day/time

Panelists: Maria Barrientos, Paul Chiles, Bob Filley, Jan Hendrickson, Bob Mahon, Rafael Stone, Greg Sundberg, Scott Surdyke; Facilitator: David Harrison; Staff: Sara Levin; Guests: Lee Belland (City staff), Kery Murakami (Seattle PI)

Sue Cary participated by speakerphone for the first ½ hour. Jackson Schmidt was out of town, and listed his preferences ahead of time.

Welcome and introductions

Panelists Bob Filley and Jan Hendrickson introduced themselves. Both missed the first P4 Panel meeting. Bob is the director of the Center for Community Development at the University of WA (affiliated with the College of Architecture and Urban Planning). He was a member of the Public-Private Partnership Task Force. Jan was formerly the finance director for Sound Transit. She left that position in December. Jan has a background in public policy and public affairs, and experience with government relations, media relations, public communications strategies, and political strategy.

Selection of remaining P4 Panelists

David Harrison asked the group how they wished to proceed on selection of the remaining P4 panelists. Prior to the meeting, each Panelist was given a list of interested individuals and their area(s) of expertise. This list was generated by the group themselves, with one person nominated by a community member.

The group decided to review the list of nominees, with each Panelist commenting on the nominees to the extent possible. One Panelist noted that if the group can’t agree on 5 appropriate additions during this meeting, they should take their time and continue to propose names.

• commercial lender
• construction project manager/construction firm
• developer
• non-profit developer or other nonprofit expertise
• labor
• appraiser
• real estate consultant (CRE)
• neighborhood business person
• downtown business person

Panelists also stated that they would like to ensure that the Panel is representative of the community.

1. Rich Feldman – Several members of the group spoke to the importance of having a representative from Labor on the Panel. They felt that labor issues are important to address early in a project’s development.
2. Bill Rex – Panelists felt that this nominee would add credibility to the group as well as good insight from the private point of view. He is also a representative of the downtown business community.
3. Dinah Thoreson – This nominee represents the point of view of the lender and has an extensive background in public finance, commercial lending, housing, and nonprofits. Several Panelists spoke favorably.
4. George Staggers – This nominee has worked on several nonprofit/public projects in the Central area. Panelists who know him spoke to his vision and integrity and ability to forge relationships.
5. William Block – Jackson Schmidt, who nominated Bill Block, was not present. Panelists read a letter submitted by the nominee outlining his experience and qualifications.
6. Scott Mackay – This nominee has experience with appraisals, work on TDRs, participation in public processes (including Design Review).
7. Thomas Whittemore – A nominee from the City Council list, Thomas has experience which includes involvement in neighborhood planning in the Ballard community.
8. Ed Madieros – Also from the Council list, this nominee is involved in neighborhood issues as well.
9. Bob Santos – This nominee had not been reached at the time of the meeting.
10. Tim Otani – Panelists felt that this nominee has appropriate expertise, good judgement, and is able to represent the needs of the community well.
11. Karen Wong – This nominee had not been reached at the time of the meeting.
12. Howard Stambor – This name was submitted by a member of the public. Sara Levin read the email listing his qualifications and interest in participation.

Following discussion, Panelists took a straw vote, each having 5 votes. Before the group voted, they agreed to remove Bob Santos and Karen Wong from the list, as their interest had not been confirmed by the meeting date. Each Panelist had 5 votes. The list was narrowed to: Rich Feldman, Bill Rex, George Staggers, Tim Otani, Dinah Thoreson, William Block, Scott Mackay. Panelists further discussed the list and narrowed the group to Rich, Bill, George, Tim, and Dinah. Upon further discussion, the group expressed concerns that both Tim and Dinah work at WA Mutual. The group decided that Dinah’s experience would complement the Panel’s expertise. With four Panelists selected (Rich, Bill, George, and Dinah), the group decided that the 5^th Panelist needed to be a representative of either (or both) the Asian community and small business interests. Two names were offered – Sue Taoka and Josephine Tamayo Murray. The group agreed that Sara would contact Sue first, and then Josephine, and that either would be an excellent addition to the Panel.

Subgroups reviewing South Lake Union and Admiral Garage projects

Due to conflicts of interest with SLU and the Admiral Garage projects, the subgroups reviewing them were slightly reconfigured. Bob Mahon, Greg Sundberg, Jakcson Schmidt, and Maria Barrientos will review SLU (Bob Filley, Paul Chiles, and Scott Surdyke have conflicts) and Sue, Rafael and Scott will review Admiral, with two additional panelists from the new group.

• Sara will prepare minutes from this meeting and the first meeting, and will distribute them to the group for review.

• David Harrison recommended that a Panelist check in with Council President Pageler, Councilmember Licata, and Deputy Mayor Daudon on the selection of the final 5 panelists. Greg Sundberg will coordinate with Sara Levin on this process.

Following are brief notes from Orientation Part I for P4 Panel members.

Panelists: Maria Barrientos, Sue Cary, Paul Chiles, Bob Mahon, Jackson Schmidt, Rafael Stone, Greg Sundberg, Scott Surdyke; Facilitator: David Harrison; Staff: Sara Levin; Guests: Council President Margaret Pageler, Deputy Mayor Maud Daudon, Bill Alves, Lee Belland (City staff), Kery Murakami (Seattle PI)

Welcome and introductions

City Council President Margaret Pageler and Deputy Mayor Maud Daudon welcomed the group and made introductory comments. Both thanked the Panelists for taking the time to participate in review of public-private partnerships, and stressed the value and importance of the advice that the Panelists will be providing the City.

Facilitator David Harrison of the University of Washington’s Northwest Forum introduced himself and mentioned his role as facilitator for the Public-Private Partnership Task Force. P4 coordinator Sara Levin introduced herself and asked each panelist to introduce his/herself and briefly describe his/her area of expertise and community involvement.

• Bob Mahon is a tax attorney with Perkins Coie, lives on Capitol Hill, and has been involved with local Democratic politics.
• Jackson Schmidt is an attorney with Pepple Johnson Cantu & Schmidt, with a practice focusing on commercial and real estate litigation. He is Past President of the Mount Baker Community Club, and was co-counsel to the Citizens’ Alliance to Keep the Pike Place Market Public.
• Scott Surdyke is a Development Manager for Simpson Housing, and oversees new mixed-use and residential infill development. He is a member of the Design Review Board and Allied Arts.
• Greg Sundberg is a financial advisor for U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. He is the Managing Director for Fixed Income Investment Banking. Greg has also worked on public-private partnerships, including the redevelopment of Terminal 18 at the Port of Seattle.
• Maria Barrientos is a real estate developer and project manager with Barrientos, LLC. She has worked on several public-private partnerships, including the Lyon Building in downtown Seattle, transit oriented development with Sound Transit. Her firm has been retained as project manager for the Performance Hall.
• Rafael Stone is an attorney with Foster Pepper & Shefelman. He is a co-founder of the African-American Heritage Foundation and has worked on public-private partnerships locally and in other jurisdictions.
• Paul Chiles is the President of Chiles & Company, and is a CRE (Counselor of Real Estate). He is Past President of the Commercial Brokers Association, teaches real estate investments and related courses at the University of Washington and local community colleges, and has done work with area nonprofits.

• Sue Cary is Vice President, A.F. Evans Development Inc, a developer of multi-family and single-family housing throughout Washington, California, and Nevada. Several projects have been accomplished with local government participation and/or joint ventures with non-profit organizations.

(Absent were panel members Bob Filley and Jan Hendrickson)

Orientation

Panelists were given binders with an extensive set of materials, referred to throughout the presentation.

Sara Levin gave a brief history of the work that led to the P4 Panel’s creation, and an overview of the entire review process for public-private partnerships (PPPs).

The City’s Public-Private Partnership Task (PPPTF) was formed in November 1998 by Mayor Schell and then-Council President Sue Donaldson. The group consisted of a group of 17 citizens with varying backgrounds in finance, community development, architecture, labor issues, and others.

The Mayor and Council President asked the PPPTF to propose a set of standards for PPPs between the City and private or nonprofit entities. The group was asked to focus on partnerships that involved development of physical space, amongst other attributes.

The PPPTF spent 10 months deliberating, meeting with citizens, city staff, community groups, and worked very hard to propose a set of standards for PPPs. Meetings were open to the public, and the group received a good deal of attention from the media. The group’s main consideration was to ensure that review of PPPs by the public and elected officials would be clear, timely and intensive.

The PPPTF submitted a report to the Mayor and Council in September 1999 which outlined: recommended types of partnerships to be reviewed, what issues should be reviewed, when review should occur, and who should do the reviewing. The group also recommended that the new review process be reviewed after one year. Two PPPTF members submitted a minority report, with concerns about the proposed PPP Review Panel, and a desire to see it function as a truly independent body, with a large body of members who serve terms.

At the end of 1999, the City Council passed Resolution #30072, which captures the main elements of the PPPTF report, namely a Protocol document which asks questions about public benefits of a PPP, and the review panel. The Resolution was written with enough flexibility to make the process adaptable, and specified review of the process after one year.

At the same time, the City settled a lawsuit with a group called CLEAN, namely over the Pacific Place Garage. The settlement established a set of rules around public notification for certain large capital projects, and was linked as well to the PPP review process.

The new process, known as P4, has two main components: City staff completion of the Protocol, and external review by the P4 panel.

"Targeted partnerships," or those which will be reviewed, are: directed toward the development of physical space; between the City and a private entity, including non-profit organizations; partnerships which involve $5 million or more in City investment; partnerships in which both the City and its partner have a financial interest; and partnerships in which the City is seeking benefits for the public that would not otherwise be provided by the private entity. Public-private partnerships which don’t meet the above requirements can be subject to P4 at the direction of the Mayor or City Council.

Currently, the City has 3 targeted partnerships waiting for review: South Lake Union, the Admiral Garage, and the Aquarium.

The Protocol is a document to be completed by City staff, and asks a series of questions about a specific PPP. The questions focus on a project’s public benefits. The Protocol will be the main document that P4 panelists review.

The Panel consists of 15 members, 5 selected by the Mayor, 5 by Council, and 5 by those 10. The group of 15 will self-select smaller groups of 5 or more panelists to review specific projects.

Panelists will be involved in reviewing a project at approximately 3 stages. (Sara walked the group through this process by referring to documents in the Panelist Handbook). In addition, Panelists will meet for full-group meetings approximately every 6 weeks. The full-panel meetings will allow the group to select subgroups for review of individual projects, to receive any training or updates, and to provide commentary and feedback on how the review process is working.

Sara also pointed out a set of Panelist guiding principles. These principles set up the basic framework for how the group functions. The plan is to have the full group adopt them after discussion at the next meeting. Sara will also work on a set of bylaws for the group.

Ethics

Carol Van Noy, Director of the City’s Ethics and Elections Commission gave the group a brief overview of ethics issues which may affect the Panel. Carol referred to a list of restrictions in the Panelist Handbook. She gave a brief overview of the Ethics Code, and discussed the fact that the P4 Panel, as an ad hoc committee (a committee that does not interpret, administer, or execute City law) is not subject to the Code of Ethics. The Code does not prohibit membership by persons who have a financial or private interest in the matters on which they must act. It is extremely important, however, that P4 Panelists avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, and that Panelists conduct themselves in such a manner as to ensure the integrity of the Panel’s advisory status and independence.

One panelist asked whether, if the Panel gives a negative review of a project, the group is liable or vulnerable to lawsuits if the project or City then loses money. (Sara will ask this question of the City Law Department.) Another Panelist reminded the group that if one of the Panelists has a conflict or appearance of conflict of interest with a project, that person can still serve on the Panel as a whole, and can review other projects, but cannot review the project with which they have a conflict. A third Panelist asked for as much lead time to vet potential conflicts of interest as possible. The group also briefly discussed open meetings and how to deal with confidential information. Sara pointed out information in the Panelist Guiding Principles which indicates that meetings will be open to the public, with limited options for dealing with sensitive issues in closed sessions.

Selection of final 5 panelists

David Harrison facilitated this section of the meeting, in which the group worked towards selection of the final 5 panelists. Sara Levin distributed and briefly discussed 4 items: a letter from Councilmember Nick Licata asking the group to consider citizens with neighborhood planning and public engagement experience in their selection; a letter from the Design Commission requesting that the group consider appointing a Design Commissioner as one of the final 5 panelists; the City Council’s complete list of nominees, including those who were considered but not nominated as part of the Council’s 5; and a list of the current group’s collective expertise.

David gave the group options for proceeding including forming a subcommittee to work on selection of the final 5 and proposing names and vetting them. One Panelist suggested that the group clarify the types of representation they would like to include, focusing on what areas of expertise the group has, and what they need to fill out the Panel. Another Panelist pointed out that the group will be responsible for high-level review of projects, and that Councilmember Licata’s request for neighborhood input is the responsibility of the Council. Panelists agreed that together, they have a great deal of neighborhood experience along with their professional expertise.

The group agreed to focus on the areas of expertise that they felt would complement the current Panel, pointing out that one area can be represented more than once, as not all panelists will be reviewing all projects.

• Construction business (project manager or other)
• Nonprofit developer
• Commercial lender
• Appraiser or real estate consultant (Counselor of Real Estate)
• Commercial lender
• Contractor
• Labor representative
• Community business person (as opposed to downtown)
• Downtown business person

The group would also like the remaining Panelists to be representative of the community. Panelists decided that, since most projects will be reviewed by the Design Commission as a matter of course, that they do not need to add a Commissioner to the Panel. The Panel will have other City expertise available to them as they review a specific project.

Panelists decided to propose 1-3 people each, and to get names and other information to Sara by Friday March 17^th.

South Lake Union and Admiral Garage selection

Panelists self-selected for review of the South Lake Union and Admiral Garage projects.

Potential panelists for South Lake Union include: Bob Mahon, Greg Sundberg, Paul Chiles (who disclosed that he may have a conflict – Sara will check with Ethics), Bob Filley (expressed interest via email prior to meeting – may have a conflict, Sara will check), Scott Surdyke (who disclosed that he may have a conflict); and Jackson Schmidt. Sara will check on all potential conflicts of interest.

Potential panelists for Admiral include: Sue Cary, Rafael Stone, Maria Barrientos (who has a potential conflict) and Scott Surdyke (who disclosed that he used to work for the half-brother of one of the parties involved).

• Sara will compile and contact a list of nominees. The group will meet the week of 3/20 to make their final selections.