Loading...
Title : Parsing the Agreement with the City about Memorial Stadium
link : Parsing the Agreement with the City about Memorial Stadium
Parsing the Agreement with the City about Memorial Stadium
The Agreement is eight pages long. It is not legally binding but appears to be a good faith measure for both the City and the District going forward.I suspect this is a big deal on all sides, not just because it means a renovation of Memorial Stadium but because it is at Seattle Center, a marquee part of the city. I think for some it might be a feather in their cap to be involved and that kind of feeling can usually mean some jockeying for position.
Page One
The Agreement states:
The purpose of this partnership is to meet the interests of both SPS and the City.
That's great but honestly, SPS really is in much more of the driver's seat if only because they own those nine acres that Memorial Stadium sits on.
But, the Agreement also says:
The Parties each will maintain ownership and control of their parcels at Seattle Center.
BUT, "by mutual agreement" they may "agree to adjust property lines and/or modify property parcels/ownership to benefit both Parties, future students, and Seattle Center visitors."
This is both good and not-so-good. We see language like "collaborate" and "partnership" but there is vagueness like " the Parties will partner on school capacity planning, financial cost sharing and development of revenue opportunities."
What will that look like? The district will already lose about $2M a year in uncommitted dollars when the parking lot goes away. How much money would the district commit to the City if they, say, put that parking in a larger underground parking garage?
I do like the commitment to a "joint vision for Seattle Center" because otherwise the whole look could be jarring if SPS went its own way on design for Memorial Stadium.
Also vague is what is stated about Fort Lawton - "obtain land for school-related uses." Does that mean a school could be there or not; one news article seemed to think it didn't.
What's good is the City seems to want to help "to identify sites for future schools/facilities."
They promise "to engage the community in a transparent public process." Let's hold them both to that promise.
Page Two
Here we see a list of nine principles for the partnership, two of which talk about SPS' capacity/enrollment needs. The most striking one is:
SPS will determine the need for and priority of school facilities and construction.
That puts the district in charge of deciding what is needed where.
There is mention of "the values of equity and inclusion" as well as this important statement:
The Parties will respect and honor Memorial Wall.
In the section, Understandings, it seems the SPS focus is on a new Memorial Stadium that will integrate with Seattle Center and increase the revenue from it. A better stadium - one that could be better used year-round especially in the summer for concerts/sports -could really be a boon to SPS.
The City says it will be focusing on "creating SPS facilities that meet SPS needs and the City's need for open space and join use opportunities."
But the City more than an updated Memorial Stadium; they want it to be "unique, iconic, multi-purpose and year-round."
I find the next to the last paragraph on this page somewhat troubling. It talks about the need to focus "on the education of students attending schools with high rates of poverty and students of color. The Parties are committed to equitable allocation of administrative and financial resources throughout the SPS district. The Parties will work to implement balanced educational projects across the district that are equitable and transparent."
Maybe this just needed to be said out loud? But the district has - since BEX started - done capital projects throughout the district. In fact, in the early years, there were more southend schools renovated than northend ones.
Page Three
In speaking of Fort Lawton, the district would get about six acres of land, for use consistent with the final EIS and with agreement from the City. Six acres is very small and so I do not think it likely the district would create a school there.
As well, the City agrees to help SPS with finding properties for future schools/facilities like a downtown school or "potentially a school sited on the current Roosevelt Reservoir site" ( if they do lid it) with a community planning process.
This section also discusses that there will be a joint "draft public engagement plan."
As well, there is to be a joint meeting of the City Council and School Board in January.
At this joint meeting, the elected officials will discuss key issues, scope of work, process and schedule for the joint planning efforts, and strategies for public involvement.
This should be interesting as it brings in the City Council and we will have a new mayor who might have her own ideas.
Page Four
This page has detail on siting and design considerations for alternatives for Memorial Stadium.
Each Party will form technical teams "for visioning, joint planning, siting, considering inter-relationships among facilities, and design."
Here's hoping the district has the smarts to look outside of JSCEE and find parents with expertise in design who can help them. There is a notation that the teams will talk to the School Board, Superintendent, City Council and Mayor in decision-making.
Here you also see that marquee kind of thinking in "work toward equitable access and use of facilities, including consideration of creative improvements beyond ADA requirements." However, the commitment to ADA is clearly spelled out.
Page Five
This is the signature page that also lays out the "communications protocols." A couple of them leapt out at me with phrases like "participate in good faith," "be clear and transparent," "share information," and "jointly agree on external messaging including media contacts."
Pages 6-8
Here we see the differing/overlapping interests of both the District and the City; mostly they are in agreement. The City really wants the design of any new stadium to align with the design for Seattle Center. That seems fair.
One area of disagreement in the future might be over the District's desire for Memorial Stadium "protect from overuse of misuse by non-SPS entities" versus the City's "support multiple public uses (concerts, events, festivals, etc.) as well as SPS athletics and other school uses."
The City says - twice - it's "willing to consider stadium financial partnership" or "potentially bring in outside partners" but that's not in the district's column. Hmm.
They both agree on the need to work together to pass the BEX and Operations levies in 2019. Given the City is combining the Pre-K and Families and Education levy that comes up in Fall 2018 and then, in Feb. 2019, the district will have its own levies, it seems it would behoove them both to get a coordinated message.
As I have stated previously, I think both the City and the District will be asking at (or just below) $1B for their levies. That's a huge ask for voters.
Another area of seeming disagreement is "Seattle Center Properties" where the District says, "Keep existing SPS property at Seattle Center" while the City says, "evaluate siting options for all parcels (SPS and City creatively, balancing complex needs and considerations." It will be interesting to see if the District uses the same lines on the City as they do to parents about some of their non-school facilities.
thus Article Parsing the Agreement with the City about Memorial Stadium
that is all articles Parsing the Agreement with the City about Memorial Stadium This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Parsing the Agreement with the City about Memorial Stadium with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2017/11/parsing-agreement-with-city-about.html
0 Response to "Parsing the Agreement with the City about Memorial Stadium"
Post a Comment