” THE CENTRAL AREA SENIOR CENTER INFUSES WARM

FRIENDSHIPS, HEALTHY ACTIVITIES AND JOYFUL EXPERIENCES

INTO THE LIVES OF MATURE ADULTS.”

500 30th Avenue South | Seattle, WA 98144 | 206-726-4926

Memo To: Interdepartmental Team

C/o Andres Mantilla, Director, Department of Neighborhoods

Date: March 26, 2019

From: Dian Ferguson, Executive Director, Central Area Senior Center

Subject: Feedback on IDT's Draft Transfer Criteria

Please Note: This response is from CASC (the Central), though several points have
been discussed among the Central, Phinney Neighborhood Association
(PNA), and Byrd Barr Place.

This property transfer means a lot to our organization, our members, and the larger

communities it serves. We offer our comments in the spirit of collaboration, justice, and

fairness. Our comments fall into two broad categories: general feedback and concerns,

and specific comments on the draft criteria.

We note that the city-funded Soul Light report on city-owned Central Area

properties recommended transfer to the Central, detailed specific criteria to be met, and

proposed a timeline. This report thought the transfer could be accomplished by the end

of 2017. We note without further comment that March 25 is 321 working days after Dec

31, 2017.

CASC Response to IDT dr. Criteria, 3-26-19, Page 1 of 7

General feedback and concerns. We note the following that is missing or confusing

with the draft criteria. Please include or clarify:

a. The City of Seattle logo, draft date, and which department “owns” all or specific

parts of the document?

b. Written documentation of legislative and executive directives about crafting this

document. Provide written directions from the Mayor establishing the IDT and

its scope, charter, and authority.

c. Provide an explicit statement in the preamble that this document Is to replace all

former documents, effective (Indicate date) to be used for determining the

Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria for all present and future MOB transfers by

the City of Seattle.

d. What is the status and the progress on the environmental review of the property?

When can we expect to receive of copy of the completed environmental review?

e. Reference City Council’s Resolution 31856 approving these property transfers

before June 30, 2019.

f. Reference the Sept. 17, 2017 FAS report that all three organizations met criteria

for transfer as established at that time and upon which the Council based its

Resolution.

g. Reference the specific criteria listed in this Resolution.

h. Strictly limit criteria to those listed in this Resolution.

CASC Response to IDT dr. Criteria, 3-26-19, Page 2 of 7

i. Include a statement of intent to “collaborate” with the Council, as included in the

resolution with details of procedures to accomplish this goal.

j. Include and recognize the Importance of having the Human Services Department

participate as a part of the Interdepartmental Team owing to their relationship

with the organizations in a contractor role and the organizations in their delivery

of programs and services.

k. Reference responses to Statements of Legislative Intents (SLIs) and city-funded

studies that recommend the transfer of these properties.

l. Explicitly recognize the past nine years of discussions, requests, and responses

from the specific organizations like the Central named in the resolution.

m. Identify who will judge when we meet the criteria. Include the level of

collaboration with City Council on making these evaluations.

n. Acknowledge that the City has not fully upheld its responsibilities for

maintaining the properties and putting them fully in the hands of the

organizations running them is in the public’s best interest.

o. Identify how the City’s Race and Social Justice Values make sure the criteria are

roughly equivalent to those used with prior transfers.

p. Provide, via an attachment, one example of criteria used by the City for a transfer

of a Mutual Offsetting Benefit (MOB) lease with a copy of the signed Transfer

and Sale Agreement.

q. Identify an appeal or mediation process to resolve disputes.

r. Provide a clear timeline that leads to transfers by June 30.

CASC Response to IDT dr. Criteria, 3-26-19, Page 3 of 7

 s. Maintain transparency by informing all partners to this collaborative effort: IDT

members, Council and Council staff, and all three MOB tenants of outreach to

any one of the tenants regarding next steps.

Limit criteria guidelines to those from the State Legislature and City Council. Our

reading of the 1972 Referendum 29 law and Council Resolution 31856 find no reference

to the granting of authority to city executives to add to, or change, these laws.

Washington State voters passed Referendum 29 in 1972 and thus has the strongest

authority. This Act used bonds to raise $25,000,000, part of which the City used to

purchase the Central. This purchase fit the purpose of the referendum:

Referendum 29 can provide community-based facilities to serve the mentally

retarded; "multi-service" centers containing health, mental health, day care,
senior citizen, public assistance and other service programs …

The Central was already functioning as a senior center before the City bought the

property. Nearly 35 years later, the Legislature reaffirmed the vital public purposes

served by organizations supported with Ref. 29 funds (see note under RCW 43.83.400,

https:/v.gd/noteREF29:

Findings—2006 c 35: "The legislature finds that protecting the public health,
safety, and welfare by providing services to needy or vulnerable persons is a
fundamental purpose of government. The legislature further finds that private
nonprofit corporations fill an important public purpose in providing these types
of health, safety, and welfare services to our state's residents. Acting through
partnerships with governmental entities, these private sector providers are able
to increase the amount and quality of these services available to state residents.
The legislature finds that ensuring continued provision of these services in the
private sector confers a valuable benefit on the public that constitutes
consideration for transfer of certain public property and facilities to eligible
private nonprofit corporations, subject to restrictions that provide continued
protection of the public interest." [2006 c 35 § 1.]

CASC Response to IDT dr. Criteria, 3-26-19, Page 4 of 7

Criteria suggested in this note include: ensure continued provision of these services, (2)

the provision of these services constitutes consideration for transfer, and (3) restrictions

limited to "continued protection of the public interest."

The Legislature encouraged Ref. 29 transfers "without further consideration" in

RCW 43.83.410 (https://v.gd/RCWxfer) Excerpts:

RCW 43.83.410
Transfers of real property and facilities to nonprofit corporations.
(1) Public bodies may transfer without further consideration real property and
facilities acquired, constructed, or otherwise improved under the social and health
services facilities 1972 bond issue to nonprofit corporations organized to provide
individuals with social and health services, in exchange for the promise to
continually operate services benefiting the public on the site, subject to all the
conditions in this section. For purposes of this section, "transfer" may include lease
renewals. The nonprofit corporation shall use the real property and facilities for the
purpose of providing the following programs as designated by the department of
social and health services: Facilities for social services, adult and juvenile correction
or detention, child welfare, day care, drug abuse and alcoholism treatment, mental
health, public health, developmental disabilities, and vocational rehabilitation.
(2) The deed transferring the property in subsection (1) of this section must provide
for immediate reversion back to the public body if the nonprofit corporation ceases
to use the property for the purposes described in subsection (1) of this section.

Criteria written into this law include: (a) transfers allowed with "no further
consideration," (b) a written promise to continue to serve the public, (c) the deed must
provide for "immediate reversion back to the public body if the nonprofit corporation
ceases to use the property for the purposes described in subsection (1) of this section."

We find these Legislative criteria clear and acceptable.

Criteria in Council Resolution 31856 match those of the people of Washington and the

Legislature in their directness. The two sections of this Resolution read:

Section 1. The City Council will collaborate with the Executive with a goal of
completing transfer of the City-owned properties at 722 18th Avenue, 500 30th
Avenue South, and the Greenwood Senior Center with mutual and offsetting
benefit (MOB) leases to the non-profit organizations currently residing in those

CASC Response to IDT dr. Criteria, 3-26-19, Page 5 of 7

 facilities no later than March 31, 2019 as recommended in prior consultant
reports to the City of Seattle in exchange for certain commitments to maintain the
properties and to continue to provide services to the community, all subject to
completion of environmental review.

Section 2. The City Council will establish, document, and communicate clear
criteria and timelines for entering long-term leases or transferring the remaining
properties with MOB leases if the Executive has not acted regarding these
properties by March 31, 2019, all subject to completion of environmental review.

Comments made by Council members as they discuss this law emphasized their intent

for these transfers to happen before June 30. Here is an unofficial transcript of

comments made during discussions of this transfer by the Council during its Nov. 14,

2018, Select Budget Committee session (Link to recording:

http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos?videoid=x99858):

CM O'Brien: [after reading both sections of the Resolution] the attempt here is
hopefully pretty clear. We really want some clarity from the Executive on a timeline
for how this can happen and we're setting a deadline by March 31.
I'll say personally that if the Executive wants to make case that there is a
compelling reason why we shouldn't transfer these or there's other evidence or
information that we should all know that including those organizations so we don't
proceed under the expectation that this about to happen like they have for a number
of years.
Chair Bagshaw: Okay, CM Herbold do you want to add something?
CM Herbold: Thank you. … I want to make a point that, in particular, there's a lot of
urgency for Byrd Barr Place. If they don't obtain ownership—or a long-term lease—
by 2019 they will lose a nearly $1.5 Million grant from the Washington Department
of Commerce that was actually approved two budget cycles ago, but they put a hold
on it and gave them an extension and gave them more time to work this out with the
city. So, I really appreciate the spirit in which we're moving forward on this to give
some certainty to these three organizations that have already been identified in
previous consultant reports—that the city has paid for—that these transfers should
occur. This works dates back to 2012.
And finally, as it relates to Section 2, I just want to state that if we do need to
adhere to the provisions in Section 2 where we agree that we will "establish,
document, and communicate clear criteria and timelines for entering into long-term
leases"—I'm aware—and I know that Council Central Staff wants us to be aware—
that that will take resources if we go that route because we will very likely need to

CASC Response to IDT dr. Criteria, 3-26-19, Page 6 of 7

 look at our budget, our own consultant budget, to look at hiring somebody to
actually negotiate the terms of those transfers. So, for transparency sake I'm aware of
that and I want Central Staff to know that I'm aware of that as well.

Altogether, Resolution 31856 and comments about it bring in these factors: all three

organizations met criteria in place, as established by FAS, on Sept 13, 2017; (2) the

organizations need to show capacity to continue to manage the properties after transfer;

(3) criteria need to be clear and documented (4) a timeline needs to be provided, and (5)

an environmental review is required.

Specific changes to the IDT draft criteria. It is obvious that Section IV, Developmental

Feasibility, needs to be removed in its entirety as it was not part of the State, City

Council, or FAS criteria and no law gave the mayor authority to add it.

To save time, we suggest the IDT share the Sept. 13, 2017 Criteria FAS based its

recommendations upon, and use that as the working draft as it was the basis for the

Council's Resolution.

CASC Response to IDT dr. Criteria, 3-26-19, Page 7 of 7